Authorea

Laura Dubreuil Vall edited untitled.html about 8 years ago

Commit id: b7dd6b3e0b39f684c072811f0fb46ea14f955fa2

deletions | additions

Barcelona, Spain.

c. Neuroelectrics Corporation, Cambridge (MA), USA.

Corresponding author:

Mar Cortes

Non invasive Brain Stimulation and Human Motor Control Laboratory, Burke Medical Research Institute, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 785 Mamaroneck Avenue, 10605, White Plains, NY, USA.

[email protected]

Phone: +1 914 368 3181

Abstract: 3181

Abstract: (250)[MC1]

Background: Existing strategies to enhance motor function following Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) are suboptimal leaving patients with considerable disability. Available evidence suggests that
...
capable of inducing modulation of ongoing oscillatory brain rhythms captured by EEG, in spinal cord injury patients.

The combined use of EEG and t-DCS sets the stage for optimizing t-DCS protocols targeting motor cortex and may have application in treatment of motor dysfunction and chronic pain.

Figures

Figure 1: a) Starstim wireless t DCS device. b) Electric field induced by montage + C3, - AF8 using “Pi” electrodes (3.14 cm² Ag/AgCl electrodes).

Figure 2: Results for the normalized Pre-Post Power changes of 1mA vs sham show a) significant increase of the mean power domain in Gamma frequency band under C3, the anodal stimulating electrode. b) A significant increment of faster activity around the anodal stimulating electrode (C3, F3) while a decreased mean frequency in the Alpha band near the return electrode (P4) and c) significant increased mean coherence in the fastest frequency bands (Beta2, Gamma) and SMR under the stimulating electrode (C3), the symmetrical location in the other hemisphere (C4) and the vertex (Cz). The bottom map provides the p-value (Wilkoxon test) of Sham vs. active stimulation.

Tables

Table 1: Patient characteristics

References

Cortes M, Thickbroom GW, Valls-Sole J, Pascual-Leone A, Edwards DJ. Spinal associative stimulation: a non-invasive stimulation paradigm to modulate spinal excitability. Clin Neurophysiol 2011; 122(11): 2254-9.

Edwards DJ, Cortes M, Thickbroom GW, Rykman A, Pascual-Leone A, Volpe BT. Preserved corticospinal conduction without voluntary movement after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2013; 51(10): 765-7.

