BACKGROUND: Recovering hand function has important implications for improving independence of patients with tetraplegia after traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive neuromodulation technique that has potential to improve motor function.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of one session of 1 mA, 2 mA, and sham anodal tDCS (a-tDCS) in the upper extremity (hand) motor performance (grasp and lease) in patients with chronic cervical SCI.
METHODS: Eleven participants with incomplete SCI were randomized to receive 20 minutes of 1 mA, 2 mA, or sham stimulation over the targeted motor cortex over three separated sessions. Hand motor performance was measured by a hand robotic evaluation (kinematics) and the Box and Blocks (BB) test before and after the stimulation period.
RESULTS: A significant improvement on the grasp mean to peak speed ratio (GMP) was observed in the 2 mA group (pre: 0.38±0.02; post: 0.43±0.03; mean±SEM; p = 0.031). There was no statistically significant difference in BB test results, however the 2 mA intervention showed a positive trend for improvement.
CONCLUSIONS: A single session of 2 mA of a-tDCS showed gains in hand motor function in patients with chronic SCI that were not observed in functional clinical scales. The use of robotic kinematics showed promising results in assessing small changes in motor performance. Further studies are necessary to determine whether tDCS can be an effective long-term rehabilitation strategy for individuals with SCI.
BalasubramanianS., KleinJ., BurdetE. (2010). Robot-assisted rehabilitation of hand function. Curr Opin Neurol, 23(6), 661–670. doi: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e32833e99a4. Review. PMID:20852421.
2.
BalasubramanianS., Melendez-CalderonA., Roby-BramiA., & BurdetE. (2015). On the analysis of movement smoothness. J Neuroeng Rehabil, 12, 112. doi: 10.1186/s12984-015-0090-9. Review. PMID: 26651329.
3.
BarbeauH., NadeauS., & GarneauC. (2006). Physical determinants, emerging concepts, and training approaches in gait of individuals with spinal cord injury. Journal of Neurotrauma, 23(3/4), 571–585.
4.
BastaniA., & JaberzadehS. (2012). Does anodal transcranial direct current stimulation enhance excitability of the motor cortex and motor function in healthy individuals and subjects with stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 123(4), 644–657.
5.
BatsikadzeG., MoliadzeV., PaulusW., KuoM.-F., & NitscheM. A. (2013). Partially non-linear stimulation intensity-dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans. Journal of Physiology, 591(7), 1987–2000.
6.
BeckerD., SadowskyC. L., & McDonaldJ. W. (2003). Restoring function after spinal cord injury. The Neurologist, 9, 1–15.
7.
BeekhuizenK. S. (2005). New perspectives on improving upper extremity function after spinal cord injury. J Neurol Phys Ther, 29(3), 157–162.
8.
BeekhuizenK. S., & Field-FoteE. C. (2005). Massed practive versus massed practice with stimulation: Effects on upper extremity function and cortical plasticity in individuals with incomplete cervical spinal cord injury. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 19, 33–45.
9.
BoseckerC., DipietroL., VolpeB., & KrebsH. I. (2010). Kinematic robot-based evaluation scales and clinical counterparts to measure upper limb motor performance in patients with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 24(1), 62–69.
10.
ColomboR., PisanoF., MiceraS., et al. (2008). Assessing mechanisms of recovery during robot-aided neurorehabilitation of the upper limb. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 22(1), 50–63.
11.
CortesM., ElderJ., RykmanA., MurrayL., AvedissianM., StampasA., ThickbroomG. W., Pascual-LeoneA., KrebsH. I., Valls-SoleJ., & EdwardsD. J. (2013). Improved motor performance in chronic spinal cord injury following upper-limb robotic training. Neuro Rehabilitation, 33, 57–65.
12.
CuypersK., LeenusD. J. F., van den BergF. E., NitscheM. A., ThijsH., WenderothN., & MeesenR. L. (2013) Is motor learning mediated by tDCS intensity?ePLoS One, 8(6), e67344.
13.
EdwardsD. J., CortesM., ThickbroomG. W., RykmanA., Pascual-LeoneA., & VolpeB. T. (2013) Preserved corticospinal conduction without voluntary movement after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 51(10), 765–767.
14.
GiacobbeV., KrebsH. I., VolpeB. T., Pascual-LeoneA., RykmanA., ZeiaratiG., FregniF., DipietroL., ThickbroomG. W., & EdwardsD. J. (2013) Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and robotic practice in chronic stroke: The dimension of timing. NeuroRehabilitation, 33(1), 49–56. doi: 10.3233/NRE-130927. PMID: 23949028.
15.
HicksA. L., MartinK. A., DitorD. S., LatimerA. E., CravenC., BugarestiJ., & McCartneyN. (2003). Long-term exercise training in persons with spinal cord injury: Effects on strength, arm ergometry performance and psychological well-being. Spinal Cord, 41(1), 34–43.
16.
HoffmanL. R., & Field-foteE. C. (2010). Functional and corticomotor changes in individuals with tetraplegia following unimanual or bimanual massed practice training with somatosensory stimulation: A pilot study. J Neurol Phys Ther, 34(4), 193–201.
17.
KadivarZ., SullivanJ. L., EngD. P., PehlivanA. U., O’MalleyM. K., YozbatiranN., FranciscoG. E., & editors. (2011). Robotic training and kinematic analysis of arm and hand after incomplete spinal cord injury: A case study. International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; Zurich, Switzerland.
18.
KidgellD. J., GoodwillA. M., FrazerA. K., & RobinM. D. (2013). Induction of cortical plasticity and improved motor performance following unilateral and bilateral transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex. BMC Neuroscience, 14, 64.
19.
KirshblumS. C., BurnsS. P., Biering-sorensenF., et al. (2011). International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (revised 2011). J Spinal Cord Med, 34(6), 535–546.
20.
KloostermanM. G., SnoekG. J., & JanninkM. J. (2009) Systematic review of the effects of exercise therapy on the upper extremity of patients with spinal-cord injury. Spinal Cord, 47(3), 196–203.
21.
KrebsH. I., KramsM., AgrafiotisD. K., et al. (2014). Robotic measurement of arm movements after stroke establishes biomarkers of motor recovery. Stroke, 45(1), 200–204.
22.
LambercyO., RoblesA. J., KimY., & GassertR. (2011). Design of a robotic device for assessment and rehabilitation of hand sensory function. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot, 2011, 5975436. doi: 10.1109/ICORR.2011.5975436. PMID:22275636.
23.
LambercyO., DovatL., YunH., WeeS. K., KuahC. W., ChuaK. S., GassertR., MilnerT. E., TeoC. L., & BurdetE. (2011) Effects of a robot-assisted training of grasp and pronation/supination in chronic stroke: A pilot study. J Neuroeng Rehabil8, 63. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-8-63. PMID:22087842
24.
LynskeyJ. V., BelangerA., & JungR. (2008). Activity-dependent plasticity in spinal cord injury. J Rehabil Res Dev, 45(2), 229–240.
25.
MartinR., JohnstonK., & SadowskyC. (2012). Neuromuscular electrical stimulation-assisted grasp training and restoration of function in the tetraplegic hand: A case series. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66(4), 471–477.
26.
Masia L., KrebsH. I., & CappaP.Design and Characterization of Hand Module for Whole-Arm Rehabilitation Following Stroke. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 12, 399–407.
27.
Mathiowetz V., VollanG., KashmanN., & WeberK.Adult Norms for the Box and Block Test of Manual Dexterity. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 39, 386–391.
28.
MiyaguchiS., OnishiH., KojimaS., SugawaraK., TsubakiA., KirimotoH., TamakiH., & YamamotoN. (2013). Corticomotor excitability induced by anodal transcranial direct current stimulation with and without non-exhaustive movement. Brain Research, 1529, 83–91.
29.
MurrayL., RuffiniG., StampasA., LabarD., Pascual-LeoneA., EdwardsD., & CortesC. (2015). Intensity-dependent effects of tDCS on corticospinal excitability in chronic spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 96(Suppl. 4), S114–S121. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.11.004. PMID:25461825.
30.
NSCISC. (2015) Spinal cord injury facts and figures at a glance. Birmingham, AL: University of Alabama at Birmingham. National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center [NSCISC].
31.
NitscheM., & PaulusW. (2000) Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. The Journal of Physiology, 527, 633.
32.
NitscheM. A., CohenL. G., WassermannE. M., PrioriA., LangN., et al. (2008) Transcranial direct current stimulation: State of the art 2008. Brain Stimulation, 1, 206–223.
33.
NitscheM. A., & PaulusW. (2001). Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology, 57, 1899.
34.
PrangeG. B., JanninkM. J., Groothuis-oudshoornC. G., HermensH. J., & IjzermanM. J. (2006). Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev, 43(2), 171–184.
35.
RamerL. M., RamerM. S., & SteevesJ. D. (2005). Setting the stage for functional repair of spinal cord injuries: A cast of thousands. Spinal Cord, 43, 134–161.
36.
SaturnoE., BonatoC., MiniussiC., Vincenzo DiLazzaroV., & CalleaL. (2008). Motor cortex changes in spinal cord injury: A TMS study. Neurological Research, 30(10), 1084–1085.
37.
SnoekG. J., IJzermanM. J., HermensH. J., MaxwellD., & Biering-SorensenF. (2004). Survey of the needs of patients with spinal cord injury: Impact and priority for improvement in hand function in tetraplegics. Spinal Cord, 42(9), 526–532.
