Impairment of motor function in Spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with reduction in the excitability of motor cortical (M1) representations to muscles ( Freund et al., 2011 ), while recovery is associated with representational plasticity ( Jurkiewicz et al., 2010 ). Noninvasive brain stimulation (NBS) such as anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (atDCS) increases M1 excitability, and has beneficial effects on retention of motor skill training in both the healthy and chronic stroke survivor ( Bastani and Jaberzadeh, 2012 ). However, sensory impairment may independently predict limits of recovery of functional independence ( Kirshblum and O’Connor, 1998 ). This pilot study included incomplete tetraplegic spinal cord injured patients to examine whether the covariate of sensory impairment might account for the possible after effects of atDCS applied during simulated rehabilitation. 8 consenting right-handed outpatients at the London Spinal Cord Injury Centre, with partial impairment of non-dominant hand function (American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) motor level C5-C7, C-D) were randomly allocated to ACTIVE or SHAM groups in a single-blinded RCT pilot study. Pre-assessment included standardised AIS scoring of upper limb sensory sparing (PINPRICK scoring). Subjects carried out practise of a novel, inclusive manual upper limb motor skill rehabilitation task (MSRT) developed to deliver the novel Task Productivity Rate (TPR) univariate skill measure derived from direct sampling of movement time and target accuracy. 45 min continuous, repetitive MSRT training was applied from naïve baseline state on 3 consecutive days, with follow-up measures 7 days afterwards, during the first 20 min of which received either 20 min ACTIVE anodal tDCS (1 mA, 0.029 mA/cm 2 ) or a SHAM dosage to the non-dominant M1. TPR was obtained from the first 15 min of practise in each session. Repeated measures ANOVA with covariate of PINPRICK scoring as measure of sensory impairment (ANCOVA) were applied to normalised data, with independent t -tests at the follow-up session. The ACTIVE group retained a mean TPR improvement of 42% compared to 7% by SHAM which showed a non-significant trend to benefit of ACTIVE stimulation at follow-up t (6) = 2.24, p = 0.066. ANCOVA revealed significant ( p < 0.05) main effect of ACTIVE stimulation F (1,5) = 12.9, interaction with practise time ( F (3,15) = 3.4, and between-groups effect at follow-up t (6) = 3.16, p = 0.025, r = 0.625. PINPRICK was a significant independent factor F (1,5) = 6.9, which remained stable over time F (3,15) = 0.97, p = 0.43. The independent factors did not interact (confirmatory ANCOVA F (1,4) = 0.52, p = 0.5). Adjunctive application of atDCS to M1 during rehabilitation may have imparted a lasting benefit compared to rehabilitation activity alone. But the covariate of sensory impairment (Pinprick score) independently modulated skill learning and retention scores. Because atDCS did not mitigate the negative effects of sensory impairment on skill acquisition, it is possible that atDCS boosts recovery of motor activation via un-masking of existing M1 connections rather than enhancing motor memory formation necessary for skills uptake (Reis and Fritsch, 2011) .
Read full abstract