Comparing the effects of anodal and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation of primary motor cortex at varying intensities on motor learning in healthy young adults.
Saved in:
| Title: | Comparing the effects of anodal and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation of primary motor cortex at varying intensities on motor learning in healthy young adults. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Mousavi, Sheida (AUTHOR), Mottahedi, Amin (AUTHOR), Ehsani, Fatemeh (AUTHOR), Delkhosh, Cyrus Taghizadeh (AUTHOR), Jaberzadeh, Shapour (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | European Journal of Neuroscience. Nov2024, Vol. 60 Issue 10, p6543-6555. 13p. |
| Subjects: | Transcranial direct current stimulation, Motor learning, Motor cortex, Young adults, Online education, Error rates |
| Abstract: | Inconsistent results are observed in the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with different montages on motor learning. This study aimed to compare the effects of anodal and cathodal tDCS (c‐tDCS) over primary motor cortex (M1) at different intensities on motor learning in healthy young adults. The participants were randomly divided into: (1) 1 mA M1 c‐tDCS, (2) 1 mA M1 anodal tDCS (a‐tDCS), (3) 2 mA M1 c‐tDCS, (4) 2 mA M1 a‐tDCS and (5) M1 sham tDCS groups. The groups received 20‐min stimulation with serial reaction time task (SRTT) incidentally, while the tDCS was turned off after 30 s in the sham tDCS group. Response time (RT) and error rate (ER) during SRTT were assessed prior, during and 72 h after the intervention. The results of the paired t‐test indicated that online learning occurred in all groups (p < 0.05), except in M1 c‐tDCS (1 mA) (p > 0.05). One‐way ANOVA analysis also indicated that there were differences in offline learning (RT (F(DF) = 5.19(4); p < 0.001; and ER (F(DF) = 9(4), p < 0.0001) among groups, with more offline learning in 1 mA M1 a‐tDCS, 2 mA M1 c‐tDCS and 2 mA M1 a‐tDCS groups (p < 0.05). On the other hand, the 1 mA M1 c‐tDCS group did not indicate any consolidation effect or even a trend toward negative offline learning. M1 a‐tDCS with different intensities and also 2 mA M1 c‐tDCS may be helpful for the enhancement of motor learning in young healthy adults. This study enhances our understanding of tDCS intensity and polarity effects on motor learning, with potential for optimizing therapeutic protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of European Journal of Neuroscience is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Inconsistent results are observed in the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with different montages on motor learning. This study aimed to compare the effects of anodal and cathodal tDCS (c‐tDCS) over primary motor cortex (M1) at different intensities on motor learning in healthy young adults. The participants were randomly divided into: (1) 1 mA M1 c‐tDCS, (2) 1 mA M1 anodal tDCS (a‐tDCS), (3) 2 mA M1 c‐tDCS, (4) 2 mA M1 a‐tDCS and (5) M1 sham tDCS groups. The groups received 20‐min stimulation with serial reaction time task (SRTT) incidentally, while the tDCS was turned off after 30 s in the sham tDCS group. Response time (RT) and error rate (ER) during SRTT were assessed prior, during and 72 h after the intervention. The results of the paired t‐test indicated that online learning occurred in all groups (p < 0.05), except in M1 c‐tDCS (1 mA) (p > 0.05). One‐way ANOVA analysis also indicated that there were differences in offline learning (RT (F(DF) = 5.19(4); p < 0.001; and ER (F(DF) = 9(4), p < 0.0001) among groups, with more offline learning in 1 mA M1 a‐tDCS, 2 mA M1 c‐tDCS and 2 mA M1 a‐tDCS groups (p < 0.05). On the other hand, the 1 mA M1 c‐tDCS group did not indicate any consolidation effect or even a trend toward negative offline learning. M1 a‐tDCS with different intensities and also 2 mA M1 c‐tDCS may be helpful for the enhancement of motor learning in young healthy adults. This study enhances our understanding of tDCS intensity and polarity effects on motor learning, with potential for optimizing therapeutic protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0953816X |
| DOI: | 10.1111/ejn.16572 |
