Neural Regeneration Research ›› 2013, Vol. 8 ›› Issue (11): 1048-1054.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5374.2013.11.011

Previous Articles    

Is transcranial direct current stimulation a potential method for improving response inhibition?

Yong Hyun Kwon1, Jung Won Kwon2   

  1. 1 Department of Physical Therapy, Yeungnam College of Science & Technology, Daegu 705-703, Republic of Korea
    2 Department of Physical Therapy, College of Rehabilitation Science, Daegu University, Gyeongbuk 712-714, Republic of Korea
  • Received:2012-11-06 Revised:2013-03-06 Online:2013-04-15 Published:2013-04-15
  • Contact: Jung Won Kwon, M.S., P.T., Department of Rehabilitation Science, Graduate School, Daegu University, 15, Jilyang, Gyeongsan-si, Kyeongbuk, 712-714, Republic of Korea, kjwonpt@gmail.com
  • About author:Yong Hyun Kwon☆, Ph.D., P.T.
  • Supported by:

    韩国教育、科学技术部基础研究基金(No. 2012R1A1B4003477)

Abstract:

Inhibitory control of movement in motor learning requires the ability to suppress an inappropriate action, a skill needed to stop a planned or ongoing motor response in response to changes in a variety of environments. This study used a stop-signal task to determine whether transcranial direct-current stimulation over the pre-supplementary motor area alters the reaction time in motor inhibition. Forty healthy subjects were recruited for this study and were randomly assigned to either the transcranial direct-current stimulation condition or a sham-transcranial direct-current stimulation condition. All subjects consecutively performed the stop-signal task before, during, and after the delivery of anodal transcranial direct-current stimulation over the pre-supplementary motor area (pre-transcranial direct-current stimulation phase, transcranial direct-current stimulation phase, and post-transcranial direct-current stimulation phase). Compared to the sham condition, there were significant reductions in the stop-signal processing times during and after transcranial direct-current stimulation, and change times were significantly greater in the transcranial direct-current stimulation condition. There was no significant change in go processing-times during or after transcranial direct-current stimulation in either condition. Anodal transcranial direct-current stimulation was feasibly coupled to an interactive improvement in inhibitory control. This coupling led to a decrease in the stop-signal process time required for the appropriate responses between motor execution and inhibition. However, there was no transcranial direct-current stimulation effect on the no-signal reaction time during the stop-signal task. Transcranial direct-current stimulation can adjust certain behaviors, and it could be a useful clinical intervention for patients who have difficulties with response inhibition.

Key words: neural regeneration, eurorehabilitation, ranscranial direct current stimulation, re-supplementary motor area, top-signal task, esponse inhibition, inhibitory control, otor learning, ehavioral modification, rants-supported paper, neuroregeneration