Person:

Fregni, Felipe

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a technique that has been intensively investigated in the past decade as this method offers a non-invasive and safe alternative to change cortical excitability. The effects of one session of tDCS can last for several minutes, and its effects depend on polarity of stimulation, such as that cathodal stimulation induces a decrease in cortical excitability, and anodal stimulation induces an increase in cortical excitability that may last beyond the duration of stimulation6. These effects have been explored in cognitive neuroscience and also clinically in a variety of neuropsychiatric disorders – especially when applied over several consecutive sessions. One area that has been attracting attention of neuroscientists and clinicians is the use of tDCS for modulation of pain-related neural networks. Modulation of two main cortical areas in pain research has been explored: primary motor cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Due to the critical role of electrode montage, in this article, we show different alternatives for electrode placement for tDCS clinical trials on pain; discussing advantages and disadvantages of each method of stimulation.

Background: There is evidence that interventions aiming at modulation of the motor cortex activity lead to pain reduction. In order to understand further the role of the motor cortex on pain modulation, we aimed to compare the behavioral (pressure pain threshold) and neurophysiological effects (transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) induced cortical excitability) across three different motor tasks. Methodology/Principal Findings Fifteen healthy male subjects were enrolled in this randomized, controlled, blinded, cross-over designed study. Three different tasks were tested including motor learning with and without visual feedback, and simple hand movements. Cortical excitability was assessed using single and paired-pulse TMS measures such as resting motor threshold (RMT), motor-evoked potential (MEP), intracortical facilitation (ICF), short intracortical inhibition (SICI), and cortical silent period (CSP). All tasks showed significant reduction in pain perception represented by an increase in pressure pain threshold compared to the control condition (untrained hand). ANOVA indicated a difference among the three tasks regarding motor cortex excitability change. There was a significant increase in motor cortex excitability (as indexed by MEP increase and CSP shortening) for the simple hand movements. Conclusions/Significance: Although different motor tasks involving motor learning with and without visual feedback and simple hand movements appear to change pain perception similarly, it is likely that the neural mechanisms might not be the same as evidenced by differential effects in motor cortex excitability induced by these tasks. In addition, TMS-indexed motor excitability measures are not likely good markers to index the effects of motor-based tasks on pain perception in healthy subjects as other neural networks besides primary motor cortex might be involved with pain modulation during motor training.

Background: Survivors of physical and emotional trauma experience enduring occupational, psychological and quality of life impairments. Examining survivors from a large fire provides a unique opportunity to distinguish the impact of physical and emotional trauma on long-term outcomes. The objective is to detail the multi-dimensional long-term effects of a large fire on its survivor population and assess differences in outcomes between survivors with and without physical injury. Methods and Findings: This is a survey-based cross-sectional study of survivors of The Station fire on February 20, 2003. The relationships between functional outcomes and physical injury were evaluated with multivariate regression models adjusted for pre-injury characteristics and post-injury outcomes. Outcome measures include quality of life (Burn Specific Health Scale–Brief), employment (time off work), post-traumatic stress symptoms (Impact of Event Scale–Revised) and depression symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory). 104 fire survivors completed the survey; 47% experienced a burn injury. There was a 42% to 72% response rate range. Although depression and quality of life were associated with burn injury in univariate analyses (p<0.05), adjusted analyses showed no significant relationship between burn injury and these outcomes (p = 0.91; p = .51). Post-traumatic stress symptoms were not associated with burn injury in the univariate (p = 0.13) or adjusted analyses (p = 0.79). Time off work was the only outcome in which physical injury remained significant in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.03). Conclusions: Survivors of this large fire experienced significant life disruption, including occupational, psychological and quality of life sequelae. The findings suggest that quality of life, depression and post-traumatic stress outcomes are related to emotional trauma, not physical injury. However, physical injury is correlated with employment outcomes. The long-term impact of this traumatic event underscores the importance of longitudinal and mental health care for trauma survivors, with attention to those with and without physical injuries.

Introduction/Objectives: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation are two powerful non-invasive neuromodulatory therapies that have the potential to alter and evaluate the integrity of the corticospinal tract. Moreover, recent evidence has shown that brain stimulation might be beneficial in stroke recovery. Therefore, investigating and investing in innovative therapies that may improve neurorehabilitative stroke recovery are next steps in research and development. Participants/Materials and Methods: This article presents an up-to-date systematic review of the treatment effects of rTMS and tDCS on motor function. A literary search was conducted, utilizing search terms “stroke” and “transcranial stimulation.” Items were excluded if they failed to: (1) include stroke patients, (2) study motor outcomes, or (3) include rTMS/tDCS as treatments. Other exclusions included: (1) reviews, editorials, and letters, (2) animal or pediatric populations, (3) case reports or sample sizes ≤2 patients, and (4) primary outcomes of dysphagia, dysarthria, neglect, or swallowing. Results: Investigation of PubMed English Database prior to 01/01/2012 produced 695 applicable results. Studies were excluded based on the aforementioned criteria, resulting in 50 remaining studies. They included 1314 participants (1282 stroke patients and 32 healthy subjects) evaluated by motor function pre- and post-tDCS or rTMS. Heterogeneity among studies’ motor assessments was high and could not be accounted for by individual comparison. Pooled effect sizes for the impact of post-treatment improvement revealed consistently demonstrable improvements after tDCS and rTMS therapeutic stimulation. Most studies provided limited follow-up for long-term effects. Conclusion: It is apparent from the available studies that non-invasive stimulation may enhance motor recovery and may lead to clinically meaningful functional improvements in the stroke population. Only mild to no adverse events have been reported. Though results have been positive results, the large heterogeneity across articles precludes firm conclusions.

