Cortical activation changes underlying stimulation-induced behavioural gains in chronic stroke

Charlotte Jane Stagg, Velicia Bachtiar, Jacinta O'Shea, Claire Allman, Rosemary Ann Bosnell, Udo Kischka, Paul McMahan Matthews, Heidi Johansen-Berg, Charlotte Jane Stagg, Velicia Bachtiar, Jacinta O'Shea, Claire Allman, Rosemary Ann Bosnell, Udo Kischka, Paul McMahan Matthews, Heidi Johansen-Berg

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation, a form of non-invasive brain stimulation, is showing increasing promise as an adjunct therapy in rehabilitation following stroke. However, although significant behavioural improvements have been reported in proof-of-principle studies, the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. The rationale for transcranial direct current stimulation as therapy for stroke is that therapeutic stimulation paradigms increase activity in ipsilesional motor cortical areas, but this has not previously been directly tested for conventional electrode placements. This study was performed to test directly whether increases in ipsilesional cortical activation with transcranial direct current stimulation are associated with behavioural improvements in chronic stroke patients. Patients at least 6 months post-first stroke participated in a behavioural experiment (n = 13) or a functional magnetic resonance imaging experiment (n = 11), each investigating the effects of three stimulation conditions in separate sessions: anodal stimulation to the ipsilesional hemisphere; cathodal stimulation to the contralesional hemisphere; and sham stimulation. Anodal (facilitatory) stimulation to the ipsilesional hemisphere led to significant improvements (5-10%) in response times with the affected hand in both experiments. This improvement was associated with an increase in movement-related cortical activity in the stimulated primary motor cortex and functionally interconnected regions. Cathodal (inhibitory) stimulation to the contralesional hemisphere led to a functional improvement only when compared with sham stimulation. We show for the first time that the significant behavioural improvements produced by anodal stimulation to the ipsilesional hemisphere are associated with a functionally relevant increase in activity within the ipsilesional primary motor cortex in patients with a wide range of disabilities following stroke.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Outline for experimental design for each stimulation session. (A) Experiment 1: Behavioural study. White blocks represent response time task, grey blocks represent grip force task. VAS = visual analogue scale; to assess fatigue, pain, discomfort and attention. (B) Experiment 2: Functional MRI study. White blocks represent simple response time task, grey blocks choice response time task and black blocks are rest periods. tDCS = transcranial direct current stimulation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Behavioural effects of tDCS. (A) Experiment 1. Anodal stimulation to the ipsilesional M1 led to a significant decrease in response times. No significant difference was seen with cathodal stimulation. (B) Experiment 2. Anodal tDCS led to a significant shortening of response times. No change in response times was seen in response to cathodal tDCS. Columns represent mean ± SE. Significant differences (P < 0.05) between conditions (asterisk) and within session (section symbol) are highlighted.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(A) Areas of increased motor-related activation in response to the simple response time task after anodal stimulation compared with sham [i.e. for the contrast (anodal post–anodal pre)–(sham post–sham pre)]. The column graph (top right) shows the mean change in activity within these suprathreshold regions and demonstrates a significant increase in activity within these areas after anodal stimulation and no change after sham stimulation. (B) Areas of increased motor-related activity in response to the simple response time task after cathodal stimulation compared with sham. The graph (centre right) demonstrates an increase in activity within these suprathreshold regions in response to cathodal stimulation but not to sham. (C) Areas of increased motor-related activity after anodal tDCS compared with sham (blue), increased motor-related activity after cathodal tDCS compared with sham (yellow) and areas of increased motor-related activity common to both stimulation conditions (green). (D) Areas of significant correlation between change in motor-related activation after anodal stimulation (i.e. the contrast anodal post–anodal pre) and change in response times after anodal stimulation. The plot (bottom right) demonstrates this relationship within in the areas shown. BOLD = blood oxygen level-dependent; PMd = dorsal premotor cortex; RT = response time; SMA = supplementary motor area.

