| Title |
The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex on exercise-induced pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-015-3212-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luca Angius, James G. Hopker, Samuele M. Marcora, Alexis R. Mauger |
| Abstract |
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) provides a new exciting means to investigate the role of the brain during exercise. However, this technique is not widely used in exercise science, with little known regarding effective electrode montages. This study investigated whether tDCS of the motor cortex (M1) would elicit an analgesic response to exercise-induced pain (EIP). Nine participants completed a VO2max test and three time to exhaustion (TTE) tasks on separate days following either 10 min 2 mA tDCS of the M1, a sham or a control. Additionally, seven participants completed 3 cold pressor tests (CPT) following the same experimental conditions (tDCS, SHAM, CON). Using a well-established tDCS protocol, tDCS was delivered by placing the anodal electrode above the left M1 with the cathodal electrode above dorsolateral right prefrontal cortex. Gas exchange, blood lactate, EIP and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were monitored during the TTE test. Perceived pain was recorded during the CPT. During the TTE, no significant differences in time to exhaustion, RPE or EIP were found between conditions. However, during the CPT, perceived pain was significantly (P < 0.05) reduced in the tDCS condition (7.4 ± 1.2) compared with both the CON (8.6 ± 1.0) and SHAM (8.4 ± 1.3) conditions. These findings demonstrate that stimulation of the M1 using tDCS does not induce analgesia during exercise, suggesting that the processing of pain produced via classic measures of experimental pain (i.e., a CPT) is different to that of EIP. These results provide important methodological advancement in developing the use of tDCS in exercise. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 25% |
| United States | 3 | 19% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 63% |
| Scientists | 4 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 177 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 31 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 15% |
| Researcher | 21 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 35 | 19% |
| Unknown | 43 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 40 | 22% |
| Neuroscience | 25 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 6% |
| Psychology | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 25 | 14% |
| Unknown | 56 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 19 June 2019.
All research outputs
#3,240,758
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#976
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,521
of 276,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#14
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
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 276,195 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.