Next Article in Journal
Nucleus Accumbens Response to Reward among Children with a Family History of Alcohol Use Problems: Convergent Findings from the ABCD Study® and Michigan Longitudinal Study
Previous Article in Journal
Divergent Conceptualization of Embodied Emotions in the English and Chinese Languages
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Brain Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/brainsci12070912
brainsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Is Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation an Effective Ergogenic Technology in Lower Extremity Sensorimotor Control for Healthy Population? A Narrative Review

by
Changxiao Yu
1,
Songlin Xiao
1,
Baofeng Wang
1,
Jiaxin Luo
1,
Cuixian Liu
1,
Junhong Zhou
2,*,
Weijie Fu
3,* and
Jing Jin
4,*
1
Key Laboratory of Exercise and Health Sciences of Ministry of Education, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai 200438, China
2
The Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02131, USA
3
Shanghai Frontiers Science Research Base of Exercise and Metabolic Health, Shanghai 200433, China
4
School of Psychology, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai 200438, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Brain Sci. 2022, 12(7), 912; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12070912
Submission received: 5 May 2022 / Revised: 28 June 2022 / Accepted: 5 July 2022 / Published: 13 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Sensory and Motor Neuroscience)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) aims to hone motor skills and improve the quality of life. However, the non-repeatability of experimental results and the inconsistency of research conclusions have become a common phenomenon, which may be due to the imprecision of the experimental protocol, great variability of the participant characteristics within the group, and the irregularities of quantitative indicators. The aim of this study systematically summarised and analysed the effect of a-tDCS on lower extremity sensorimotor control under different experimental conditions. This narrative review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines until June 2022 in Web of Science, PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Scopus. The findings of the present study demonstrated that a-tDCS can effectively improve the capabilities of lower extremity sensorimotor control, particularly in gait speed and time-on-task. Thus, a-tDCS can be used as an effective ergogenic technology to facilitate physical performance. In-depth and rigorous experimental protocol with larger sample sizes and combining brain imaging technology to explore the mechanism have a profound impact on the development of tDCS.

1. Introduction

Sensorimotor control in the lower extremity (i.e., balance, gait, mobility, and postural control) is the fundamental element for everyday activities, often coinciding with non-postural cognitive tasks [1,2]. Such adaptive sensorimotor processes are exceedingly complex, which integrate the somatosensory, visual, and vestibular transmission pathways [3]. In addition to integrating external information, the activation of the brain regions is also key for maintaining the execution of neural signals and strategies targeting cortical excitability that will help the sensorimotor control in the lower extremity [4,5].
Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as therapeutic tools have been developed to treat neuropsychiatric and neurological disorders [6]. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is one of such techniques that modulates the excitabilities of brain regions by sending low-intensity current to polarise and depolarise the resting membrane potentials of neurons via surface scalp electrodes [7]. The mechanisms and functions of tDCS are shown in Figure 1. As a neuromodulation technique, anodal-tDCS (a-tDCS) has positive effects on enhancing synaptic connections [8] and modulating the nervous system, thereby improving the coordination efficiency of musculoskeletal modification during the performance of lower extremity sensorimotor control [9], such as balance and gait in healthy adults. Specifically, early studies have provided insights into the potential ergogenic effect of a-tDCS on a wide range of exercise types based on promising outcomes [7,10,11]. For instance, multi-session a-tDCS can improve semantic associations for schizophrenia patients, which supports its neuromodulation role in improving cognitive functions [12]. By investigating the changes of a-tDCS on cortical plasticity, Pisoni et al. [13] elucidated the positive correlation between the neurophysiological effects of a-tDCS at specific cortical circuits and cognitive enhancement.
Still, the effect of a-tDCS reported in previous studies was inconsistent, which may be due to the selection of tDCS variables (i.e., duration, montage, location, etc.) being of high variance. For instance, applying 20-min a-tDCS over the cerebellum for young adults may increase the excitability of the motoneuron pool, which can result in a continuous neural drive for the motor neurons and improve the dynamic balance task while standing with two feet on a movable platform [14]. However, the enhancements have not been found in another study [2], showing that the missing ergogenic effects of a-tDCS may be the shorter duration (10 min vs. 20 min) and the small sample size. Additionally, in the dual-tasking condition (i.e., standing or walking while performing another task), brain regions are involved in cognitive processes [15,16]. Studies also demonstrated that a-tDCS contributes to modulating cortical excitability and results in a sustained neural drive for the motor neurons, which may have enabled better integration amongst different sets of nuclei necessary for the execution of cognitive-motor tasks [17]. Therefore, more brain regions of interest have been included as stimulation targets (i.e., primary motor cortex (M1), prefrontal cortex (PFC), supplementary motor area (SMA), and temporal cortex (TC)).
Therefore, this narrative review aimed to systematically characterise the effect of a-tDCS on the lower extremity sensorimotor control in healthy individuals, providing constructive knowledge on the optimal protocol design and effects of a-tDCS on lower extremity sensorimotor control to inform future studies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

