Restorative neurology and neuroscience · 2015
a-tDCS on the ipsilesional parietal cortex boosts the effects of prism adaptation treatment in neglect.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Làdavas Elisabetta, Giulietti Sara, Avenanti Alessio, Bertini Caterina, Lorenzini Eleonora, Quinquinio Cristina, Serino Andrea
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to compare the effects of multiple sessions of cathodal (c-tDCS) or anodal tDCS (a-tDCS) in modulating the beneficial effects of prism adaptation (PA) treatment in neglect patients.
METHODS: 30 neglect patients were submitted to 10 daily sessions of PA treatment. Patients were pseudo-randomly divided into 3 groups. In the c-tDCS-group, each PA session was coupled with 20 minutes of cathodal stimulation of the left, intact PPC; in the a-tDCS-group, anodal stimulation was applied to PPC of the damaged hemisphere; in the Sham group, sham stimulation was applied. Neglect was evaluated before and after treatment with the Behavioral Inattention Test.
RESULTS: Combined tDCS-PA treatment induced stronger neglect improvement in the a-tDCSgroup as compared to the Sham group. No improvement was found in the c-tDCS group, with respect to that normally induced by PA and found in the Sham group.
CONCLUSIONS: c-tDCS abolished neglect amelioration after PA, possibly because stimulation affected the sensorimotor network controlling prism adaptation. Instead, a-tDCS PPC boosted neglect amelioration after PA probably thanks to increased excitability of residual tissue in the lesioned hemisphere, which in turn might reduce dysfunctional over-excitability of the intact hemisphere.
METHODS: 30 neglect patients were submitted to 10 daily sessions of PA treatment. Patients were pseudo-randomly divided into 3 groups. In the c-tDCS-group, each PA session was coupled with 20 minutes of cathodal stimulation of the left, intact PPC; in the a-tDCS-group, anodal stimulation was applied to PPC of the damaged hemisphere; in the Sham group, sham stimulation was applied. Neglect was evaluated before and after treatment with the Behavioral Inattention Test.
RESULTS: Combined tDCS-PA treatment induced stronger neglect improvement in the a-tDCSgroup as compared to the Sham group. No improvement was found in the c-tDCS group, with respect to that normally induced by PA and found in the Sham group.
CONCLUSIONS: c-tDCS abolished neglect amelioration after PA, possibly because stimulation affected the sensorimotor network controlling prism adaptation. Instead, a-tDCS PPC boosted neglect amelioration after PA probably thanks to increased excitability of residual tissue in the lesioned hemisphere, which in turn might reduce dysfunctional over-excitability of the intact hemisphere.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Adaptation, PhysiologicalAdaptation, PsychologicalAgedAged, 80 and overDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFunctional LateralityHumansLensesMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsParietal LobePerceptual DisordersRandom AllocationStrokeTranscranial Direct Current StimulationTreatment Outcome