Offline effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on reaction times of lower extremity movements in people after stroke: A pilot cross-over study

Abstract

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that has shown promise for rehabilitation after stroke. Ipsilesional anodal tDCS (a-TDCS) over the motor cortex increases corticospinal excitability, while contralesional cathodal tDCS (c-TDCS) restores interhemispheric balance, both resulting in offline improved reaction times of delayed voluntary upper-extremity movements. We aimed to investigate whether tDCS would also have a beneficial effect on delayed leg motor responses after stroke. In addition, we identified whether variability in tDCS effects was associated with the level of leg motor function. Methods: In a cross-over design, 13 people with chronic stroke completed three 15-min sessions of anodal, cathodal and sham stimulation over the primary motor cortex on separate days in an order balanced across participants. Directly after stimulation, participants performed a comprehensive set of lower-extremity tasks involving the paretic tibialis anterior (TA): voluntary ankle-dorsiflexion, gait initiation, and backward balance perturbation. For all tasks, TA onset latencies were determined. In addition, leg motor function was determined by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-leg score (FMA-L). Repeated measures ANOVA was used to reveal tDCS effects on reaction times. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to establish the relation between tDCS effects and leg motor function. Results: For all tasks, TA reaction times did not differ across tDCS sessions. For gait initiation and backward balance perturbation, differences between sham and active stimulation (a-TDCS or c-TDCS) did not correlate with leg motor function. Yet, for ankle dorsiflexion, individual reaction time differences between c-TDCS and sham were strongly associated with FMA-L, with more severely impaired patients exhibiting slower paretic reaction times following c-TDCS. Conclusion: We found no evidence for offline tDCS-induced benefits. Interestingly, we found that c-TDCS may have unfavorable effects on voluntary control of the paretic leg in severely impaired patients with chronic stroke. This finding points at potential vicarious control from the unaffected hemisphere to the paretic leg. The absence of tDCS-induced effects on gait and balance, two functionally relevant tasks, shows that such motor behavior is inadequately stimulated by currently used tDCS applications. Trial registration: The study is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL5684; April 13th, 2016).