↓ Skip to main content

Compromised tDCS-induced facilitation of motor consolidation in patients with multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Compromised tDCS-induced facilitation of motor consolidation in patients with multiple sclerosis
Published in
Journal of Neurology, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00415-018-8993-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jost-Julian Rumpf, Sophie Dietrich, Muriel Stoppe, Christopher Fricke, David Weise, Florian Then Bergh, Joseph Classen

Abstract

To investigate whether consolidation after motor learning can be facilitated by offline (post-training) transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). In this cross-sectional double-blind interventional study, effects of tDCS on motor consolidation were examined in 14 patients with relapsing remitting MS [median Expanded Disability Status Scale score 2.0 (range 1-4)] and 14 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. tDCS with the anode placed over the left primary motor cortex and the cathode placed over the right supraorbital region was applied immediately after a training session of an explicit sequential finger-tapping task that was performed with the right (dominant) hand. Task performance was retested after an interval of 8 h to assess consolidation. Participants took part in two experimental sessions separated by at least 7 days which differed with respect to type of post-training tDCS, i.e., sham and verum stimulation. Patients with MS performed worse than controls in functional motor tests and the motor sequence task. However, learning speed and magnitude of online performance increments during the training session were comparable to controls. While post-training tDCS facilitated motor consolidation in controls, patients with MS did not benefit from this type of intervention. Absence of post-training tDCS-induced facilitation of consolidation in patients with MS suggests that the interaction of tDCS with the motor consolidation network is inefficient. Identification of the underlying disease-related mechanisms will have important implications for the design of studies aiming to promote motor recovery in MS by non-invasive brain stimulation.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 14 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 9 19%
Psychology 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 24 50%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 August 2018.
All research outputs
#20,529,980
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#4,035
of 4,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,630
of 330,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#62
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,534 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 330,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.