Therapies for motor recovery after stroke or traumatic brain injury are still not satisfactory. To date the best approach seems to be the intensive physical therapy. However the results are limited and functional gains are often minimal. The goal of motor training is to minimize functional disability and optimize functional motor recovery. This is thought to be achieved by modulation of plastic changes in the brain. Therefore, adjunct interventions that can augment the response of the motor system to the behavioural training might be useful to enhance the therapy-induced recovery in neurological populations. In this context, noninvasive brain stimulation appears to be an interesting option as an add-on intervention to standard physical therapies. Two non-invasive methods of inducing electrical currents into the brain have proved to be promising for inducing long-lasting plastic changes in motor systems: transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). These techniques represent powerful methods for priming cortical excitability for a subsequent motor task, demand, or stimulation. Thus, their mutual use can optimize the plastic changes induced by motor practice, leading to more remarkable and outlasting clinical gains in rehabilitation. In this review we discuss how these techniques can enhance the effects of a behavioural intervention and the clinical evidence to date.

Deceptive abilities have long been studied in relation to personality traits. More recently, studies explored the neural substrates associated with deceptive skills suggesting a critical role of the prefrontal cortex. Here we investigated whether non-invasive brain stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) could modulate generation of untruthful responses about subject’s personal life across contexts (i.e., deceiving on guilt-free questions on daily activities; generating previously memorized lies about past experience; and producing spontaneous lies about past experience), as well as across modality responses (verbal and motor responses). Results reveal that real, but not sham, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the DLPFC can reduce response latency for untruthful over truthful answers across contexts and modality responses. Also, contexts of lies seem to incur a different hemispheric laterality. These findings add up to previous studies demonstrating that it is possible to modulate some processes involved in generation of untruthful answers by applying non-invasive brain stimulation over the DLPFC and extend these findings by showing a differential hemispheric contribution of DLPFCs according to contexts.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains the main cause of disability and a major public health problem worldwide. This review focuses on the neurophysiology of TBI, and the rationale and current state of evidence of clinical application of brain stimulation to promote TBI recovery, particularly on consciousness, cognitive function, motor impairments, and psychiatric conditions. We discuss the mechanisms of different brain stimulation techniques including major noninvasive and invasive stimulations. Thus far, most noninvasive brain stimulation interventions have been nontargeted and focused on the chronic phase of recovery after TBI. In the acute stages, there is limited available evidence of the efficacy and safety of brain stimulation to improve functional outcomes. Comparing the studies across different techniques, transcranial direct current stimulation is the intervention that currently has the higher number of properly designed clinical trials, though total number is still small. We recognize the need for larger studies with target neuroplasticity modulation to fully explore the benefits of brain stimulation to effect TBI recovery during different stages of recovery.

Neuropsychological and psychiatric disorders represent a major concern and cause of disabilities after the trauma, contributing to worse recovery after traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, the lack of well-defined parameters to evaluate patient’s psychiatric disorders leads to a wide range of diagnoses and symptoms. The aim of this study was to perform a review of literature in order to gather data of the most common scales and inventories used to assess and diagnose depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after TBI. We conducted a literature search via MEDLINE, PubMed, and Web of Science. We included reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis studies, and we used the following keywords: “traumatic brain injury OR TBI,” “depression OR depressive disorder,” “anxiety,” and “posttraumatic stress disorder OR PTSD.” From 610 titles, a total of 68 systematic reviews or meta-analysis were included in the section “Results:” of this review: depression (n = 32), anxiety (n = 9), and PTSD (n = 27). Depression after TBI is a more established condition, with more homogeneous studies. Anxiety and PTSD disorders have been studied in a heterogeneous way, usually as comorbidity with other psychiatric disorders. Some scales and inventories designed for the general community may not be appropriate for patients with TBI.

Background: Previous studies have suggested that melatonin may produce antinociception through peripheral and central mechanisms. Based on the preliminary encouraging results of studies of the effects of melatonin on pain modulation, the important question has been raised of whether there is a dose relationship in humans of melatonin on pain modulation. Objective: The objective was to evaluate the analgesic dose response of the effects of melatonin on pressure and heat pain threshold and tolerance and the sedative effects. Methods: Sixty-one healthy subjects aged 19 to 47 y were randomized into one of four groups: placebo, 0.05 mg/kg sublingual melatonin, 0.15 mg/kg sublingual melatonin or 0.25 mg/kg sublingual melatonin. We determine the pressure pain threshold (PPT) and the pressure pain tolerance (PPTo). Quantitative sensory testing (QST) was used to measure the heat pain threshold (HPT) and the heat pain tolerance (HPTo). Sedation was assessed with a visual analogue scale and bispectral analysis. Results: Serum plasma melatonin levels were directly proportional to the melatonin doses given to each subject. We observed a significant effect associated with dose group. Post hoc analysis indicated significant differences between the placebo vs. the intermediate (0.15 mg/kg) and the highest (0.25 mg/kg) melatonin doses for all pain threshold and sedation level tests. A linear regression model indicated a significant association between the serum melatonin concentrations and changes in pain threshold and pain tolerance (R2 = 0.492 for HPT, R2 = 0.538 for PPT, R2 = 0.558 for HPTo and R2 = 0.584 for PPTo). Conclusions: The present data indicate that sublingual melatonin exerts well-defined dose-dependent antinociceptive activity. There is a correlation between the plasma melatonin drug concentration and acute changes in the pain threshold. These results provide additional support for the investigation of melatonin as an analgesic agent. Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBec): (U1111-1123-5109). IRB: Research Ethics Committee at the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre.