A Preliminary Comparison of Motor Learning Across Different Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Paradigms Shows No Consistent Modulations.
A Preliminary Comparison of Motor Learning Across Different Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Paradigms Shows No Consistent Modulations.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fnins.2018.00253
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Cohen LG
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lopez-Alonso V;Liew SL;Fernández Del Olmo M;Cheeran B;Sandrini M;Abe M;Cohen LG
近三十年来，非侵入性脑刺激（NIBS）作为一种安全地调节大脑活动和改变人类表现的方法已被广泛探索。使用NIBS的研究在过去十年中呈指数级增长，在各种临床和健康人群中取得了可喜的成果。然而，最近的研究表明，个体间的变异性很高，而且缺乏以前结果的可重复性。在这里，我们进行了一个小的初步研究，探讨三个最常用的兴奋性NIBS范式在初级运动皮层（M1）对运动学习（顺序视觉等长捏力跟踪任务）的影响，并在运动学习的变化与皮层兴奋性（MEP振幅和SICI）的变化。我们比较了阳极经颅直流电刺激（tDCS）、配对联合刺激（PAS 25）和间歇性θ波群刺激（iTBS），沿着假tDCS对照条件。在运动学习之前施加刺激。参与者（n = 28）被随机分为四组之一，并接受熟练的运动任务训练。在训练后立即（在线）、训练后1天（巩固）和训练后1周（保持）测量运动学习。我们没有发现一致的差异影响运动学习或皮质兴奋性各组。在我们小样本量的范围内，我们评估了NIBS组的效应量，这可能有助于未来的研究。这些结果，这需要复制较大的样本，与以前的报告，这些干预措施对运动学习的小和可变的影响大小是一致的。
Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has been widely explored as a way to safely modulate brain activity and alter human performance for nearly three decades. Research using NIBS has grown exponentially within the last decade with promising results across a variety of clinical and healthy populations. However, recent work has shown high inter-individual variability and a lack of reproducibility of previous results. Here, we conducted a small preliminary study to explore the effects of three of the most commonly used excitatory NIBS paradigms over the primary motor cortex (M1) on motor learning (Sequential Visuomotor Isometric Pinch Force Tracking Task) and secondarily relate changes in motor learning to changes in cortical excitability (MEP amplitude and SICI). We compared anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), paired associative stimulation (PAS25), and intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS), along with a sham tDCS control condition. Stimulation was applied prior to motor learning. Participants (n = 28) were randomized into one of the four groups and were trained on a skilled motor task. Motor learning was measured immediately after training (online), 1 day after training (consolidation), and 1 week after training (retention). We did not find consistent differential effects on motor learning or cortical excitability across groups. Within the boundaries of our small sample sizes, we then assessed effect sizes across the NIBS groups that could help power future studies. These results, which require replication with larger samples, are consistent with previous reports of small and variable effect sizes of these interventions on motor learning.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
Casula EP;Pellicciari MC;Ponzo V;Stampanoni Bassi M;Veniero D;Caltagirone C;Koch G
通讯作者：
Koch G
影响因子：
5.5
作者：
Cirillo, John;Lavender, Andrew P.;Semmler, John G.
通讯作者：
Semmler, John G.
影响因子：
8.3
作者：
Ackerley, Suzanne J.;Stinear, Cathy M.;Byblow, Winston D.
通讯作者：
Byblow, Winston D.
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
Jalali, Roya;Miall, R. Chris;Galea, Joseph M.
通讯作者：
Galea, Joseph M.
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Iezzi, Ennio;Suppa, Antonio;Berardelli, Alfredo
通讯作者：
Berardelli, Alfredo