Transcutaneous Spinal Direct Current Stimulation Research Articles

From brain to spinal cord: neuromodulation by direct current stimulation and its promising effects as a treatment option for restless legs syndrome

Neuromodulation is a fast-growing field of mostly non-invasive therapies, which includes spinal cord stimulation (SCS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), vagal nerve stimulation (VNS), peripheral nerve stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS). This narrative review offers an overview of the therapy options, especially of tDCS and tsDCS for chronic pain and spinal cord injury. Finally, we discuss the potential of tsDCS in Restless Legs Syndrome as a promising non-invasive, alternative therapy to medication therapy.

Effect of non-invasive spinal cord stimulation in unmedicated adults with major depressive disorder: a pilot randomized controlled trial and induced current flow pattern.

Converging theoretical frameworks suggest a role and a therapeutic potential for spinal interoceptive pathways in major depressive disorder (MDD). Here, we aimed to evaluate the antidepressant effects and tolerability of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) in MDD. This was a double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled, parallel group, pilot clinical trial in unmedicated adults with moderate MDD. Twenty participants were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to receive "active" 2.5 mA or "sham" anodal tsDCS sessions with a thoracic (anode; T10)/right shoulder (cathode) electrode montage 3 times/week for 8 weeks. Change in depression severity (MADRS) scores (prespecified primary outcome) and secondary clinical outcomes were analyzed with ANOVA models. An E-Field model was generated using the active tsDCS parameters. Compared to sham (n = 9), the active tsDCS group (n = 10) showed a greater baseline to endpoint decrease in MADRS score with a large effect size (-14.6 ± 2.5 vs. -21.7 ± 2.3, p = 0.040, d = 0.86). Additionally, compared to sham, active tsDCS induced a greater decrease in MADRS "reported sadness" item (-1.8 ± 0.4 vs. -3.2 ± 0.4, p = 0.012), and a greater cumulative decrease in pre/post tsDCS session diastolic blood pressure change from baseline to endpoint (group difference: 7.9 ± 3.7 mmHg, p = 0.039). Statistical trends in the same direction were observed for MADRS "pessimistic thoughts" item and week-8 CGI-I scores. No group differences were observed in adverse events (AEs) and no serious AEs occurred. The current flow simulation showed electric field at strength within the neuromodulation range (max. ~0.45 V/m) reaching the thoracic spinal gray matter. The results from this pilot study suggest that tsDCS is feasible, well-tolerated, and shows therapeutic potential in MDD. This work also provides the initial framework for the cautious exploration of non-invasive spinal cord neuromodulation in the context of mental health research and therapeutics. The underlying mechanisms warrant further investigation. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT03433339 URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03433339 .

Anodal transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation influences the amplitude of pain-related evoked potentials in healthy subjects

It has already been described that transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) can selectively influence nociceptive evoked potentials. This study is the first aiming to prove an influence of tsDCS on pain-related evoked potentials (PREP) using concentric surface electrodes (CE), whose nociceptive specificity is still under discussion. 28 healthy subjects participated in this sham-controlled, double-blind cross-over study. All subjects underwent one session of anodal and one session of sham low-thoracic tsDCS. Before and after the intervention, PREP using CE, PREP-induced pain perception and somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP) were assessed on the right upper and lower limb. We found a decrease in PREP amplitude at the lower limb after sham stimulation, but not after anodal tsDCS, while SEP remained unchanged under all studied conditions. There was no difference between the effects of anodal tsDCS and sham stimulation on the studied parameters assessed at the upper limb. PREP-induced pain of the upper and lower limb increased after anodal tsDCS. The ability of influencing PREP using a CE at the spinal level in contrast to SEP suggests that PREP using CE follows the spinothalamic pathway and supports the assumption that it is specifically nociceptive. However, while mainly inhibitory effects on nociceptive stimuli have already been described, our results rather suggest that anodal tsDCS has a sensitizing effect. This may indicate that the mechanisms underlying the elicitation of PREP with CE are not the same as for the other nociceptive evoked potentials. The effects on the processing of different types of painful stimuli should be directly compared in future studies.

