AUTHOR=Giuffre Adrianna , Zewdie Ephrem , Wrightson James G. , Cole Lauran , Carlson Helen L. , Kuo Hsing-Ching , Babwani Ali , Kirton Adam 

TITLE=Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Enhanced Motor Learning on Robotic Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Motor Maps in Children

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

VOLUME=15

YEAR=2021

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2021.747840

DOI=10.3389/fnhum.2021.747840

ISSN=1662-5161

ABSTRACT=<p><bold>Introduction:</bold> Conventional transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) may improve motor learning in children. Mechanisms are not understood. Neuronavigated robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can produce individualised maps of primary motor cortex (M1) topography. We aimed to determine the effects of tDCS- and HD-tDCS-enhanced motor learning on motor maps.</p><p><bold>Methods:</bold> Typically developing children aged 12–18 years were randomised to right M1 anodal tDCS, HD-tDCS, or Sham during training of their left-hand on the Purdue Pegboard Task (PPT) over 5 days. Bilateral motor mapping was performed at baseline (pre), day 5 (post), and 6-weeks retention time (RT). Primary muscle was the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) with secondary muscles of abductor pollicis brevis (APB) and adductor digiti minimi (ADM). Primary mapping outcomes were volume (mm<sup>2</sup>/mV) and area (mm<sup>2</sup>). Secondary outcomes were centre of gravity (COG, mm) and hotspot magnitude (mV). Linear mixed-effects modelling was employed to investigate effects of <italic>time and stimulation type (tDCS, HD-tDCS, Sham)</italic> on motor map characteristics.</p><p><bold>Results:</bold> Twenty-four right-handed participants (median age 15.5 years, 52% female) completed the study with no serious adverse events or dropouts. Quality maps could not be obtained in two participants. No effect of time or group were observed on map area or volume. LFDI COG (mm) differed in the medial-lateral plane (x-axis) between tDCS and Sham (p = 0.038) from pre-to-post mapping sessions. Shifts in map COG were also observed for secondary left-hand muscles. Map metrics did not correlate with behavioural changes.</p><p><bold>Conclusion:</bold> Robotic TMS mapping can safely assess motor cortex neurophysiology in children undergoing motor learning and neuromodulation interventions. Large effects on map area and volume were not observed while changes in COG may occur. Larger controlled studies are required to understand the role of motor maps in interventional neuroplasticity in children.</p>