↓ Skip to main content

Bihemispheric-tDCS and Upper Limb Rehabilitation Improves Retention of Motor Function in Chronic Stroke: A Pilot Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Readers on

mendeley
172 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bihemispheric-tDCS and Upper Limb Rehabilitation Improves Retention of Motor Function in Chronic Stroke: A Pilot Study
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00258
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alicia M. Goodwill, Wei-Peng Teo, Prue Morgan, Robin M. Daly, Dawson J. Kidgell

Abstract

Single sessions of bihemispheric transcranial direct-current stimulation (bihemispheric-tDCS) with concurrent rehabilitation improves motor function in stroke survivors, which outlasts the stimulation period. However few studies have investigated the behavioral and neurophysiological adaptations following a multi-session intervention of bihemispheric-tDCS concurrent with rehabilitation. This pilot study explored the immediate and lasting effects of 3-weeks of bihemispheric-tDCS and upper limb (UL) rehabilitation on motor function and corticospinal plasticity in chronic stroke survivors. Fifteen chronic stroke survivors underwent 3-weeks of UL rehabilitation with sham or real bihemispheric-tDCS. UL motor function was assessed via the Motor Assessment Scale (MAS), Tardieu Scale and grip strength. Corticospinal plasticity was indexed by motor evoked potentials (MEPs), cortical silent period (CSP) and short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) recorded from the paretic and non-paretic ULs, using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Measures were taken at baseline, 48 h post and 3-weeks following (follow-up) the intervention. MAS improved following both real-tDCS (62%) and sham-tDCS (43%, P < 0.001), however at 3-weeks follow-up, the real-tDCS condition retained these newly regained motor skills to a greater degree than sham-tDCS (real-tDCS 64%, sham-tDCS 21%, P = 0.002). MEP amplitudes from the paretic UL increased for real-tDCS (46%: P < 0.001) and were maintained at 3-weeks follow-up (38%: P = 0.03), whereas no changes were observed with sham-tDCS. No changes in MEPs from the non-paretic nor SICI from the paretic UL were observed for either group. SICI from the non-paretic UL was greater at follow-up, for real-tDCS (27%: P = 0.04). CSP from the non-paretic UL increased by 33% following the intervention for real-tDCS compared with sham-tDCS (P = 0.04), which was maintained at 3-weeks follow-up (24%: P = 0.04). bihemispheric-tDCS improved retention of gains in motor function, which appears to be modulated through intracortical inhibitory pathways in the contralesional primary motor cortex (M1). The findings provide preliminary evidence for the benefits of bihemispheric-tDCS during rehabilitation. Larger clinical trials are warranted to examine long term benefits of bihemispheric-tDCS in a stroke affected population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users 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 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 170 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 15%
Student > Master 23 13%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 33 19%
Unknown 45 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 28 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 12%
Psychology 7 4%
Sports and Recreations 7 4%
Other 26 15%
Unknown 56 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 22 October 2016.
All research outputs
#4,621,535
of 23,322,258 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,060
of 7,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,012
of 344,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#45
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,265 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 344,562 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.