This narrative review was performed for relevant papers from the first data available until June 2022 in the following databases: Web of Science, PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Scopus. The following key search terms were used to improve the matching of the searched English literature with the research purpose: ‘transcranial direct current stimulation’ or ‘tDCS’ or ‘HD-tDCS’ and ‘postural control’ or ‘balance’ or ‘sensorimotor control’ or ‘physical performance’ or ‘gait’ or ‘time-on-task’. Moreover, the reference lists of the included studies were reviewed to find additional relevant studies that have not appeared in the database with our initial electronic search terms.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

Studies that met the following requirements were included: (a) English full-text articles; (b) randomised, single/double-blinded, sham-controlled experimental design; (c) the intervention of a-tDCS was performed in healthy adults; (d) application of bilateral a-tDCS or unilateral a-tDCS in any brain region; (e) perform lower extremity sensorimotor testing with static or/and dynamic postural control. In addition, review, conference, and unpublished articles were excluded.

2.3. Overview of the Included Studies

We collected a total of 587 relevant documents from the Web of Science, PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Scopus. After rigorous screening, 26 studies were used in the narrative review (static sensorimotor control, 18; dynamic sensorimotor control, 18; static and dynamic sensorimotor control, 11) (Figure 2). As shown in Table 1, only one study simultaneously recruited two populations (young and older adults) as participants [14] among all included studies, and three studies compared and investigated two sets of montage placement [9,14,18]. In addition, participants in 13 studies (56.5%) received two simulation methods (a-tDCS and sham stimulation) separately, with an interval of 3 to 7 days or more, and 8 of these studies (61.5%) selected 7 days. Only two studies (8.7%) applied a multi-session stimulation program [18,19]. Nine studies (39.1%) used electrode sponges of different sizes for the cathode and anode, and only one study used high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) [20].
All included studies applied a randomised design, of which two studies (7.7%) applied a parallel design, and others (92.3%) applied a crossover trial design. Studies assessed a total of 680 participants, with a population number of 25.81 ± 12.06 (mean ± SD) per study (from 5 to 57). In addition, the studies of Ehsani et al. [11] and Hafez et al. [18] had a total of 5 (14.7%) and 4 (10.3%) dropouts, respectively. Regarding gender, all the studies included 292 male participants and 359 female participants, one of which did not indicate gender [21]. Three studies (11.5%) only recruited male participants, and no study only recruited female participants. Across the studies, 269 participants (40.09%) were under the age of 50, and 402 (59.91%) were over 50 years old. As shown in Figure 3, concerning the stimulus duration of a-tDCS, the majority of studies (76.92%) used 20 min. The current density was primarily 2 mA, with mean ± SD current density per the study of 1.61 ± 0.57 mA (ranging from 0.5 mA to 2.8 mA) and electrode size of 26.69 ± 13.67 cm2 (from 1 cm2 to 55.25 cm2). The anode montage was placed in the motor cortex (51.61%), cerebellum area (25.81%), PFC (19.35%), and TC (3.23%).