	Methods for specific electrode resistance measurement during transcranial direct current stimulation.
	Khadka N, Rahman A, Sarantos C, Truong DQ, Bikson M.
	Brain Stimul. 2015 Jan-Feb;8(1):150-9. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2014.10.004. Epub 2014 Oct 17.
	PMID: 25456981 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
	Related citations
2.	Clinician accessible tools for GUI computational models of transcranial electrical stimulation: BONSAI and SPHERES.
	Truong DQ, Hüber M, Xie X, Datta A, Rahman A, Parra LC, Dmochowski JP, Bikson M.
	Brain Stimul. 2014 Jul-Aug;7(4):521-4. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2014.03.009. Epub 2014 Mar 30.
	PMID: 24776786 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
	Related citations
3.	Polarizing cerebellar neurons with transcranial Direct Current Stimulation.
	Rahman A, Toshev PK, Bikson M.
	Clin Neurophysiol. 2014 Mar;125(3):435-8. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.10.003. Epub 2013 Oct 28. No abstract available.
	PMID: 24176296 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
	Related citations
4.	Effects of weak transcranial alternating current stimulation on brain activity-a review of known mechanisms from animal studies.
	Reato D, Rahman A, Bikson M, Parra LC.
	Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Oct 23;7:687. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00687. Review.
	PMID: 24167483 [PubMed] Free PMC Article
	Related citations
5.	Origins of specificity during tDCS: anatomical, activity-selective, and input-bias mechanisms.
	Bikson M, Name A, Rahman A.
	Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Oct 21;7:688. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00688. eCollection 2013.
	PMID: 24155708 [PubMed] Free PMC Article
	Related citations
6.	Cellular effects of acute direct current stimulation: somatic and synaptic terminal effects.
	Rahman A, Reato D, Arlotti M, Gasca F, Datta A, Parra LC, Bikson M.
	J Physiol. 2013 May 15;591(Pt 10):2563-78. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2012.247171. Epub 2013 Mar 11.
	PMID: 23478132 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article
	Related citations
7.	Axon terminal polarization induced by weak uniform DC electric fields: a modeling study.
	Arlotti M, Rahman A, Minhas P, Bikson M.
	Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012;2012:4575-8. doi: 10.1109/EMBC.2012.6346985.
	PMID: 23366946 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
	Related citations
8.	The "quasi-uniform" assumption in animal and computational models of non-invasive electrical stimulation.
	Bikson M, Dmochowski J, Rahman A.
	Brain Stimul. 2013 Jul;6(4):704-5. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2012.11.005. Epub 2012 Dec 20. No abstract available.
	PMID: 23290681 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article
	Related citations
9.	Methods for extra-low voltage transcranial direct current stimulation: current and time dependent impedance decreases.
	Hahn C, Rice J, Macuff S, Minhas P, Rahman A, Bikson M.
	Clin Neurophysiol. 2013 Mar;124(3):551-6. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2012.07.028. Epub 2012 Sep 30.
	PMID: 23031743 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
	Related citations
10.	Computational models of transcranial direct current stimulation.
	Bikson M, Rahman A, Datta A.
	Clin EEG Neurosci. 2012 Jul;43(3):176-83. doi: 10.1177/1550059412445138.
	PMID: 22956646 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
	Related citations
11.	High-resolution modeling assisted design of customized and individualized transcranial direct current stimulation protocols.
	Bikson M, Rahman A, Datta A, Fregni F, Merabet L.
	Neuromodulation. 2012 Jul;15(4):306-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2012.00481.x. Epub 2012 Jul 10. Review.
	PMID: 22780230 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article
	Related citations
12.	Low-intensity electrical stimulation affects network dynamics by modulating population rate and spike timing.
	Reato D, Rahman A, Bikson M, Parra LC.
	J Neurosci. 2010 Nov 10;30(45):15067-79. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2059-10.2010.
	PMID: 21068312 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article
	Related citations
13.	Electrode montages for tDCS and weak transcranial electrical stimulation: role of "return" electrode's position and size.
	Bikson M, Datta A, Rahman A, Scaturro J.
	Clin Neurophysiol. 2010 Dec;121(12):1976-8. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.05.020. Epub 2010 Jun 17. No abstract available.
	PMID: 21035740 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article
	Related citations

[MC1]WE WILL WORK ON THAT THE LAST THING

[JC2]4000 words

[MC3]Our old intro. Above Gary’s intro

[DE4]Explain that this was for baseline profiling only… not an outcome measure

[DE5]Ramp time?

[DE6]Ramp time? Same as real?

[DE7]This is preferred. Check for consistency tDCS, TDCS, t-DCS

[DE8]Have a look at how this writing is different from previous, and take note FYI

[DE9]Did we not just use C3 and C4 sites? I don’t think we shuffled the cap position because this would disturb the EEG 10-20 system markings

[DE10]GIULIO PLEASE CHECK THE DEFINITION . THANKS

[DE11]GIULIO – PLEASE REWORD THIS DEFN - A LITTLE CONFUSING

[DE12]what does this mean? We would not have done both

[DE13]Contradiction – if it is ‘exactly’ the optimal site, unlikely exactly C3. Best just to say C3 if that is what we did. Again, we cannot use tetminlogy of optimal site, unless we searched for it and used it as with other studies. Here it is more important to maintain C3, since C3 is approximately the best site, but is absolutely the only conventional site we can compare other eeg sites. If we moved this, the whole 10-20 system is out.

[DE14]Unclear? Do you mean “statistical analysis was performed on raw values (T-test?),and normalized data for graphical presentation”

[DE15]Do we really report SD and SEM for TMS results??? check

[JC16]shall we remove it since the sample is very small?

[DE17]Do we deltete? And wat method was used for statistics – Giulio and Laura.

pain.