• Sao Paulo Med J · Sep 2017

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    Non-invasive brain stimulation and computational models in post-stroke aphasic patients: single session of transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation. A randomized clinical trial.

    • Michele Devido Dos Santos, Vitor Breseghello Cavenaghi, Ana Paula Machado Goyano Mac-Kay, Vitor Serafim, Alexandre Venturi, Dennis Quangvinh Truong, Yu Huang, Paulo Sérgio Boggio, Felipe Fregni, Marcel Simis, Marom Bikson, and Rubens José Gagliardi.
    • PhD. Professor of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo (FCMSCSP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil.
    • Sao Paulo Med J. 2017 Sep 1; 135 (5): 475480475-480.

    Context And ObjectivePatients undergoing the same neuromodulation protocol may present different responses. Computational models may help in understanding such differences. The aims of this study were, firstly, to compare the performance of aphasic patients in naming tasks before and after one session of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and sham, and analyze the results between these neuromodulation techniques; and secondly, through computational model on the cortex and surrounding tissues, to assess current flow distribution and responses among patients who received tDCS and presented different levels of results from naming tasks.Design And SettingProspective, descriptive, qualitative and quantitative, double blind, randomized and placebo-controlled study conducted at Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo.MethodsPatients with aphasia received one session of tDCS, TMS or sham stimulation. The time taken to name pictures and the response time were evaluated before and after neuromodulation. Selected patients from the first intervention underwent a computational model stimulation procedure that simulated tDCS.ResultsThe results did not indicate any statistically significant differences from before to after the stimulation.The computational models showed different current flow distributions.ConclusionsThe present study did not show any statistically significant difference between tDCS, TMS and sham stimulation regarding naming tasks. The patients'responses to the computational model showed different patterns of current distribution.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.