3. Practical Considerations

3.1. Effect of A-tDCS on Standing Postural Control

Standing upright is a complex task, which occurs simultaneously with non-postural cognitive tasks. Such ‘dual tasking’ significantly increases the difficulty of lower extremity sensorimotor control compared with ‘single tasking’, and it is often used as an important evaluation index for the elderly to prevent falls. Older adults with executive dysfunction are linked to poor dual-tasking capacity, leading to greater risk of falls [40]. Relevant literature indicates the effectiveness of a-tDCS of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) on performing two cognitive tasks concurrently. Manor et al. [41] reported that as compared to sham, 20 min of a-tDCS induced significant improvements in dual-task postural sway speed and areas in older adults with functional limitations, but not in single-task standing postural control performance. In addition, they argued that the reduced dual-task costs were due to tDCS improving the capacity of the frontal-executive systems and optimising cognitive-motor resources. In line with the studies on young healthy adults, Zhou et al. [37] also found that the dlPFC was a primary brain region supporting cognitive dual tasks. However, one study partially replicated the study of Zhou et al. [37], and the results were inconsistent. Pineau et al. [31] investigated the postural performance in a simple and dual-task with eyes open and closed via assessing the centre of pressure (COP) parameters immediately after a 20 min a-tDCS session. The results showed that acute a-tDCS cannot effectively improve dual-task performance, and they explained that the discrepancy may be due to the physical activity level of participants. Moreover, the application of slightly larger current intensity (2 mA vs. 1.5 mA) and smaller stimulating electrodes (25 cm2 vs. 35 cm2) for the latter may not have a decisive effect on the experimental results compared with the former. Based on the feature of ceiling effects, the more energetic the participants are, the more difficult it is to reflect the positive effectiveness of a-tDCS. A better understanding of the effect of a-tDCS on standing posture control can be established by investigating the age-related loss of complexity in healthy older adults. Therefore, Zhou et al. [38] quantified the complexity of postural sway of the elderly with a-tDCS over the left PFC in single and dual-task postural control using multi-scale entropy. Their results indicated that a-tDCS was associated with an increase in prefrontal cortical excitability, which coincided with improved complexity of standing postural sway specifically within a dual-task condition.
The effects of a-tDCS on other cortical regions have also been investigated. The cerebellum is a pivotal stimulus target, and as a complex intracranial organ, it has an extensive connection with many areas of the midbrain, brainstem, and cerebral cortex [42]. A large number of studies have confirmed that cerebellar a-tDCS can enhance the links and increase the control function of the cerebellum on the motor cortex, vestibular system, and other brain regions [11,43,44]. Standing postural control includes both static control, that maintains stability on a firm and unchanging support surface, and dynamic control, that maintains balance on a movable platform. Ehsani et al. [11] investigated the effect of cerebellar a-tDCS on static and dynamic postural control in older individuals using a Biodex Balance System, and they revealed that the participants receiving cerebellar a-tDCS showed significantly reduced postural sway in anterior–posterior and medial–lateral directions. Similarly, combined with postural control training, cerebellar a-tDCS stimulation can improve the skill acquisition of postural control in young individuals [27]. As we previously mentioned, tDCS is a form of neuromodulation, which can modulate neural activity. Therefore, a-tDCS of the M1 has gained increasing interest as a neurorehabilitation tool for facilitating the excitability of this region and enhancing standing performance. Xiao et al. [20] reported that the static standing balance performance with eyes closed improved after single-session HD-tDCS by assessing the averaged sway velocity of the centre of gravity in anterior–posterior and medial–lateral directions. However, no significant differences were observed between HD-tDCS and sham stimulation amongst young participants. These results were attributed to the small sample size and ceiling effect. In addition, the results were in agreement with the study of Inukai et al. [24], confirming that a-tDCS over the cerebellum cannot enhance the standing posture control capacity of young health populations compared with sham stimulation. Literature indicates that the equivocal results in standing posture control are due to the stimulation target and age.
Two studies were included for comparison of M1 a-tDCS to determine the effect of cerebellar a-tDCS on standing posture control [9,18]. In the lower extremity sensorimotor control of healthy individuals, a previous study has asserted that the motor cortex plays a smaller role compared with the cerebellum and subcortical structures [45]. Moreover, a recent study has shown that the cerebellum and M1 a-tDCS have significant effects on the standing posture balance of the elderly [9]. However, Hafez et al. [18] found that posture training combined with bilateral cerebellar or M1 a-tDCS was more effective than cerebellar a-tDCS alone or postural training alone in improving the anterior–posterior and medial–lateral stability index of standing postural control under eyes open and closed conditions. An important aspect of the divergence between the two studies was the difference in the experimental protocol.
Although the aforementioned findings were combined, the systematic information reconfirmed that a-tDCS over the dlPFC could improve standing posture control performance under dual-task conditions, particularly for the elderly. In any case, further optimisation of experimental protocol could provide a stable experimental effect on standing posture control. Therefore, some speculation on the a-tDCS mechanism should be treated with caution.

