Contrasting MEG effects of anodal and cathodal high-definition TDCS on sensorimotor activity during voluntary finger movements

TL;DR

This study shows that anodal and cathodal TDCS affect brain activity during finger movements in ways that contradict traditional assumptions about their excitatory and inhibitory effects.

Contribution

The study reveals a polarity-dependent effect of TDCS on reafferent sensory processing that is opposite to its effect on motor-evoked potentials.

Findings

Anodal HD-TDCS decreased movement-related cortical fields during right-hand movements.

Cathodal HD-TDCS increased these cortical fields.

Oscillatory motor output and resting state oscillations were not differentially affected by the stimulation.

Abstract

Protocols for noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) are generally categorized as “excitatory” or “inhibitory” based on their ability to produce short-term modulation of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) in peripheral muscles, when applied to motor cortex. Anodal and cathodal stimulation are widely considered excitatory and inhibitory, respectively, on this basis. However, it is poorly understood whether such polarity-dependent changes apply for neural signals generated during task performance, at rest, or in response to sensory stimulation.

To characterize such changes, we measured spontaneous and movement-related neural activity with magnetoencephalography (MEG) before and after high-definition transcranial direct-current stimulation (HD-TDCS) of the left motor cortex (M1), while participants performed simple finger movements with the left and right hands.

Anodal HD-TDCS (excitatory) decreased the movement-related cortical fields (MRCF) localized to left M1 during contralateral right finger movements while cathodal HD-TDCS (inhibitory), increased them. In contrast, oscillatory signatures of voluntary motor output were not differentially affected by the two stimulation protocols, and tended to decrease in magnitude over the course of the experiment regardless. Spontaneous resting state oscillations were not affected either.

MRCFs are thought to reflect reafferent proprioceptive input to motor cortex following movements. Thus, these results suggest that processing of incoming sensory information may be affected by TDCS in a polarity-dependent manner that is opposite that seen for MEPs—increases in cortical excitability as defined by MEPs may correspond to reduced responses to afferent input, and vice-versa.

Figures