The Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Motor Performance in Healthy Adults

Sponsor
Ariel University (Other)
Overall Status
Completed
CT.gov ID
NCT04577768
Collaborator
Tel Aviv University (Other)
60
1
3
7
8.5

Study Details

Study Description

Brief Summary

to investigate the effect of stimulation intensity on motor performance in healthy adults.

Condition or Disease Intervention/Treatment Phase
  • Device: HD-tDCS 2 mA
  • Device: HD-tDCS 1.5 mA
  • Device: HD-tDCS sham
N/A

Detailed Description

60 healthy subjects were randomly allocated to one of three groups: (a) 20-min of High-Definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS) with an intensity of 2 mA (HD-tDCS 2 mA); (2) 20-min of HD-tDCS with an intensity of 1.5 mA (HD-tDCS 1.5 mA); and (3) 20-min of sham HD-tDCS (HD-tDCS sham). The stimulation was administered noninvasively using an M x N 9-channel high definition transcranial electrical current stimulator from Soterix Medical (New York, NY). The anodal stimulation targeted the right Brodmann area 4 (primary motor cortex) based on HD-Targets brain modelling software (Soterix Medical, New York, NY).

Tests: The non-dominant left arm was tested. The subjects performed a sequential point-to-point movement task on the graphics tablet. Initially, the participants were required to perform 3 sequences without errors to familiarize themselves with the setup, the task and the sequence. Then, they performed the pre-test which consisted of two blocks of 6 sequences, i.e. 12 sequences, with a 30 s break between blocks. Two min after starting the appropriate stimulation, they performed 2 blocks of 6 sequences (identical to the pre-test). After finishing the tDCS stimulation, the participants performed a post-test, which was also identical to the pre-test. The participants returned after 24 hours to perform a retention test, which was equivalent to the pre- and post-tests. Two outcome measures were used: movement time (s) and the reaction time (s) of the reaching movements.

Study Design

Study Type:
Interventional
Actual Enrollment :
60 participants
Allocation:
Randomized
Intervention Model:
Parallel Assignment
Intervention Model Description:
randomized controlled trial (RCT)randomized controlled trial (RCT)
Masking:
Single (Participant)
Primary Purpose:
Other
Official Title:
The Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Intensity on Motor Performance in Healthy Adults
Actual Study Start Date :
Jul 11, 2019
Actual Primary Completion Date :
Feb 10, 2020
Actual Study Completion Date :
Feb 10, 2020

Arms and Interventions

Arm Intervention/Treatment
Experimental: HD-tDCS 2 mA

Single session of 20-min HD-tDCS to the right primary motor cortex with an intensity of 2 mA. The session lasted approximately one hour. The participants returned after 24 hours to perform a retention test.

Device: HD-tDCS 2 mA
anodal high definition transcranial direct current stimulation of the right primary motor cortex with an intensity of 2 mA

Experimental: HD-tDCS 1.5 mA

Single session of 20-min HD-tDCS to the right primary motor cortex with an intensity of 1.5 mA. The session lasted approximately one hour. The participants returned after 24 hours to perform a retention test.

Device: HD-tDCS 1.5 mA
anodal high definition transcranial direct current stimulation of the right primary motor cortex with an intensity of 1.5 mA

Sham Comparator: Control

Single session of 20-min of sham HD-tDCS. The session lasted approximately one hour. The participants returned after 24 hours to perform a retention test.

Device: HD-tDCS sham
sham stimulation of the right primary motor cortex

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

  1. Change in movement time (s) from baseline to intervention [Baseline (immediately before stimulation), two minutes after starting the stimulation]

    Time from movement onset (first time the tangential velocity was greater than 5% of the peak tangential velocity) until the end of the movement (the last time the tangential velocity was greater than 5% of the peak tangential velocity). Improved motor performance was indicated by a shorter movement time.

  2. Change in movement time (s) from baseline to posttest [Baseline (immediately before stimulation), immediately post stimulation]

    Time from movement onset (first time the tangential velocity was greater than 5% of the peak tangential velocity) until the end of the movement (the last time the tangential velocity was greater than 5% of the peak tangential velocity). Improved motor performance was indicated by a shorter movement time.

  3. Change in movement time (s) from baseline to retention test [Baseline (immediately before stimulation), 24 hours following the stimulation]

    Time from movement onset (first time the tangential velocity was greater than 5% of the peak tangential velocity) until the end of the movement (the last time the tangential velocity was greater than 5% of the peak tangential velocity). Improved motor performance was indicated by a shorter movement time.

  4. Change in movement time (s) from intervention to posttest [Two minutes after starting the stimulation, immediately post stimulation]

    Time from movement onset (first time the tangential velocity was greater than 5% of the peak tangential velocity) until the end of the movement (the last time the tangential velocity was greater than 5% of the peak tangential velocity). Improved motor performance was indicated by a shorter movement time.

  5. Change in movement time (s) from intervention to retention test [Two minutes after starting the stimulation, 24 hours following the stimulation]

    Time from movement onset (first time the tangential velocity was greater than 5% of the peak tangential velocity) until the end of the movement (the last time the tangential velocity was greater than 5% of the peak tangential velocity). Improved motor performance was indicated by a shorter movement time.

  6. Change in movement time (s) from posttest to retention test [immediately post stimulation, 24 hours following the stimulation]

    Time from movement onset (first time the tangential velocity was greater than 5% of the peak tangential velocity) until the end of the movement (the last time the tangential velocity was greater than 5% of the peak tangential velocity). Improved motor performance was indicated by a shorter movement time.

  7. Change in reaction time (s) from baseline to intervention [Baseline (immediately before stimulation), two minutes after starting the stimulation]

    Time between when the target appeared in green (changed color from white to green), and movement onset. Improved motor performance was indicated by a shorter reaction time.

  8. Change in reaction time (s) from baseline to posttest [Baseline (immediately before stimulation), immediately post stimulation]

    Time between when the target appeared in green (changed color from white to green), and movement onset. Improved motor performance was indicated by a shorter reaction time.

  9. Change in reaction time (s) from baseline to retention test [Baseline (immediately before stimulation), 24 hours following the stimulation]

    Time between when the target appeared in green (changed color from white to green), and movement onset. Improved motor performance was indicated by a shorter reaction time.

  10. Change in reaction time (s) from intervention to posttest [Two minutes after starting the stimulation, immediately post stimulation]

    Time between when the target appeared in green (changed color from white to green), and movement onset. Improved motor performance was indicated by a shorter reaction time.

  11. Change in reaction time (s) from intervention to retention test [Two minutes after starting the stimulation, 24 hours following the stimulation]

    Time between when the target appeared in green (changed color from white to green), and movement onset. Improved motor performance was indicated by a shorter reaction time.

  12. Change in reaction time (s) from posttest to retention test [immediately post stimulation, 24 hours following the stimulation]

    Time between when the target appeared in green (changed color from white to green), and movement onset. Improved motor performance was indicated by a shorter reaction time.

Eligibility Criteria

Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study:
20 Years to 35 Years
Sexes Eligible for Study:
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:
Yes
Inclusion Criteria:
  • aged between 20 and 35

  • right-hand dominant

  • healthy according to self report

Exclusion Criteria:
  • taking psychiatric medications

  • a history of drug abuse or dependence

  • psychiatric or neurological disorder

  • a history of seizures

  • metal implants in their head

  • musculoskeletal deficits interfering with task performance (proper reaching performance in sitting)

Contacts and Locations

Locations

Site City State Country Postal Code
1 Ariel University Ariel Israel

Sponsors and Collaborators

  • Ariel University
  • Tel Aviv University

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Silvi Frenkel-Toledo, Ariel University

Study Documents (Full-Text)

None provided.

More Information

Publications

None provided.
Responsible Party:
Ariel University
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT04577768
Other Study ID Numbers:
  • AU-HEA-SFT-20190326
First Posted:
Oct 8, 2020
Last Update Posted:
Oct 8, 2020
Last Verified:
Sep 1, 2020
Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement:
No
Plan to Share IPD:
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product:
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product:
No
Keywords provided by Ariel University

Study Results

No Results Posted as of Oct 8, 2020