3.2. Effect of A-tDCS on Gait Speed and Time-on-Task

The improvements in gait speed after a 20 min session of a-tDCS over the prefrontal cortex under single-task conditions were found compared with sham stimulation, but the differences were not statistically significant [29,37]. Although the aforementioned result is encouraging, evidence shows that most studies have a small sample size. Regarding the gait speed in double-task conditions, four studies proved that a-tDCS over the prefrontal cortex can significantly reduce dual-task costs by assessing the walking tests in healthy elderly and young adults [29,34,37,39]. Another study with the same test protocol did not find a significant functional improvement in walking with dual tasking based on the TUG test of mobility in functionally limited older adults [41]. Factors such as the dose and duration of a-tDCS in participants with different physical conditions should be appropriately adjusted. Previous studies have indicated that anticipatory postural adjustments were generated from the increased excitability of the SMA to promote gait posture stability for healthy adults. Collectively, the improved connectivity in the SMA pathway indicates the decrease in COP sway path length immediately after 15 min a-tDCS within the anticipatory postural adjustment processing network [30]. TDCS entails that sending weak direct currents to deep brain areas can drive neuromodulation. A systematic review and meta-analysis consistently demonstrated that the combination of a-tDCS over motor-related areas and repetitive gait training could improve gait rehabilitation in individuals with stroke [46]. Given the prominent role of the M1 leg area in executing lower extremity function, this stimulus area is a potential target for improving sensorimotor control scenarios in adults. In this regard, a-tDCS can significantly facilitate learning capabilities by evaluating task performance and kinematic variables in healthy young participants [25]. The same experimental protocol was applied to the elderly, but no positive effects of a-tDCS were found; thus, the authors hypothesised that inter-individual differences may be an unfavourable factor for this result [26]. Two cross-studies were performed to assess the corticospinal excitability and postural sway of a-tDCS applied over the M1 or cerebellum and to comprehensively understand the effect of a-tDCS on lower extremity sensorimotor control [14,18]. These studies suggest that apart from the different stimulation targets, age group, postural measure, and visual condition (eyes open or closed) can affect the ergogenic effects of a-tDCS. Furthermore, the cerebellum plays an important role in postural control. The most typical symptoms of a cerebellar lesion are decreased balance, abnormal gait, and increased risk of falling (i.e., ataxia) [47]. Therefore, the effect of cerebellar a-tDCS on postural steadiness has received widespread attention in the literature. The rationale behind using cerebellar a-tDCS as a tool in the context is that the increased activity of the cerebellum related to motor function could boost adults’ lower extremity sensorimotor control. From this point of view, a number of studies confirmed the positive effects of 20 min cerebellar a-tDCS on postural adaptation in young and older adults using the standing dynamic platform assessment system [11,32]. Contrary to these findings, another study showed that 10 min cerebellar a-tDCS with high current density (2.8 mA) had no significant effect on improving the acquisition of motor skills in young participants [2]. The authors attributed the loss of cerebellar a-tDCS effectiveness to the small sample size, inappropriate electrode position, and size. Despite the many factors that affect the effectiveness of a-tDCS on lower extremity sensorimotor control, the duration of stimulation found in the above-mentioned studies is a pivotal factor that cannot be ignored.
Investigations specific to lower extremity sensorimotor control include studies not only on gait speed indicators but also time-on-task required to perform the postural tests. Based on previous reports, time-on-task is defined as the time from the appearance of a stimulus to the completion of the response. It reflects the coordination and rapid response ability of the human nerve and musculoskeletal system, which ensures humans perform the basic daily activities. In general, a complete time-on-task cycle needs the individual to undergo stimulus identification, then select the appropriate response, and finally finish the instruction. However, ongoing studies have shown that the SMA plays an important role in movement preparation, particularly in the case of complex tasks following visual cues [48]. In addition, existing evidence suggests that a-tDCS over the SMA can significantly reduce time-on-task in dynamic balance tests, which require a more complex planning process [49]. Given the close position between the SMA and leg M1, another study on M1 a-tDCS improving ankle time-on-task in young adults hypothesised that the ergogenic effect was partly attributed to the effect of the SMA [22]. In this context, Saruco et al. [33] found that combining motor imagery practice with a-tDCS applied over the M1 can facilitate short-term motor learning by enhancing the cortical excitability of a postural task required to reach targets located forward. In the assessment of leap task time, Lee et al. [28] also pointed out that a-tDCS over the M1 can effectively improve balance performance and shorten response time in healthy young adults. However, in another study, no significant improvement was reported [23]. The TUG test is widely utilised for evaluating the mobility of dynamic posture control. Applying the stimulation of the M1, a-tDCS has been affirmed in enhancing time-on-task using the TUG test [19,21].
In the gait speed test of single and dual tasks, small sample size is still a key factor affecting the effect of a-tDCS. This greatly affects the selection of stimulation targets, stimulation duration, and intensity in the experimental protocol, and even causes inconsistencies in results. In addition, a-tDCS generally showed a positive effect on time-on-task regardless of age.

3.3. Limitations

This study has several limitations: (a) the searched database is limited; (b) all participants included were healthy adults; (c) the study only reviewed the effects immediately after the a-tDCS session and did not examine the longer-term follow-up effects of tDCS; and (d) the effects of cathode tDCS are not discussed in this study.

4. Conclusions

The ergogenic effect was observed in dual-task conditions, e.g., stimulating the dlPFC using a-tDCS had an evident development in standing task performance amongst the elderly. Meanwhile, significant enhancements in gait speed and time-on-task were observed when comparing a-tDCS with sham stimulation. In particular, a-tDCS had an effective reduction in time-on-task for the young and older population during different tests.

Author Contributions

C.Y., C.L., J.Z., W.F. and J.J. conceived and designed the study. C.Y. contributed to organizing the database and drafting the manuscript. S.X., B.W., J.L. also carried out the literature searches. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Key Technology Research and Development Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (2019YFF0302100), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11772201, 119320131), the ‘Outstanding Young Scholar’ Program of Shanghai Municipal, and the Dawn Program of Shanghai Education Commission, China (19SG47).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Yogev-Seligmann, G.; Hausdorff, J.M.; Giladi, N. The role of executive function and attention in gait. Mov. Disord. 2008, 23, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Steiner, K.M.; Enders, A.; Thierve, W.; Batsikadze, G.; Timmann, D. Cerebellar tDCS does not improve learning in a complex whole body dynamic balance task in young healthy subjects. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0163598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Peterka, R.J.; Loughlin, P.J. Dynamic regulation of sensorimotor integration in human postural control. J. Neurophysiol. 2004, 91, 410–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Ku, Y.C.; Liu, M.E.; Tsai, Y.F.; Liu, W.C.; Lin, S.L.; Tsai, S.J. Associated factors for falls, recurrent falls, and injurious falls in aged men living in Taiwan veterans homes. Int. J. Gerontol. 2013, 7, 80–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Kuo, H.I.; Bikson, M.; Datta, A.; Minhas, P.; Paulus, W.; Kuo, M.F.; Nitsche, M.A. Comparing cortical plasticity induced by conventional and high-definition 4 × 1 ring tDCS: A neurophysiological study. Brain Stimul. 2013, 6, 644–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cantone, M.; Lanza, G.; Ranieri, F.; Opie, G.M.; Terranova, C. Editorial: Non-invasive brain stimulation in the study and modulation of metaplasticity in neurological disorders. Front. Neurol. 2021, 12, 721906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Angius, L.; Hopker, J.; Mauger, A.R. The ergogenic effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on exercise performance. Front. Physiol. 2017, 8, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Kaski, D.; Quadir, S.; Patel, M.; Yousif, N.; Bronstein, A.M. Enhanced locomotor adaptation aftereffect in the “broken escalator” phenomenon using anodal tDCS. J. Neurophysiol. 2012, 107, 2493–2505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Baharlouei, H.; Sadeghi-Demneh, E.; Mehravar, M.; Manzari, P.; Yazdi, M.J.S.; Joghataei, M.T.; Jaberzadeh, S. Comparison of transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex and cerebellum on static balance in older adults. Iran. Red Crescent Med. J. 2020, 22, e96259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Halakoo, S.; Ehsani, F.; Hosnian, M.; Zoghi, M.; Jaberzadeh, S. The comparative effects of unilateral and bilateral transcranial direct current stimulation on motor learning and motor performance: A systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2020, 72, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ehsani, F.; Samaei, A.; Zoghi, M.; Hedayati, R.; Jaberzadeh, S. The effects of cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation on static and dynamic postural stability in older individuals: A randomized double-blind sham-controlled study. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2017, 46, 2875–2884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Sumiyoshi, C.; Narita, Z.; Inagawa, T.; Yamada, Y.; Sumiyoshi, K.; Hasegawa, Y.; Shirama, A.; Hashimoto, R.; Sumiyoshi, T. Facilitative effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on semantic memory examined by text-mining analysis in patients with schizophrenia. Front. Neurol. 2021, 12, 583027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pisoni, A.; Mattavelli, G.; Papagno, C.; Rosanova, M.; Casali, A.G.; Romero Lauro, L.J. Cognitive enhancement induced by anodal tDCS drives circuit-specific cortical plasticity. Cereb. Cortex. 2018, 28, 1132–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Craig, C.E.; Doumas, M. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation shows minimal, measure-specific effects on dynamic postural control in young and older adults: A double blind, sham-controlled study. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0170331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Yuan, J.; Blumen, H.M.; Verghese, J.; Holtzer, R. Functional connectivity associated with gait velocity during walking and walking-while-talking in aging: A resting-state fMRI study. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2015, 36, 1484–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Holtzer, R.; Mahoney, J.R.; Izzetoglu, M.; Izzetoglu, K.; Verghese, J. FNIRS study of walking and walking while talking in young and old individuals. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2011, 66, 879–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Zheng, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yue, Z.; Wang, X.; Zhang, J.; Fang, J. Transcranial direct current stimulation modulates the brain’s response to foot stimuli under dual-task condition: A fMRI study in elderly adults. Neurosci. Lett. 2019, 23, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hafez, Y.M.; Fatemeh, E.; Maryam, Z.; Shapour, J. Multi-session anodal tDCS enhances the effects of postural training on balance and postural stability in older adults with high fall risk: Primary motor cortex versus cerebellar stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2018, 11, 1239–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rostami, M.; Mosallanezhad, Z.; Ansari, S.; Ehsani, F.; Jaberzadeh, S. Multi-session anodal transcranial direct current stimulation enhances lower extremity functional performance in healthy older adults. Exp. Brain Res. 2020, 238, 1925–1936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Xiao, S.; Wang, B.