4.6 Article

Disrupting the Ipsilateral Motor Cortex Interferes with Training of a Complex Motor Task in Older Adults

Journal

CEREBRAL CORTEX
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages 1030-1036

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhs385

Keywords

aging; brain stimulation; motor cortex; neuroplasticity; tDCS

Categories

Funding

  1. DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) [A/07/95990]
  2. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Feodor-Lynen)
  3. Forschungsforderungsfonds Medizin of the University of Hamburg [NWF-04/07, NWF-11/09]
  4. German Research Foundation [SFB 936]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Performance of unimanual movements is associated with bihemispheric activity in the motor cortex in old adults. However, the causal functional role of the ipsilateral MC (iMC) for motor control is still not completely known. Here, the behavioral consequences of interference of the iMC during training of a complex motor skill were tested. Healthy old (5885 years) and young volunteers (2235 years) were tested in a double-blind, cross-over, sham-controlled design. Participants attended 2 different study arms with either cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (ctDCS) or sham concurrent with training. Motor performance was evaluated before, during, 90 min, and 24 h after training. During training, a reduced slope of performance with ctDCS relative to sham was observed in old compared with young (F 5.8, P 0.02), with a decrease of correctly rehearsed sequences, an effect that was evident even after 2 consecutive retraining periods without intervention. Furthermore, the older the subject, the more prominent was the disruptive effect of ctDCS (R-2 0.50, P 0.01). These data provide direct evidence for a causal functional link between the iMC and motor skill acquisition in old subjects pointing toward the concept that the recruitment of iMC in old is an adaptive process in response to age-related declines in motor functions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available