It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique consisting in the application of weak electric currents on the scalp. Although previous studies have demonstrated the clinical value of tDCS for modulating sensory, motor, and cognitive functions, there are still huge gaps in the knowledge of the underlying physiological mechanisms. To define the immediate impact as well as the after effects of tDCS on sensory processing, we first performed electrophysiological recordings in primary somatosensory cortex (S1) of alert mice during and after administration of S1-tDCS, and followed up with immunohistochemical analysis of the stimulated brain regions. During the application of cathodal and anodal transcranial currents we observed polarity-specific bidirectional changes in the N1 component of the sensory-evoked potentials (SEPs) and associated gamma oscillations. On the other hand, 20 min of cathodal stimulation produced significant after-effects including a decreased SEP amplitude for up to 30 min, a power reduction in the 20–80 Hz range and a decrease in gamma event related synchronization (ERS). In contrast, no significant changes in SEP amplitude or power analysis were observed after anodal stimulation except for a significant increase in gamma ERS after tDCS cessation. The polarity-specific differences of these after effects were corroborated by immunohistochemical analysis, which revealed an unbalance of GAD 65–67 immunoreactivity between the stimulated versus non-stimulated S1 region only after cathodal tDCS. These results highlight the differences between immediate and after effects of tDCS, as well as the asymmetric after effects induced by anodal and cathodal stimulation.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Pablo de Olavide University, Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Cell Biology, Seville, Spain (GRID:grid.15449.3d) (ISNI:0000 0001 2200 2355)
2 HM CINAC, Hospital Universitario HM Puerta del Sur, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain (GRID:grid.428486.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 5894 9315)
3 Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Instituto de Investigación E Innovación en Bioingeniería, Valencia, Spain (GRID:grid.157927.f) (ISNI:0000 0004 1770 5832)
4 Université de Mons, Laboratory of Electrophysiology, Mons, Belgium (GRID:grid.8364.9) (ISNI:0000 0001 2184 581X); Université Libre de Bruxelles, Laboratory of Neurophysiology and Movement Biomechanics, ULB Neuroscience Institute, Brussels, Belgium (GRID:grid.4989.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2348 0746)
5 Baylor College of Medicine, Department of Neuroscience, Houston, USA (GRID:grid.39382.33) (ISNI:0000 0001 2160 926X)