Effect of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on spasticity in upper motor neuron conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. To determine the effect of non-invasive transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) on spasticity, activity limitations and participation restrictions in various upper motor neuron diseases. Six databases including CINAHL plus, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, SCOPUS and Web of Science were searched for the relevant records from January 2008 to December 2022. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted data on spasticity, activity limitations and participation restrictions. The risk of bias was evaluated using the PEDro scale while the GRADE approach established the certainty of the evidence. Eleven studies were identified of which 5 (45.5%) were rated as having a low risk of bias and 8 (72.7%) were meta-analyzed. The meta-analyses did not show any significant differences between cathodal (SMD = -0.67, 95% CI = -1.50 to 0.15, P = 0.11, I2 = 75%, 6 RCTs) or anodal (SMD = 0.11, 95% CI = -0.43 to -0.64, p = 0.69, I2 = 0%, 2 RCTs) and sham tsDCS for spasticity. There was also no significant difference between active and sham tsDCS for activity limitations (SMD = -0.42, 95% CI = -0.04 to 0.21, p = 0.2, I2 = 0%, 2 RCTs) and participation restrictions (MD = -8.10, 95% CI = -18.02 to 1.82, p = 0.11, 1 RCT). The meta-analysis of the available evidence provides an uncertain estimate of the effect of cathodal tsDCS on spasticity, activity limitation and participation restriction. It might be very helpful, or it may make no difference at all. However, considering the level of the evidence and the limitation in the quality of the majority of the included studies, further well-designed research may likely change the estimate of effect. PROSPERO CRD42021245601.

Long-term analgesic effect of trans-spinal direct current stimulation compared to non-invasive motor cortex stimulation in complex regional pain syndrome.

The aim of the present study was to compare the analgesic effect of motor cortex stimulation using high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation or transcranial direct current stimulation and transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome. Thirty-three patients with complex regional pain syndrome were randomized to one of the three treatment groups (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, n = 11; transcranial direct current stimulation, n = 10; transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation, n = 12) and received a series of 12 sessions of stimulation for 3 weeks (induction phase) and 11 sessions for 4 months (maintenance therapy). The primary end-point was the mean pain intensity assessed weekly with a visual numerical scale during the month prior to treatment (baseline), the 5-month stimulation period and 1 month after the treatment. The weekly visual numerical scale pain score was significantly reduced at all time points compared to baseline in the transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation group, at the last two time points in the repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation group (end of the 5-month stimulation period and 1 month later), but at no time point in the transcranial direct current stimulation group. A significant pain relief was observed at the end of induction phase using transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation compared to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (P = 0.008) and to transcranial direct current stimulation (P = 0.003). In this trial, transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation was more efficient to relieve pain in patients with complex regional pain syndrome compared to motor cortex stimulation techniques (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation). This efficacy was found during the induction phase and was maintained thereafter. This study warrants further investigation to confirm the potentiality of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation as a therapeutic option in complex regional pain syndrome.

Modeling Electric Fields in Transcutaneous Spinal Direct Current Stimulation: A Clinical Perspective.

Clinical findings suggest that transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) can modulate ascending sensitive, descending corticospinal, and segmental pathways in the spinal cord (SC). However, several aspects of the stimulation have not been completely understood, and realistic computational models based on MRI are the gold standard to predict the interaction between tsDCS-induced electric fields and anatomy. Here, we review the electric fields distribution in the SC during tsDCS as predicted by MRI-based realistic models, compare such knowledge with clinical findings, and define the role of computational knowledge in optimizing tsDCS protocols. tsDCS-induced electric fields are predicted to be safe and induce both transient and neuroplastic changes. This could support the possibility to explore new clinical applications, such as spinal cord injury. For the most applied protocol (2-3 mA for 20-30 min, active electrode over T10-T12 and the reference on the right shoulder), similar electric field intensities are generated in both ventral and dorsal horns of the SC at the same height. This was confirmed by human studies, in which both motor and sensitive effects were found. Lastly, electric fields are strongly dependent on anatomy and electrodes' placement. Regardless of the montage, inter-individual hotspots of higher values of electric fields were predicted, which could change when the subjects move from a position to another (e.g., from the supine to the lateral position). These characteristics underlines the need for individualized and patient-tailored MRI-based computational models to optimize the stimulation protocol. A detailed modeling approach of the electric field distribution might contribute to optimizing stimulation protocols, tailoring electrodes' configuration, intensities, and duration to the clinical outcome.

The main non-invasive neuromodulatory techniques: an infographic

INTRODUCTION: This infographic aims to present the main non-invasive neuromodulatory techniques that can be used to assess and/or modulate central nervous system excitability. Single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can be used to assess brain excitability through the delivery of magnetic pulses over the cerebral cortex. The motor evoked potential is an indirect measure of motor cortex excitability and is the most used cortical measure of excitability. RESULTS: Neuromodulation may be achieved through several techniques, which may be used to promote top-down or bottom-up effects. Among the top-down techniques is direct current stimulation (DCS) which can change its nomenclature according to the stimulation target, for example, transcranial (tDCS), or cerebellar (ctDCS). In addition, also can be included in top-down techniques the transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS), transcranial alternate current stimulation (tACS), and repetitive TMS (rTMS). On other hand, the bottom-up techniques include the peripheral electrical stimulation (PES), transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS), transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS), and repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS). CONCLUSION: The neuromodulatory effects are dependent on several parameters that can be specific to physical principles (electrical or magnetic). For example, in repetitive P/TMS the frequency, type and angular orientation of coil, distance between the coil and the brain, pulse waveform, and pattern of stimulation are presented as important parameters able to interfere with the quality of stimulation. The same can be observed in tDCS, ctDCS, and tsDCS with the polarity and shape and montage of electrode, intensity, site and duration of stimulation, and current density.

Effect of Transcutaneous Spinal Direct Current Stimulation in Patients with Painful Polyneuropathy and Influence of Possible Predictors of Efficacy including BDNF Polymorphism: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Crossover Study.

Introduction: The neuromodulating effects of transcutaneous-spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS) have been reported to block pain signaling. For patients with chronic pain, tsDCS could be a potential treatment option. To approach this, we studied the effect of anodal tsDCS on patients with neuropathic pain approaching an optimal paradigm including the investigation of different outcome predictors. Methods: In this randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled crossover study we recruited twenty patients with neurophysiologically evaluated neuropathic pain due to polyneuropathy (PNP). Variables (VAS; pain and sleep quality) were reported daily, one week prior to, and one week after the stimulation/sham period. Anodal tsDCS (2.5 mA, 20 min) was given once daily for three days during one week. BDNF-polymorphism, pharmacological treatment, and body mass index (BMI) of all the patients were investigated. Results: Comparing the effects of sham and real stimulation at the group level, there was a tendency towards reduced pain, but no significant effects were found. However, for sleep quality a significant improvement was seen. At the individual level, 30 and 35% of the subjects had a clinically significant improvement of pain level and sleep quality, respectively, the first day after the stimulation. Both effects were reduced over the coming week and these changes were negatively correlated. The BDNF polymorphism Val66Met was carried by 35% of the patients and this group was found to have a lower general level of pain but there was no significant difference in the tsDCS response effect. Neither pharmacologic treatment or BMI influenced the treatment effect. Conclusions: Short-term and sparse anodal thoracic tsDCS reduces pain and improves sleep with large inter-individual differences. Roughly 30% will benefit in a clinically meaningful way. The BDNF genotype seems to influence the level of pain that PNP produces. Individualized and intensified tsDCS may be a treatment option for neuropathic pain due to PNP.

