Comparing the Efficacy of Excitatory Transcranial Stimulation Methods Measuring Motor Evoked PotentialsReportar como inadecuado

Comparing the Efficacy of Excitatory Transcranial Stimulation Methods Measuring Motor Evoked Potentials - Descarga este documento en PDF. Documentación en PDF para descargar gratis. Disponible también para leer online.

Neural Plasticity - Volume 2014 2014, Article ID 837141, 6 pages -

Research Article

Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, University Medical Center, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Straße 40, 37075 Göttingen, Germany

Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Goethe University of Frankfurt am Main, Deutschordenstraße 50 House 92, 60528 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Received 7 January 2014; Revised 7 March 2014; Accepted 7 March 2014; Published 3 April 2014

Academic Editor: Małgorzata Kossut

Copyright © 2014 Vera Moliadze et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


The common aim of transcranial stimulation methods is the induction or alterations of cortical excitability in a controlled way. Significant effects of each individual stimulation method have been published; however, conclusive direct comparisons of many of these methods are rare. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of three widely applied stimulation methods inducing excitability enhancement in the motor cortex: 1 mA anodal transcranial direct current stimulation atDCS, intermittent theta burst stimulation iTBS, and 1 mA transcranial random noise stimulation tRNS within one subject group. The effect of each stimulation condition was quantified by evaluating motor-evoked-potential amplitudes MEPs in a fixed time sequence after stimulation. The analyses confirmed a significant enhancement of the M1 excitability caused by all three types of active stimulations compared to sham stimulation. There was no significant difference between the types of active stimulations, although the time course of the excitatory effects slightly differed. Among the stimulation methods, tRNS resulted in the strongest and atDCS significantly longest MEP increase compared to sham. Different time courses of the applied stimulation methods suggest different underlying mechanisms of action. Better understanding may be useful for better targeting of different transcranial stimulation techniques.

Autor: Vera Moliadze, Georg Fritzsche, and Andrea Antal



Documentos relacionados