| Title |
Facilitatory non-invasive brain stimulation in older adults: the effect of stimulation type and duration on the induction of motor cortex plasticity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-016-4740-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rohan Puri, Mark R. Hinder, Alison J. Canty, Jeffery J. Summers |
| Abstract |
Despite holding significant promise for counteracting the deleterious effects of ageing on cognitive and motor function, little is known of the effects of facilitatory non-invasive brain stimulation (NBS) techniques on corticospinal excitability (CSE) in older adults. Thirty-three older adults (≥60 years) participated in four NBS sessions on separate days, receiving 10- and 20-min anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (atDCS), and 300 and 600 pulses of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) over the left M1. Motor-evoked potentials measured in the contralateral hand served as a measure of CSE before and for 30 min following each NBS intervention. At the group level, generalized post-stimulation CSE increases were observed (p < 0.001) with no significant differences between the two durations of each stimulation type (atDCS: p = 0.5; iTBS: p = 0.9). For individuals exhibiting overall facilitatory change to atDCS ('responders', n = 10), 20-min atDCS resulted in longer lasting CSE facilitation than 10 min. No such difference was observed between the two iTBS protocols. Considerable variability was observed inter-individually, where 52-58 % of the cohort exhibited the expected facilitation after each of the NBS protocols-as well as intra-individually, where 45-48 % of the cohort maintained consistent post-stimulation responses across the varying durations and types of stimulation. In conclusion, as shown previously in young adults, older adults demonstrate substantial variability in response to different facilitatory NBS protocols. Studies to assess the intra-individual reliability of these protocols are critical to progress towards translation of appropriate protocols (i.e. those that elicit the greatest response for each individual) into clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 64 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 16 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 17 | 26% |
| Psychology | 8 | 12% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 18 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,466,751
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,480
of 3,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#280,542
of 364,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#35
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,234 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,029 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.