Combined neuromuscular electrical stimulation and transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation increases motor cortical plasticity in healthy humans.

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) induces neural plasticity of the central nervous system (CNS) and improves motor function in patients with CNS lesions. However, the extended stimulus duration of NMES reduces its clinical applicability. Transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS), which increases afferent input, may enhance the effects and reduce the stimulus duration of NMES. This study investigated the excitability of the motor cortex, somatosensory cortex, and spinal motor neurons after the combined stimulation of NMES and tsDCS. Among the 55 participants in this study, 24 were allocated to experiment 1, 15 to experiment 2, and 16 to experiment 3. They received intervention for 20 min on different days: (1) NMES combined with tsDCS (NMES + tsDCS), (2) NMES combined with sham tsDCS (NMES + sham tsDCS), and (3) sham NMES combined with tsDCS (sham NMES + tsDCS). NMES was delivered to the right common peroneal nerve at 25 Hz with the intensity at 120% of the motor threshold. For tsDCS, the cathodal electrode was positioned on the thoracic 10th-12th vertebral levels, and the anodal electrode was located on the right shoulder. The stimulus intensity was 2.5 mA. In experiment 1, motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and short-latency intracortical inhibition (SICI) were measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation up to 60 min after stimulation. The spinal motor neurons' excitability was assessed by recording the posterior root muscle reflex (PRMR) induced via transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in experiment 2, and the primary somatosensory cortex excitability was evaluated by recording the somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) in experiment 3 up to 15 min after stimulation. Compared to before the stimulation, NMES + tsDCS significantly increased MEP for 60 min or more, and significantly decreased SICI immediately after. Conversely contrast, the PRMR significantly decreased immediately after, and SEPs were unchanged. These results suggest that simultaneous afferent inputs from different stimulus positions critically induce primary motor cortex plasticity. The combined stimulation of NMES with tsDCS may facilitate the development of a new neurorehabilitation technique.

A dual-mode neurostimulation approach to enhance athletic performance outcome in experienced taekwondo practitioners

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is a growing empirical approach to improve athletic performance. Some recent studies have investigated the effects of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) on the motor performance such as reaction time. TDCS and tsDCS can lead to alteration of the spontaneous neural activity, and the membrane potentials of motor neurons in cerebral cortex and spinal interneurons, respectively. Given the paucity of experimental studies on the non-invasive brain stimulation in the field of sports neuroscience, especially martial sports, the present study aimed at investigating the effects of neurostimulation in potentiating the motor and cognitive functions in experienced taekwondo practitioners. The study sample included 15 experienced male taekwondo players who received real or sham direct current stimulation on the primary motor cortex (M1) and the lumbar spinal segment (T12-L2) over two sessions, 72 h apart. Next, the performance of the participants was evaluated through a simulation of taekwondo exercise directly after the sham and real sessions. Moreover, a cognitive platform (CBS: Cambridge Brain Science) was used to investigate the participants’ cognitive profile in each instance. Unlike sham stimulation, real tDCS was associated with improved selective attention and reaction time in both in the simulated task performance and cognitive examination. The concurrent cortical and trans-spinal tDCS was found to improve selective attention (31% performance improvement) (P < 0.0001) [EFFECT SIZE; 1.84]. and reduce reaction time (4.7% performance improvement) (P < 0.0001) [EFFECT SIZE; 0.02]. Meanwhile, the intervention failed to leave a significant change in cognitive functions evaluated through CBS (P > 0.05). As informed by our results, the present dual-mode neurostimulation could improve motor functions potentially through the effect of tsDCS over the spinal interneurons and tDCS over the primary motor cortex. Likewise, our findings suggested an improved performance in simulated taekwondo task after real- but not sham-stimulation. This study paves the way for designing neurostimulation protocols to improve the performance of professional athletes, namely martial art practitioners, including their accuracy and velocity of reactions. Such positive effects of neuostimulation in athletic performance as demonstrated in this research and similar reports are expected to enhance the athletes’ success in professional competitions.

