The Experts below are selected from a list of 23058 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Felipe Fregni - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • comparison of hypnotic suggestion and Transcranial direct current Stimulation effects on pain perception and the descending pain modulating system a crossover randomized clinical trial
    Frontiers in Neuroscience, 2019
    Co-Authors: Gerardo Vinicio Beltran Serrano, Felipe Fregni, Laura Pooch Rodrigues, Bruno Schein, Andressa De Souza, Iraci Ls Torres, Luciana Da Conceicao Antunes, Wolnei Caumo
    Abstract:

    Objectives: This paper aims to determine if hypnotic analgesia suggestion and Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation (tDCS) have a differential effect on pain perception. We hypothesized that Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation would be more effective than hypnotic analgesia suggestion at changing the descending pain modulating system, whereas the hypnotic suggestion would have a greater effect in quantitative sensory testing. Design: This is a randomized, double blind and crossover trial. Settings: All stages of this clinical trial were performed at the Laboratory of Pain and Neuromodulation of the Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre. Subjects: Were included 24 healthy females aged from 18 to 45 years old, with a high susceptibility to hypnosis, according to the Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form C (15). Methods: The subjects received a random and crossover Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (2 mA for 20 min) and hypnotic analgesia (20 min). Results: Only hypnotic suggestion produced changes that are statistically significant from pre- to post-intervention in the following outcomes measures: heat pain threshold, heat pain tolerance, cold pressure test, and serum brain-derivate-neurotrophic-factor. The analysis showed a significant main effect for treatment (F = 4.32; P = 0.04) when we compared the delta-(Δ) of conditioned pain modulation task between the Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation and hypnotic suggestion groups. Also, the change in the brain-derivate-neurotrophic-factor was positively correlated with the conditioned pain modulation task. Conclusion: The results confirm a differential effect between hypnotic suggestion and Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation on the pain measures. They suggest that the impact of the interventions has differential neural mechanisms, since the hypnotic suggestion improved pain perception, whereas the Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation increased inhibition of the descending pain modulating system. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT03744897","term_id":"NCT03744897"}}NCT03744897. Perspective: These findings highlight the effect of hypnotic suggestion on contra-regulating mechanisms involved in pain perception, while the Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation increased inhibition of the descending pain modulating system. They could help clinicians comprehend the mechanisms involved in hypnotic analgesia and Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation and thus may contribute to pain and disability management.

  • comparison of hypnotic suggestion and Transcranial direct current Stimulation effects on pain perception and the descending pain modulating system a crossover randomized clinical trial
    Frontiers in Neuroscience, 2019
    Co-Authors: Gerardo Beltran Serrano, Felipe Fregni, Laura Pooch Rodrigues, Bruno Schein, Andressa De Souza, Iraci Ls Torres, Luciana Da Conceicao Antunes, Wolnei Caumo
    Abstract:

    Objectives: This paper aims to determine if hypnotic analgesia suggestion and Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation (tDCS) have a differential effect on pain perception. We hypothesized that Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation would be more effective than hypnotic analgesia suggestion at changing the descending pain modulating system, whereas the hypnotic suggestion would have a greater effect in quantitative sensory testing. Design: This is a randomized, double blind and crossover trial. Settings: All stages of this clinical trial were performed at the Laboratory of Pain and Neuromodulation of the Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre. Subjects: Were included 24 healthy females aged from 18 to 45 years old, with a high susceptibility to hypnosis, according to the Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form C (15). Methods: The subjects received a random and crossover Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (2 mA for 20 min) and hypnotic analgesia (20 min). Results: Only hypnotic suggestion produced changes that are statistically significant from pre- to post-intervention in the following outcomes measures: heat pain threshold, heat pain tolerance, cold pressure test, and serum brain-derivate-neurotrophic-factor. The analysis showed a significant main effect for treatment (F = 4.32; P = 0.04) when we compared the delta-(Δ) of conditioned pain modulation task between the Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation and hypnotic suggestion groups. Also, the change in the brain-derivate-neurotrophic-factor was positively correlated with the conditioned pain modulation task. Conclusion: The results confirm a differential effect between hypnotic suggestion and Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation on the pain measures. They suggest that the impact of the interventions has differential neural mechanisms, since the hypnotic suggestion improved pain perception, whereas the Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation increased inhibition of the descending pain modulating system. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03744897. Perspective: These findings highlight the effect of hypnotic suggestion on contra-regulating mechanisms involved in pain perception, while the Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation increased inhibition of the descending pain modulating system. They could help clinicians comprehend the mechanisms involved in hypnotic analgesia and Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation and thus may contribute to pain and disability management.

  • bilateral m1 anodal Transcranial direct current Stimulation in post traumatic chronic minimally conscious state a pilot eeg tdcs study
    Brain Injury, 2019
    Co-Authors: Sofia Straudi, Felipe Fregni, Valentina Bonsangue, Sonia Mele, Laila Craighero, Andrea Montis, Susanna Lavezzi, Nino Basaglia
    Abstract:

    ABSTRACTObjective: We tested the preliminary effects of bilateral anodal Transcranial direct current Stimulation (tDCS) in patients with disorders of consciousness.Design: Open label pilot study.Su...

  • Transcranial direct current Stimulation before during or after motor training
    Neuroreport, 2015
    Co-Authors: Maria Eduarda Cabral, Felipe Fregni, Adriana Baltar, Rebeka Borba, Silvana Carla Barros Galvao, Luciana Santos, Katia Montesilva
    Abstract:

    Noninvasive brain Stimulation has recently been used to augment motor training-induced plasticity. However, the exact time during which noninvasive brain Stimulation can be combined with motor therapy to maximize neuroplasticity and behavioral changes is unknown. We conducted a randomized sham-controlled crossover trial to examine when (before, during, or after training) Transcranial direct current Stimulation (tDCS) should be applied to best reinforce motor training-induced plasticity in 12 healthy right-handed participants (mean age: 21.8±1.6) who underwent active or sham tDCS combined with motor training. Transcranial magnetic Stimulation-elicited motor-evoked potentials from the right first dorsal interosseous muscle were recorded before (baseline) and immediately after each session. The training task comprised four practice trials - 3 min each (30 s pause between trials) - of repetitive finger movements (thumb abduction/adduction) with the right hand. Anodal tDCS (1 mA, 13 min, on the motor primary cortex) was applied before, during, and after the training. Compared with baseline motor-evoked potentials and the sham condition, tDCS that was applied before, but not during or after, the motor task enhanced corticospinal excitability. These data suggest that tDCS performed before - not during or after - promotes optimization of motor training-induced plasticity.

  • Transcranial direct current Stimulation combined with treadmill gait training in delayed neuro psychomotor development
    Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 2014
    Co-Authors: Luanda Andre Collange Grecco, Felipe Fregni, Mariana E Mendonca, Natalia De Almeida Carvalho Duarte, Nelci Zanon, Claudia Santos Oliveira
    Abstract:

    [Purpose] The aim of the present study was to describe the results of Transcranial direct current Stimulation combined with treadmill training in a child with delayed neuro-psychomotor development. [Subject and Methods] Transcranial direct current Stimulation (intensity: 1 mA) was applied over the primary motor cortex for 20 minutes during simultaneous treadmill training (2.5 km/h) in ten sessions. [Results] Clinically significant improvement was found in motor development (fine motor subscale, 23 to 25; gross motor subscale, 32 to 41). Reductions in mean oscillation of the center of pressure were found in the anteroposterior (239.2 to 146.5 mm) and mediolateral (177.4 to 149.2 mm) directions. Increases occurred in cadence (106 to 123 steps/minute), step length (0.16 to 0.23 m), step width (0.09 to 0.14 m) and gait velocity with support (0.3 to 0.7 m/s). [Conclusion] After treatment, the child was able to initiate the standing position for the first time and walk without support.

Burkhard Pleger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • cerebellar Transcranial direct current Stimulation modulates verbal working memory
    Brain Stimulation, 2013
    Co-Authors: Andreas Boehringer, Katja Macher, Juergen Dukart, Arno Villringer, Burkhard Pleger
    Abstract:

    Background: Neuroimaging studies show cerebellar activations in a wide range of cognitive tasks and patients with cerebellar lesions often present cognitive deficits suggesting a cerebellar role in higherorder cognition. Objective: We used cathodal Transcranial direct current Stimulation (tDCS), known to inhibit neuronal excitability, over the cerebellum to investigate if cathodal tDCS impairs verbal working memory, an important higher-order cognitive faculty. Method: We tested verbal working memory as measured by forward and backward digit spans in 40 healthy young participants before and after applying cathodal tDCS (2 mA, Stimulation duration 25 min) to the right cerebellum using a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind, cross-over design. In addition, we tested the effect of cerebellar tDCS on word reading, finger tapping and a visually cued sensorimotor task. Results: In line with lower digit spans in patients with cerebellar lesions, cerebellar tDCS reduced forward digit spans and blocked the practice dependent increase in backward digit spans. No effects of tDCS on word reading, finger tapping or the visually cued sensorimotor task were found. Conclusion: Our results support the view that the cerebellum contributes to verbal working memory as measured by forward and backward digit spans. Moreover, the induction of reversible “virtual cerebellar lesions” in healthy individuals by means of tDCS may improve our understanding of the mechanistic basis of verbal working memory deficits in patients with cerebellar lesions.

Müller, Horst M. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Colleen Loo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • clinical pilot study and computational modeling of bitemporal Transcranial direct current Stimulation and safety of repeated courses of treatment in major depression
    Journal of Ect, 2015
    Co-Authors: Siwei Bai, Angelo Alonzo, Donel Martin, Socrates Dokos, Colleen Loo
    Abstract:

    ObjectivesThis study aimed to examine a bitemporal (BT) Transcranial direct current Stimulation (tDCS) electrode montage for the treatment of depression through a clinical pilot study and computational modeling. The safety of repeated courses of Stimulation was also examined.MethodsFour participants

  • Transcranial direct current Stimulation in the treatment of major depression a meta analysis
    Psychological Medicine, 2012
    Co-Authors: U G Kalu, Colleen Loo, Claire E Sexton, Klaus P Ebmeier
    Abstract:

    Background So far, no comprehensive answer has emerged to the question of whether Transcranial direct current Stimulation (tDCS) can make a clinically useful contribution to the treatment of major depression. We aim to present a systematic review and meta-analysis of tDCS in the treatment of depression. Method Medline and Embase were searched for open-label and randomized controlled trials of tDCS in depression using the expressions (‘Transcranial direct current Stimulation’ or ‘tDCS’) and (‘depression’ or ‘depressed’). Study data were extracted with a standardized data sheet. For randomized controlled trials, effect size (Hedges' g ) was calculated and the relationships between study variables and effect size explored using meta-regression. Results A total of 108 citations were screened and 10 studies included in the systematic review. Six randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis, with a cumulative sample of 96 active and 80 sham tDCS courses. Active tDCS was found to be more effective than sham tDCS for the reduction of depression severity (Hedges' g =0.743, 95% confidence interval 0.21–1.27), although study results differed more than expected by chance ( Q =15.52, df=6, p =0.017, I 2 =61.35). Meta-regression did not reveal any significant correlations. Conclusions Our study was limited by the small number of studies included, which often had small sample size. Future studies should use larger, if possible representative, health service patient samples, and optimized protocols to evaluate the efficacy of tDCS in the treatment of depression further.

  • Transcranial direct current Stimulation in the treatment of major depression a meta analysis
    Psychological Medicine, 2012
    Co-Authors: U G Kalu, Colleen Loo, Claire E Sexton, Klaus P Ebmeier
    Abstract:

    Background So far, no comprehensive answer has emerged to the question of whether Transcranial direct current Stimulation (tDCS) can make a clinically useful contribution to the treatment of major depression. We aim to present a systematic review and meta-analysis of tDCS in the treatment of depression. Method Medline and Embase were searched for open-label and randomized controlled trials of tDCS in depression using the expressions (‘Transcranial direct current Stimulation’ or ‘tDCS’) and (‘depression’ or ‘depressed’). Study data were extracted with a standardized data sheet. For randomized controlled trials, effect size (Hedges' g ) was calculated and the relationships between study variables and effect size explored using meta-regression. Results A total of 108 citations were screened and 10 studies included in the systematic review. Six randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis, with a cumulative sample of 96 active and 80 sham tDCS courses. Active tDCS was found to be more effective than sham tDCS for the reduction of depression severity (Hedges' g =0.743, 95% confidence interval 0.21–1.27), although study results differed more than expected by chance ( Q =15.52, df=6, p =0.017, I 2 =61.35). Meta-regression did not reveal any significant correlations. Conclusions Our study was limited by the small number of studies included, which often had small sample size. Future studies should use larger, if possible representative, health service patient samples, and optimized protocols to evaluate the efficacy of tDCS in the treatment of depression further.

  • daily Transcranial direct current Stimulation tdcs leads to greater increases in cortical excitability than second daily Transcranial direct current Stimulation
    Brain Stimulation, 2012
    Co-Authors: Angelo Alonzo, Colleen Loo, Donel Martin, Joseph Brassil, Janet L Taylor
    Abstract:

    Background Evidence from recent clinical trials suggests that Transcranial direct current Stimulation (tDCS) may have potential in treating neuropsychiatric disorders. However, the optimal frequency at which tDCS sessions should be administered is unknown. Objective/Hypothesis This study investigated the effects of daily or second daily tDCS sessions on motor cortical excitability, over a 5-day period. Methods Twelve healthy volunteers received daily or second daily sessions of tDCS to the left primary motor cortex over the study period, in a randomized, intraindividual crossover design. Motor cortical excitability was assessed before and after tDCS at each session through responses to Transcranial magnetic Stimulation. Results Over a fixed 5-day period, tDCS induced greater increases in MEP amplitude when given daily rather than second daily. Analyses showed that this difference reflected greater cumulative effects between sessions rather than a greater response to each individual tDCS session. Conclusions These results demonstrate that in the motor cortex of healthy volunteers, tDCS alters cortical excitability more effectively when given daily rather than second daily over a 5-day period.

  • hypomania induction in a patient with bipolar ii disorder by Transcranial direct current Stimulation tdcs
    Journal of Ect, 2011
    Co-Authors: Veronica Galvez, Donel Martin, Angelo Alonzo, Philip B Mitchell, Perminder S Sachdev, Colleen Loo
    Abstract:

    Objectives: To report a case of hypomania induced by Transcranial direct current Stimulation (tDCS) given with an extracephalic reference electrode. Transcranial direct current Stimulation is a noninvasive brain Stimulation technique in which a weak current is applied through the scalp to produce changes in neuronal excitability in the underlying cerebral tissue. Recent clinical trials have shown promising results with left anodal prefrontal tDCS in treating depression. When the reference cathodal electrode in tDCS is moved from the cranium to an extracephalic position, larger areas of both cerebral hemispheres are stimulated, with potential implications for both efficacy and safety. Methods: We report the case of a 33-year-old female with bipolar II disorder, on mood stabilizer medication, who had previously participated in a clinical trial of tDCS given with a bifrontal electrode montage for the treatment of major depression without incident, but became hypomanic when she received a later course of tDCS given with a frontoextracephalic configuration. Factors contributing to the development of hypomania in the second course of tDCS are examined. Results: No substantial differences were found in the patient's clinical presentation between the 2 tDCS courses to explain the emergence of hypomania only after the second course. The different montage used in the second course appeared to be the main contributory factor in the induction of hypomania. Conclusions: The reported case suggests that frontoextracephalic tDCS has antidepressant properties and the potential to induce hypomanic symptoms. In particular, it raises the question of whether frontoextracephalic tDCS requires additional precautions when administered to bipolar patients compared to bifrontal tDCS.

Arno Villringer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • cerebellar Transcranial direct current Stimulation modulates verbal working memory
    Brain Stimulation, 2013
    Co-Authors: Andreas Boehringer, Katja Macher, Juergen Dukart, Arno Villringer, Burkhard Pleger
    Abstract:

    Background: Neuroimaging studies show cerebellar activations in a wide range of cognitive tasks and patients with cerebellar lesions often present cognitive deficits suggesting a cerebellar role in higherorder cognition. Objective: We used cathodal Transcranial direct current Stimulation (tDCS), known to inhibit neuronal excitability, over the cerebellum to investigate if cathodal tDCS impairs verbal working memory, an important higher-order cognitive faculty. Method: We tested verbal working memory as measured by forward and backward digit spans in 40 healthy young participants before and after applying cathodal tDCS (2 mA, Stimulation duration 25 min) to the right cerebellum using a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind, cross-over design. In addition, we tested the effect of cerebellar tDCS on word reading, finger tapping and a visually cued sensorimotor task. Results: In line with lower digit spans in patients with cerebellar lesions, cerebellar tDCS reduced forward digit spans and blocked the practice dependent increase in backward digit spans. No effects of tDCS on word reading, finger tapping or the visually cued sensorimotor task were found. Conclusion: Our results support the view that the cerebellum contributes to verbal working memory as measured by forward and backward digit spans. Moreover, the induction of reversible “virtual cerebellar lesions” in healthy individuals by means of tDCS may improve our understanding of the mechanistic basis of verbal working memory deficits in patients with cerebellar lesions.