References

    1. Beckmann CF, Smith S. Probabilistic independent component analysis for functional magnetic resonance imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imag. 2004;23:137–52.
    1. Boggio PS, Nunes A, Rigonatti SP, Nitsche MA, Pascual-Leone A, Fregni F. Repeated sessions of noninvasive brain DC stimulation is associated with motor function improvement in stroke patients. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2007;25:123–9.
    1. Clarkson AN, Huang BS, Macisaac SE, Mody I, Carmichael ST. Reducing excessive GABA-mediated tonic inhibition promotes functional recovery after stroke. Nature. 2010;468:305–9.
    1. Fregni F, Boggio P, Mansur C, Wagner T, Ferreira MJ, Lima MC, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation of the unaffected hemisphere in stroke patients. Neuroreport. 2005;16:1551–5.
    1. Gandiga PC, Hummel FC, Cohen LG. Transcranial DC stimulation (tDCS): a tool for double-blind sham-controlled clinical studies in brain stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006;117:845–50.
    1. Gerloff C, Bushara K, Sailer A, Wassermann EM, Chen R, Matsuoka T, et al. Multimodal imaging of brain reorganization in motor areas of the contralesional hemisphere of well recovered patients after capsular stroke. Brain. 2006;129:791–808.
    1. Hummel F, Celnik P, Giraux P, Floel A, Wu WH, Gerloff C, et al. Effects of non-invasive cortical stimulation on skilled motor function in chronic stroke. Brain. 2005;128:490–9.
    1. Hummel F, Cohen L. Improvement of motor function with noninvasive cortical stimulation in a patient with chronic stroke. Neurorehab Neural Repair. 2005;19:14–9.
    1. Hummel F, Cohen L. Non-invasive brain stimulation: a new strategy to improve neurorehabilitation after stroke? Lancet Neurol. 2006;5:708–12.
    1. Hummel FC, Voller B, Celnik P, Floel A, Giraux P, Gerloff C, et al. Effects of brain polarization on reaction times and pinch force in chronic stroke. BMC Neurosci. 2006;7:73.
    1. Johansen-Berg H, Rushworth MF, Bogdanovic MD, Kischka U, Wimalaratna S, Matthews PM. The role of ipsilateral premotor cortex in hand movement after stroke. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;99:14518–23.
    1. Kolominsky-Rabas P, Weber M, Gefeller O, Neundoerfer B, Heuschmann PU. Epidemiology of ischaemic stroke subtypes according to TOAST criteria: incidence, recurrence, and long-term survival in ischemic stroke subtypes: a population-based study. Stroke. 2001;32:2735–40.
    1. Lai S, Studenski S, Duncan P, Perera S. Persisting consequences of stroke measures by the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke. 2002;33:1840–4.
    1. Lee L, Siebner HR, Rowe JB, Rizzo V, Rothwell J, Frackowiak RS, et al. Acute remapping within the motor system induced by low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. J Neurosci. 2003;23:5308–18.
    1. Lindenberg R, Renga V, Zhu L, Nair D, Schlaug G. Bihemispheric brain stimulation facilitates motor recovery in chronic stroke patients. Neurology. 2010;75:2176–84.
    1. Lotze M, Markert J, Sauseng P, Hoppe J, Plewnia C, Gerloff C. The role of multiple contralesional motor areas for complex hand movements after internal capsular lesion. J Neurosci. 2006;26:6096–102.
    1. Marreiros AC, Kiebel SJ, Friston KJ. Dynamic causal modelling for fMRI: a two-state model. Neuroimage. 2008;39:269–78.
    1. Murase N, Duque J, Mazzocchio R, Cohen LG. Influence of interhemispheric interactions on motor function in chronic stroke. Ann Neurol. 2004;55:400–9.
    1. Nitsche M, Paulus W. Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J Physiol. 2000;527:633–9.
    1. Nitsche MA, Seeber A, Frommann K, Klein CC, Rochford C, Nitsche MS, et al. Modulating parameters of excitability during and after transcranial direct current stimulation of the human motor cortex. J Physiol. 2005;568:291–303.
    1. O'Dell MW, Lin CC, Harrison V. Stroke rehabilitation: strategies to enhance motor recovery. Ann Rev Med. 2009;60:55–68.
    1. O'Shea J, Johansen-Berg H, Trief D, Göbel S, Rushworth MF. Functionally-specific reorganisation in human premotor cortex. Neuron. 2007;54:479–90.
    1. Reis J, Schambra HM, Cohen LG, Buch ER, Fritsch B, Zarahn E, et al. Noninvasive cortical stimulation enhances motor skill acquisition over multiple days through an effect on consolidation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:1590–1595.
    1. Rickham PP. Human experimentation. Code of ethics of the World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. BMJ. 1964;2:177.
    1. Smith SM, Jenkinson M, Woolrich MW, Beckmann CF, Behrens TE, Johansen-Berg H, et al. Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL. Neuroimage. 2004;23:S208–19.
    1. Stagg C, Best J, Stephenson M, O'Shea J, Wylezinska M, Kincses ZT, et al. Polarity-sensitive modulation of cortical neurotransmitters by transcranial stimulation. J Neurosci. 2009a;29:5202–6.
    1. Stagg C, O'Shea J, Kincses Z, Woolrich M, Matthews P, Johansen-Berg H. Modulation of movement-associated cortical activation by transcranial direct current stimulation. Eur J Neurosci. 2009b;30:1412–23.
    1. Ward NS, Brown MM, Thompson AJ, Frackowiak RS. Neural correlates of outcome after stroke: a cross-sectional fMRI study. Brain. 2003a;126:1430–48.
    1. Ward NS, Brown MM, Thompson AJ, Frackowiak RS. Neural correlates of motor recovery after stroke: a longitudinal fMRI study. Brain. 2003b;126:2476–96.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する