Lumbar trans-spinal direct current stimulation: A modeling-experimental approach to dorsal root ganglia stimulation.

The excitability of spinal motor neurons (MN) can be altered through subthreshold currents, such as transcutaneous spinal direct-current stimulation (tsDCS). Current evidence shows that tsDCS can interfere with ascending somatosensory pathways and lower motor neurons' (LMN) excitability, which points to its therapeutic potential for repairing altered spinal responses. We aim to define the best tsDCS montage for maximizing the electric field (E-field) in the lumbar spinal cord (L-SC) by computer modeling; and to apply this montage to measure the effect on LMN excitability and somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP). A human volume conductor model was obtained from an available database. The E-field distribution was calculated considering three different electrode settings aiming at maximizing the field at L-SC and right dorsal root ganglia (DRG). The best electrode setting was then selected and applied in a blind crossover pseudo-randomized study including 14 subjects. tsDCS was delivered for 15 min (cathodal vs. sham) over L2 vertebra level (4 mA, 144 mC/cm2), and its effect on F-waves, H-reflex (including homosynaptic depression, HD) and SSEPs was investigated in the lower limbs. All simulated montages showed higher current density and E-field magnitudes between the electrodes (>0.15 V/m), with a major longitudinal component and with rostral-caudal direction. The induced E-field involved the sensory ganglia and was maximum in the right T8-left L2 montage, which was the one selected for the experimental protocol. We disclosed a statistically significant increase of the H-reflex amplitude at 0.1 Hz, after cathodal tsDCS (c-tsDCS) on both sides. No other significant change was observed. Our results can suggest the c-tsDCS applied to the L-SC and DRG can modulate synaptic efficiency increasing lower motor neurons response to Ia fibers excitation. The possible implications of our findings for treating clinical conditions will be addressed in future studies.

Anodal transcutaneous DC stimulation enhances learning of dynamic balance control during walking in humans with spinal cord injury.

Deficits in locomotor function, including impairments in walking speed and balance, are major problems for many individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI). However, it remains unclear which type of training paradigms are more effective in improving balance, particularly dynamic balance, in individuals with iSCI. The purpose of this study was to determine whether anodal transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) can facilitate learning of balance control during walking in individuals with iSCI. Fifteen individuals with iSCI participated in this study and were tested in two sessions (i.e., tsDCS and sham conditions). Each session consisted of 1min of treadmill walking without stimulation or perturbation (baseline), 10min of walking with either anodal tsDCS or sham stimulation, paired with bilateral pelvis perturbation (adaptation), and finally 2min of walking without stimulation and perturbation (post-adaptation). The outcome measures were the dynamic balance, assessed using the minimal margin of stability (MoS), and electromyography of leg muscles. Participants demonstrated a smaller MoS during the late adaptation period for the anodal tsDCS condition compared to sham (p = 0.041), and this MoS intended to retain during the early post-adaptation period (p = 0.05). In addition, muscle activity of hip abductors was greater for the anodal tsDCS condition compared to sham during the late adaptation period and post-adaptation period (p < 0.05). Results from this study suggest that anodal tsDCS may modulate motor adaptation to pelvis perturbation and facilitate learning of dynamic balance control in individuals with iSCI.

Transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) does not affect postural sway of young and healthy subjects during quiet upright standing.

Transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) is an effective non-invasive spinal cord electrical stimulation technique to induce neuromodulation of local and distal neural circuits of the central nervous system (CNS). Applied to the spinal cord lumbosacral region, tsDCS changes electrophysiological responses of the motor, proprioceptive and nociceptive pathways, alters the performance of some lower limb motor tasks and can even modulate the behavior of supramedullary neuronal networks. In this study an experimental protocol was conducted to verify if tsDCS (5 mA, 20 minutes) of two different polarizations, applied over the lumbosacral region (tenth thoracic vertebrae (T10)), can induce changes in postural sway oscillations of young healthy individuals during quiet standing. A novel initialization of the electrical stimulation was developed to improve subject blinding to the different stimulus conditions including the sham trials. Measures of postural sway, both global and structural, were computed before, during and following the DC stimulation period. The results indicated that, for the adopted conditions, tsDCS did not induce statistically significant changes in postural sway of young healthy individuals during quiet standing.

Feasibility of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation combined with locomotor training after spinal cord injury.

Feasibility study, consisting of random-order, cross-over study of a single intervention session, followed by a parallel-arm study of 16 sessions. To investigate the feasibility of a novel combinatorial approach with simultaneous delivery of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) and locomotor training (tsDCS + LT) after spinal cord injury, compared to sham stimulation and locomotor training (sham + LT), and examine preliminary effects on walking function. Clinical research center in the southeastern United States. Eight individuals with chronic incomplete spinal cord injury (ISCI) completed the two-part protocol. Feasibility was assessed based on safety (adverse responses), tolerability (pain, spasticity, skin integrity), and protocol achievement (session duration, intensity). Walking function was assessed with the 10 m and 6 min walk tests. There were no major adverse responses. Minimal reports of skin irritation and musculoskeletal pain were consistent between groups. Average training peak heart rate as percent of maximum (mean(SD); tsDCS + LT: 66 (4)%, sham + LT: 69 (10)%) and Borg ratings of perceived exertion (tsDCS + LT: 17.5 (1.2), sham + LT: 14.4 (1.8)) indicate both groups trained at high intensities. Walking speed gains exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in three of four who received tsDCS + LT (0.18 (0.29) m/s) and one of four in sham + LT (-0.05 (0.23) m/s). Gains in walking endurance exceeded the MCID in one of four in each group (tsDCS + LT: 36.4 (69.0) m, sham + LT: 4.9 (56.9) m). Combinatorial tsDCS and locomotor training is safe and feasible for individuals with chronic ISCI, even those with considerable walking impairment. Study outcomes support the need to investigate the efficacy of this approach.

Selective augmentation of corticospinal motor drive with trans-spinal direct current stimulation in the cat

BackgroundA key outcome for spinal cord stimulation for neurorehabilitation after injury is to strengthen corticospinal system control of the arm and hand. Non-invasive, compared with invasive, spinal stimulation minimizes risk but depends on muscle-specific actions for restorative functions. ObjectiveWe developed a large-animal (cat) model, combining computational and experimental techniques, to characterize neuromodulation with transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) for facilitation of corticospinal motor drive to specific forelimb muscles. MethodsAcute modulation of corticospinal function by tsDCS was measured using motor cortex-evoked muscle potentials (MEPs). The effects of current intensity, polarity (cathodal, anodal), and electrode position on specific forelimb muscle (biceps vs extensor carpi radialis, ECR) MEP modulation were examined. Locations of a key target, the motoneuron pools, were determined using neuronal tracing. A high-resolution anatomical (MRI and CT) model was developed for computational simulation of spinal current flow during tsDCS. ResultsEffects of tsDCS on corticospinal excitability were robust and immediate, therefore supporting MEPs as a sensitive marker of tsDCS targeting. Varying cathodal/anodal current intensity modulated MEP enhancement/suppression, with higher cathodal sensitivity. Muscle-specificity depended on cathode position; the rostral position preferentially augmented biceps responses and the caudal position, ECR responses. Precise anatomical current-flow modeling, supplemented with target motor pool distributions, can explain tsDCS focality on muscle groups. ConclusionAnatomical current-flow modeling with physiological validation based on MEPs provides a framework to optimize muscle-specific tsDCS interventions. tsDCS targeting of representative motor pools enables muscle- and response-specific neuromodulation of corticospinal motor drive.

Enhancing Locomotor Learning With Transcutaneous Spinal Electrical Stimulation and Somatosensory Augmentation: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial in Older Adults.

This study investigated locomotor learning of a complex terrain walking task in older adults, when combined with two adjuvant interventions: transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) to increase lumbar spinal cord excitability, and textured shoe insoles to increase somatosensory feedback to the spinal cord. The spinal cord has a crucial contribution to control of walking, and is a novel therapeutic target for rehabilitation of older adults. The complex terrain task involved walking a 10-meter course consisting of nine obstacles and three sections of compliant (soft) walking surface. Twenty-three participants were randomly assigned to one of the following groups: sham tsDCS and smooth insoles (sham/smooth; control group), sham tsDCS and textured insoles (sham/textured), active tsDCS and smooth insoles (active/smooth), and active tsDCS and textured insoles (active/textured). The first objective was to assess the feasibility, tolerability, and safety of the interventions. The second objective was to assess preliminary efficacy for increasing locomotor learning, as defined by retention of gains in walking speed between a baseline visit of task practice, and a subsequent follow-up visit. Variability of the center of mass while walking over the course was also evaluated. The change in executive control of walking (prefrontal cortical activity) between the baseline and follow-up visits was measured with functional near infrared spectroscopy. The study results demonstrated feasibility based on enrollment and retention of participants, tolerability based on self-report, and safety based on absence of adverse events. Preliminary efficacy was supported based on trends showing larger gains in walking speed and more pronounced reductions in mediolateral center of mass variability at the follow-up visit in the groups randomized to active tsDCS or textured insoles. These data justify future larger studies to further assess dosing and efficacy of these intervention approaches. In conclusion, rehabilitation interventions that target spinal control of walking present a potential opportunity for enhancing walking function in older adults.

The combined effects of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation and neuromuscular electrical stimulation on corticospinal excitability and gait performance in humans.

The combined effects of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation and neuromuscular electrical stimulation on corticospinal excitability and gait performance in humans.

Effects of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) in a patient with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS) post diffuse axonal injury: a case report

Effects of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) in a patient with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS) post diffuse axonal injury: a case report

Simultaneous transcranial and transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation to enhance athletic performance outcome in experienced boxers

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is among the rapidly growing experimental approaches to enhance athletic performance. Likewise, novel investigations have recently addressed the effects of transcutaneous spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS) on motor functions such as reduced reaction time. The impact of tDCS, and tsDCS might be attributed to altered spontaneous neural activity and membrane potentials of cortical and corticomotoneuronal cells, respectively. Given the paucity of empirical research in non-invasive brain stimulation in sports neuroscience, especially in boxing, the present investigation studied the effects of neuromodulation on motor and cognitive functions of professional boxers. The study sample comprised 14 experienced male boxers who received random sequential real or sham direct current stimulation over the primary motor cortex (M1) and paraspinal region (corresponding to the hand area) in two sessions with a 72-h interval. Unlike sham stimulation, real stimulation improved selective attention and reaction time of the experienced boxers [enhanced selective attention (p < 0.0003), diminished right hand (p < 0.0001) and left hand reaction time (p < 0.0006)]. Meanwhile, the intervention left no impact on the participants’ cognitive functions (p > 0.05). We demonstrated that simultaneous stimulation of the spinal cord and M1 can improve the performance of experienced boxers through neuromodulation. The present study design may be extended to examine the role of neurostimulation in other sport fields.

Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (TSDCS) in multiple sclerosis

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a multifactorial disease of the Central Nervous System in which both inflammatory and neurodegenerative processes occur simultaneously. Over the past few years, several studies suggest positive effects of non-invasive neuromodulation in MS. We therefore aim to investigate in patients with MS the clinical effects of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) and potential mechanisms of action on neuroinflammation through the assessment of biomarkers for oxidative stress and inflammation.