'I-wave' Recruitment Determines Response to tDCS in the Upper Limb, but Only So Far

Alana B McCambridge,James W Stinear,Winston D Byblow

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2015.07.027

Abstract:Background: Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) can facilitate primary motor cortex (M1), but the modulation of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) by a-tDCS varies between participants, and may depend on the balance between early versus late I-wave recruitment, as assessed by the difference in MEP latency between latero-medial and anterior-posterior cortical currents induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Objective: To date, the dependence of tDCS after-effects on I-wave recruitment has only been investigated in intrinsic hand muscles. In order to better understand the effects of tDCS across the upper limb, the present study examined I-wave recruitment and MEP modulation by a-tDCS or dual-hemisphere tDCS in muscles of the forearm (Extensor Carpi Radialis; ECR) and proximal upper limb (Biceps Brachii; BB). Methods: We conducted a randomized double-blind study with 18 healthy adults. Each received anodal, dual-hemisphere, or sham tDCS over M1 in separate sessions (tDCS, 1 mA for 15 min). Results: Linear regression analyzes showed a-tDCS modulated MEP size dependent on the latency difference in the ECR (P = 0.01) but not BB (P = 0.28). Individuals with small MEP latency differences showed the expected facilitation of ECR MEPs after a-tDCS, whereas those with large MEP latency differences had suppressed ECR MEPs after a-tDCS. This relationship was not present after dual-hemisphere or sham tDCS in either muscle (all P > 0.32). Conclusions: I-wave recruitment can predict the after-effects of a-tDCS in the distal but not proximal upper limb. These findings provide further insight into the variability of tDCS after-effects, and the relationship between I-wave recruitment and putative mechanisms of tDCS.