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, J.; Fu, W. Acute effects of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation on foot muscle strength, passive ankle kinesthesia, and static balance: A pilot study. Brain Sci. 2020, 10, 246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Zhou, J.; Lo, O.Y.; Lipsitz, L.A.; Zhang, J.; Fang, J.; Manor, B. Transcranial direct current stimulation enhances foot sole somatosensation when standing in older adults. Exp. Brain Res. 2018, 236, 795–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Devanathan, D.; Madhavan, S. Effects of anodal tDCS of the lower limb M1 on ankle reaction time in young adults. Exp. Brain Res. 2016, 234, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Dutta, A.; Chugh, S.; Banerjee, A.; Dutta, A. Point-of-care-testing of standing posture with Wii balance board and Microsoft Kinect during transcranial direct current stimulation: A feasibility study. Neuro Rehabil. 2014, 34, 789–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Inukai, Y.; Saito, K.; Sasaki, R.; Kotan, S.; Nakagawa, M.; Onishi, H. Influence of transcranial direct current stimulation to the cerebellum on standing posture control. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2016, 10, 325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Kaminski, E.; Steele, C.J.; Hoff, M.; Gundlach, C.; Rjosk, V.; Sehm, B.; Villringer, A.; Ragert, P. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over primary motor cortex leg area promotes dynamic balance task performance. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2016, 127, 2455–2462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kaminski, E.; Hoff, M.; Rjosk, V.; Steele, C.J.; Gundlach, C.; Sehm, B.; Villringer, A.; Ragert, P. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation does not facilitate dynamic balance task learning in healthy old adults. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2017, 11, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Katagiri, N.; Kawakami, S.; Okuyama, S.; Koseki, T.; Kudo, D.; Namba, S.; Tanabe, S.; Yamaguchi, T. Single-session cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation affects postural control learning and cerebellar brain inhibition in healthy individuals. Cerebellum 2020, 22, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lee, Y.S.; Yang, H.S.; Jeong, C.J.; Yoo, Y.D.; Jeong, S.H.; Jeon, O.K.; Park, H.Y.; Shin, H.W. The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on functional movement performance and balance of the lower extremities. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2012, 24, 1215–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Manor, B.; Zhou, J.; Jor’Dan, A.; Zhang, J.; Jing, F.; Pascual-Leone, A. Reduction of dual-task costs by noninvasive modulation of prefrontal activity in healthy elders. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2015, 28, 275–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Nomura, T.; Kirimoto, H. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the supplementary motor area improves anticipatory postural adjustments in older adults. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pineau, N.; Robin, A.; Bulteau, S.; Thomas-Ollivier, V.; Sauvaget, A.; Deschamps, T. Does the transcranial direct current stimulation improve dual-task postural control in young healthy adults? Cogn. Process. 2020, 22, 291–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Poortvliet, P.; Hsieh, B.; Cresswell, A.; Au, J.; Meinzer, M. Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation improves adaptive postural control. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2018, 129, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Saruco, E.; Rienzo, F.D.; Nunez-Nagy, S.; Rubio-Gonzalez, M.A.; Jackson, P.L.; Collet, C.; Saimpont, A.; Guillot, A. Anodal tDCS over the primary motor cortex improves motor imagery benefits on postural control: A pilot study. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Schneider, N.; Dagan, M.; Katz, R.; Thumm, P.C.; Hausdorff, J.M.; Giladi, N.; Manor, B.; Mirelman, A.; Hausdorff, J. Combining transcranial direct current stimulation with a motor-cognitive task: The impact on dual-task walking costs in older adults. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2021, 18, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Takeuchi, N.; Mori, T.; Suzukamo, Y.; Izumi, S.I. Modulation of excitability in the temporoparietal junction relieves virtual reality sickness. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2018, 21, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Yi, D.; Sung, Y.; Yim, J. Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on walking speed, functional strength, and balance in older adults: A randomized, double-blind controlled trial. Med. Sci. Monit. 2021, 27, e932623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Zhou, J.; Hao, Y.; Wang, Y.; Jor’dan, A.; Pascual-Leone, A.; Zhang, J.; Fang, J.; Manor, B. Transcranial direct current stimulation reduces the cost of performing a cognitive task on gait and postural control. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2014, 39, 1343–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhou, D.; Zhou, J.; Chen, H.; Manor, B.; Lin, J.; Zhang, J. Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on multiscale complexity of dual-task postural control in older adults. Exp. Brain Res. 2015, 233, 2401–2409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhou, J.; Manor, B.; Yu, W.; Lo, O.Y.; Gouskova, N.; Salvador, R.; Katz, R.; Cornejo-Thumm, P.; Brozgol, M.; Ruffini, G.; et al. Targeted tDCS mitigates dual-task costs to gait and balance in older adults. Ann. Neurol. 2021, 90, 428–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Springer, S.; Giladi, N.; Peretz, C.; Yogev, G.; Simon, E.S.; Hausdorff, J.M. Dual-tasking effects on gait variability: The role of aging, falls, and executive function. Mov. Disord. 2006, 21, 950–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Manor, B.; Zhou, J.; Harrison, R.; Lo, O.Y.; Travison, T.G.; Hausdorff, J.M.; Pascual-Leone, A.; Lipsitz, L. Transcranial direct current stimulation may improve cognitive-motor function in functionally limited older adults. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 2018, 32, 788–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Foerster, Á.; Melo, L.; Mello, M.; Castro, R.; Shirahige, L.; Rocha, S.; Monte-Silva, K. Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation (ctDCS) impairs balance control in healthy individuals. Cerebellum 2017, 16, 872–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Priori, A.; Ciocca, M.; Parazzini, M.; Vergari, M.; Ferrucci, R. Transcranial cerebellar direct current stimulation and transcutaneous spinal cord direct current stimulation as innovative tools for neuroscientists. J. Physiol. 2014, 592, 3345–3369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Rahmati, N.; Owens, C.B.; Bosman, L.W.J.; Spanke, J.K.; Lindeman, S.; Gong, W.; Potters, J.W.; Romano, V.; Voges, K.; Moscato, L. Cerebellar potentiation and learning a whisker-based object localization task with a time response window. J. Neurosci. 2014, 34, 1949–1962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Prentice, S.D.; Drew, T. Contributions of the reticulospinal system to the postural adjustments occurring during voluntary gait modifications. J. Neurophysiol. 2001, 85, 679–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tsubasa, M.; Takeshi, I.; Tomonari, H.; Maiko, S.; Ryo, T. Effects of combining online anodal transcranial direct current stimulation and gait training in stroke patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2021, 15, 782305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lanza, G.; Casabona, J.A.; Bellomo, M.; Cantone, M.; Fisicaro, F.; Bella, R.; Pennisi, G.; Bramanti, P.; Pennisi, M.; Bramanti, A. Update on intensive motor training in spinocerebellar ataxia: Time to move a step forward? J. Int. Med. Res. 2019, 48, 300060519854626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Cunnington, R.; Windischberger, C.; Deecke, L.; Moser, E. The preparation and execution of self-initiated and externally-triggered movement: A study of event-related fMRI. Neuroimage 2002, 15, 373–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Hupfeld, K.E.; Ketcham, C.J.; Schneider, H.D. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to the supplementary motor area (SMA) influences performance on motor tasks. Exp. Brain Res. 2017, 235, 851–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Brainsci 12 00912 g001 550
Figure 1. Information pathways between the cortex and the musculoskeletal system (A), and the mechanisms and functions of tDCS (B).
Figure 1. Information pathways between the cortex and the musculoskeletal system (A), and the mechanisms and functions of tDCS (B).
Brainsci 12 00912 g001
Brainsci 12 00912 g002 550
Figure 2. PRISMA summary of the study selection process.
Figure 2. PRISMA summary of the study selection process.
Brainsci 12 00912 g002
Brainsci 12 00912 g003 550
Figure 3. Stimulation duration and intensity in included studies [2,9,11,14,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39].
Figure 3. Stimulation duration and intensity in included studies [2,9,11,14,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39].
Brainsci 12 00912 g003
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.
ReferenceTrial DesignNumber, Gender, and Interval TimeAge (Years)Session and Electrode Size (cm2) (+/−)Anode/Cathode AreasProtocol
Baharlouei et al., 2020 [9] *Double-blind, cross(16) A-tDCS,
(16) sham, (16 M/16 F),
=7 days		67.59 ± 6.29One; 27/36M1/dlPFC; CA/right shoulderTo complete balance assessment under the single and dual-tasks condition
Craig et al., 2017 [14] #Double-blind, crossA-tDCS = sham = 32,
(16) young (6 M/10 F) and
(16) older (4 M/12 F),
3–7 days		Young (20.81 ± 2.07)
Older (72.44 ± 4.03)		One; 50/25M1/inion; CA/right BMTo complete a postural control task
Devanathan et al., 2016 [22] #Single-blind, crossA-tDCS = sham = 14, (6 M/8 F), 7–9 days20–32One; 12.5/35M1/SATo investigate the lower-limb simple reaction time and choice reaction time and to complete symbol digit modality test
Dutta et al., 2014 [23] #Single-blind, crossA-tDCS = sham = 5 (M),
=7 days		22–33One; 9/35M1 right leg area/left OBFTo complete low-cost point-of-care testing of standing posture
Ehsani et al., 2017 [11] *#Double-blind, parallel(14) A-tDCS (6 M/8 F),
(15) sham (7 M/8)		A-tDCS
(66.08 ± 6.33),
sham (65.5 ± 6.14)		One; 25CA/right armTo the assessment of balance and postural stability during standing on static and dynamic platforms
Hafez et al., 2018 [18] *#Double-blind, cross(11) Cerebellar a-tDCS (5 M/6 F),
(12) M1 a-tDCS (6 M/6 F),
(12) sham (7 M/5 F)		Cerebellar a-tDCS
(66.91 ± 4.39),
M1 a-tDCS
(64.17 ± 3.48),
sham (67.17 ± 4.91)		3 per week; 35Left M1/right SA; bilateral CA/right BMTo assess the effect of the postural training on balance and postural stability
