The contribution of poor finger force control to age-related decline in manual dexterity is above and beyond ubiquitous behavioral slowing. Altered control of the finger forces can impart unwanted torque on the object affecting its orientation, thus impairing manual performance. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over primary motor cortex (M1) has been shown to improve the performance speed on manual tasks in older adults. However, the effects of anodal tDCS over M1 on the finger force control during object manipulation in older adults remain to be fully explored. Here we determined the effects of anodal tDCS over M1 on the control of grip force in older adults while they manipulated an object with an uncertain mechanical property. Eight healthy older adults were instructed to grip and lift an object whose contact surfaces were unexpectedly made more or less slippery across trials using acetate and sandpaper surfaces, respectively. Subjects performed this task before and after receiving anodal or sham tDCS over M1 on two separate sessions using a cross-over design. We found that older adults used significantly lower grip force following anodal tDCS compared to sham tDCS. Friction measured at the finger-object interface remained invariant after anodal and sham tDCS. These findings suggest that anodal tDCS over M1 improved the control of grip force during object manipulation in healthy older adults. Although the cortical networks for representing objects and manipulative actions are complex, the reduction in grip force following anodal tDCS over M1 might be due to a cortical excitation yielding improved processing of object-specific sensory information and its integration with the motor commands for production of manipulative forces. Our findings indicate that tDCS has a potential to improve the control of finger force during dexterous manipulation in older adults.
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 11 April 2015.
All research outputs
#18,405,972
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#154,733
of 194,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,644
of 264,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#5,040
of 6,782 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 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 194,563 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 264,944 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,782 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
