Noninvasive cortical stimulation with transcranial direct current stimulation in Parkinson's disease

2006 | journal article. A publication with affiliation to the University of Göttingen.

Jump to: Cite & Linked | Documents & Media | Details | Version history

Cite this publication

​Noninvasive cortical stimulation with transcranial direct current stimulation in Parkinson's disease​
Fregni, F.; Boggio, P. S.; Santos, M. C.; Lima, M.; Vieira, A. L.; Rigonatti, S. P. & Silva, M. T. A. et al.​ (2006) 
Movement Disorders21(10) pp. 1693​-1702​.​ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.21012 

Documents & Media

License

GRO License GRO License

Details

Authors
Fregni, Felipe; Boggio, Paulo Sergio; Santos, Marcelo C.; Lima, Moises; Vieira, Adriana L.; Rigonatti, Sergio P.; Silva, M. Teresa A.; Barbosa, Eberto R.; Nitsche, Michael A.; Pascual-Leone, Alvaro
Abstract
Electrical stimulation of deep brain structures, such as globus pallidus and subthalamic nucleus, is widely accepted as a therapeutic tool for patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). Cortical stimulation either with epidural implanted electrodes or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation can be associated with motor function enhancement in PD. We aimed to study the effects of another noninvasive technique of cortical brain stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), on motor function and motor-evoked potential (MEP) characteristics of PD patients. We tested tDCS using different electrode montages [anodal stimulation of primary motor cortex (M1), cathodal stimulation of M1, anodal stimulation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), and sham-stimulation] and evaluated the effects on motor function-as indexed by Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), simple reaction time (sRT) and Purdue Pegboard test-and on corticospinal motor excitability (MEP characteristics). All experiments were performed in a double-blinded manner. Anodal stimulation of M1 was associated with a significant improvement of motor function compared to sham-stimulation in the UPDRS (P < 0.001) and sRT (P = 0.019). This effect was not observed for cathodal stimulation of M1 or anodal stimulation of DLPFC. Furthermore, whereas anodal stimulation of M1 significantly increased MEP amplitude and area, cathodal stimulation of M1 significantly decreased them. There was a trend toward a significant correlation between motor function improvement after M1 anodal-tDCS and MEP area increase. These results confirm and extend the notion that cortical brain stimulation might improve motor function in patients with PD. (C) 2006 Movement Disorder Society.
Issue Date
2006
Status
published
Publisher
Wiley-liss
Journal
Movement Disorders 
ISSN
0885-3185
Sponsor
NCRR NIH HHS [K24 RR018875]; NHLBI NIH HHS [K30 HL04095-03]

Reference

Citations


Social Media