Inukai et al., 2016 [24] *Single-blind, crossA-tDCS = sham = 16 (M), >3 days21.0 ± 2.9One; 35Inion/PCTo complete the standing posture control
Kaminski et al., 2016 [25] #Single-blind, parallel(12) A-tDCS,
(12) sham, (12 M/12 F)		26.08 ± 3.19One; 25/50Bilateral M1 leg area/right PCTo complete a complex whole-body dynamic balancing task
Kaminski et al., 2017 [26] #Cross-sectional, cross(15) A-tDCS,
(15) sham, (13 M/17 F)		A-tDCS (66.8 ± 5.63),
sham (68.6 ± 6)		One; 25/50M1 leg area/right OBFTo complete a dynamic balance task
Katagiri et al., 2020 [27] *Triple-blind, cross(12) A-tDCS (6 M/6 F),
(12) sham (6 M/6 F)		21.8 ± 1.7One; 35CA/SATo complete a visuomotor accuracy-tacking task combined with postural control training
Lee et al., 2012 [28] *#Single-blind, cross(15) A-tDCS (5 M/10 F),
(15) sham (4 M/11 F)		A-tDCS (21.8 ± 1.3),
sham (21.4 ± 1.5)		One; 35M1/SATo complete a dynamic posture control based on the Biodex Balance System SD
Manor et al., 2015 [29] *#Single-blind, crossA-tDCS = sham = 37, (12 M/25 F), =7 days61 ± 5One; 35Left PC/right SATo evaluate the postural control in single-task walking and dual-task walking
Nomura et al., 2018 [30] *#Double-blind, crossA-tDCS = sham = 12 (4 M/8 F), ≥14 days72.3 ± 5.3One; 9/35Left SMA/right OBFTo complete rapid shoulder flexion task with self-paced 10 times on a force plate
Pineau et al., 2020 [31] *Double-blind, cross(12) A-tDCS (9 M/3 F),
(12) sham (9 M/3 F)		21.3 ± 1.2One; 25Left dlPFC/right OBFStanding on a force platform and performing a simple and dual-task with eyes open and closed
Poortvliet et al., 2018 [32] *Double-blind, cross(14) A-tDCS (5 M/9),
(14) sham (7 M/7 F)		A-tDCS
(25.64 ± 3.82),
sham (25.14 ± 4.44)		One; 35/100CA/PCTo complete a postural control on a force platform
Rostami et al., 2020 [19] #Double-blind, cross(16) A-tDCS (8 M/8 F),
(16) sham (8 M/8 F)		60–915 consecutive days; 55.25Left M1/right SA(a) To perform Timed Up and Go Test, (b) to perform Modified Figure of Eight Walk Test, (c) to perform 30 s Chair Stand Test
Saruco et al., 2016 [33] *#Double-blind, crossA-tDCS = sham = 14 (8 M/6 F), =7 days25.78 ± 3.76One; 25/35Bilateral M1/PCTo complete a postural control task
Schneider et at., 2021 [34] *#Double-blind, crossA-tDCS = sham = 25 (5 M/20 F), ≥3 days73.9 ± 5.2One; πLeft dlPFC and M1/FC1, CP1, AF4, FC5To assess the dual-task walking costs in older population
Steiner et al., 2016 [2] #Double-blind, cross(10) A-tDCS (5 M/5 F),
(10) sham (5 M/5 F)		23.7 ± 2.4One; 35/25CA/bilateral BMTo perform a postural control task
Takeuchi et al., 2018 [35] *Double-blind, crossA-tDCS = sham = 20, (9 M/11 F), ≥7 days21.5 ± 1.1One; 25TC/CzStanding on the middle of the Wii Fit Balance Board to evaluate the postural stability
Xiao et al., 2020 [20] *Double-blind, crossA-tDCS = sham = 14 (M), =7 days22.8 ± 1.2One; 1M1/C3, C4, Fz, PzTo complete the assessment of passive ankle kinaesthesia, metatarsophalangeal joint flexor strength, toe flexor strength, and static balance ability
Yi et al., 2021 [36] *#Double-blind, cross(31) A-tDCS (10 M/21 F),
(26) sham (9 M/17 F)		A-tDCS
(78.13 ± 4.76),
sham (78.77 ± 4.80)		One; 24CzTo complete a 10 m walk, static and dynamic balance tests
Zhou et al., 2014 [37] *#Double-blind, crossA-tDCS = sham = 20, (10 M/10 F), =7 days22 ± 2One; 35Left dlPFC/right SATo complete gait assessments on 50 m indoor walkway and the postural control on a stational force platform with serial-subtraction cognitive task
Zhou et al., 2015 [38] * Double-blind, crossA-tDCS = sham = 20 (11 M/9 F), =7 days63 ± 3.6One; 35Left PC/right SAStanding postural control on the stationary force platform to complete single- and dual-task
Zhou et al., 2018 [21] *#Double-blind, crossA-tDCS = sham = 20,
=7 days		61 ± 4One; 35Left M1/right SATo complete the Timed Up and Go Test and assess the standing vibratory threshold of each foot
Zhou et al., 2021 [39] *#Double-blind, crossA-tDCS = sham = 57 (14 M/43 F), =3 days75 ± 5One; 3.14Left dlPFC and (or) SM1/FC1, CP1, AF4, FC5To complete walk and stand with and without concurrent tasks
Note: *, the study included static test; #, the study included dynamic test. Abbreviations: M/F = male/female; dlPFC = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; OBF = orbitofrontal cortex; SMA = supplementary motor area; TC = temporal cortex; M1 = primary motor cortex; CA = cerebellum area; PC = prefrontal cortex; SA = supraorbital area; BM = buccinator muscle.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yu, C.; Xiao, S.; Wang, B.; Luo, J.; Liu, C.; Zhou, J.; Fu, W.; Jin, J. Is Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation an Effective Ergogenic Technology in Lower Extremity Sensorimotor Control for Healthy Population? A Narrative Review. Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 912. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12070912

AMA Style

Yu C, Xiao S, Wang B, Luo J, Liu C, Zhou J, Fu W, Jin J. Is Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation an Effective Ergogenic Technology in Lower Extremity Sensorimotor Control for Healthy Population? A Narrative Review. Brain Sciences. 2022; 12(7):912. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12070912

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yu, Changxiao, Songlin Xiao, Baofeng Wang, Jiaxin Luo, Cuixian Liu, Junhong Zhou, Weijie Fu, and Jing Jin. 2022. "Is Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation an Effective Ergogenic Technology in Lower Extremity Sensorimotor Control for Healthy Population? A Narrative Review" Brain Sciences 12, no. 7: 912. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12070912

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop