Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2017 Sep-Oct;135(5):475-480.
doi: 10.1590/1516-3180.2016.0194060617. Epub 2017 Nov 6.

Non-invasive brain stimulation and computational models in post-stroke aphasic patients: single session of transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation. A randomized clinical trial

Michele Devido Dos Santos  1 , Vitor Breseghello Cavenaghi  2 , Ana Paula Machado Goyano Mac-Kay  3 , Vitor Serafim  2 , Alexandre Venturi  2 , Dennis Quangvinh Truong  4 , Yu Huang  4 , Paulo Sérgio Boggio  5 , Felipe Fregni  6 , Marcel Simis  7 , Marom Bikson  8 , Rubens José Gagliardi  9
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Non-invasive brain stimulation and computational models in post-stroke aphasic patients: single session of transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation. A randomized clinical trial

Michele Devido Dos Santos et al. Sao Paulo Med J. 2017 Sep-Oct.

Abstract

Context and objective: Patients undergoing the same neuromodulation protocol may present different responses. Computational models may help in understanding such differences. The aims of this study were, firstly, to compare the performance of aphasic patients in naming tasks before and after one session of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and sham, and analyze the results between these neuromodulation techniques; and secondly, through computational model on the cortex and surrounding tissues, to assess current flow distribution and responses among patients who received tDCS and presented different levels of results from naming tasks.

Design and setting: Prospective, descriptive, qualitative and quantitative, double blind, randomized and placebo-controlled study conducted at Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo.

Methods: Patients with aphasia received one session of tDCS, TMS or sham stimulation. The time taken to name pictures and the response time were evaluated before and after neuromodulation. Selected patients from the first intervention underwent a computational model stimulation procedure that simulated tDCS.

Results: The results did not indicate any statistically significant differences from before to after the stimulation.The computational models showed different current flow distributions.

Conclusions: The present study did not show any statistically significant difference between tDCS, TMS and sham stimulation regarding naming tasks. The patients'responses to the computational model showed different patterns of current distribution.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: None

Figures

Table 1.
Table 1.. Description of the randomization
Table 2.
Table 2.. Description of the patients
Table 3.
Table 3.. Mean performance in naming tasks from before to after stimulation (Wilcoxon test) and comparison of the techniques
Table 4.
Table 4.. Improvement in parameters evaluated
Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Peak intensities and distributions of cortical electric field (current density).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Wassermann EM. Risk and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: report and suggested guidelines from the International Workshop on the Safety of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, June 5-7, 1996. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1998;108(1):1–16. - PubMed
    1. Nitsche MA, Liebetanz D, Antal A, et al. Modulation of cortical excitability by weak direct current stimulation--technical, safety and functional aspects. Suppl Clin Neurophysiol. 2003;56:255–276. - PubMed
    1. Murase N, Duque J, Mazzocchio R, Cohen LG. Influence of interhemispheric interactions on motor function in chronic stroke. Ann Neurol. 2004;55(3):400–409. - PubMed
    1. Takeuchi N, Chuma T, Matsuo Y, Watanabe I, Ikoma K. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of contralesional primary motor cortex improves hand function after stroke. Stroke. 2005;36(12):2681–2686. - PubMed
    1. Takeuchi N, Izumi S. Noninvasive brain stimulation for motor recovery after stroke: mechanisms and future views. Stroke Res Treat. 2012;2012:584727–584727. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types