EditorialResponse variability to non-invasive brain stimulation protocols
Section snippets
Acknowledgement
MRG is supported by an Alzheimer’s Australia Dementia Research Foundation (AADRF) Postdoctoral Fellowship.
Conflict of interest: None of the authors have potential conflicts of interest to be disclosed.
References (19)
- et al.
Modulation of corticospinal excitability by paired associative stimulation: reproducibility of effects and intraindividual reliability
Clin Neurophysiol
(2006) - et al.
Inter- and intra-individual variability following intermittent theta burst stimulation: implications for rehabilitation and recovery
Brain Stimul
(2014) - et al.
Inter-individual variability in response to non-invasive brain stimulation paradigms
Brain Stimul
(2014) - et al.
Intra-individual variability in the response to anodal transcranial direct current stimulation
Clin Neurophysiol
(2015) - et al.
Intra- and interindividual variability of motor responses to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation
Clin Neurophysiol
(2002) - et al.
Variability in response to transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex
Brain Stimul
(2014) - et al.
The role of interneuron networks in driving human motor cortical plasticity
Cereb Cortex
(2013) - et al.
Effect of physiological activity on an NMDA-dependent form of cortical plasticity in human
Cereb Cortex
(2008) - et al.
Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation over the human motor cortex on corticospinal and transcallosal excitability
Exp Brain Res
(2004)
Cited by (20)
Impact of prefrontal intermittent theta-burst stimulation on working memory and executive function in Parkinson's disease: A double-blind sham-controlled pilot study
2020, Brain ResearchCitation Excerpt :Given the importance of the DLPFC to a range of cognitive functions, with abnormalities within this region being implicated in a number of psychiatric and neurological disorders, there is a clear need to refine methods for modulating DLPFC function (Stuss and Levine, 2002; Tekin and Cummings, 2002). This is particularly important in light of the growing number of studies demonstrating considerable inter- and intra-subject variability in response to plasticity inducing paradigms (Hamada et al., 2013; Hordacre et al., 2015). Our use of a within-subjects crossover experimental design, which also controlled for any potential time-of-day effects by testing all participants in the early morning, is likely to have helped control for some variability.
Brain networks and their relevance for stroke rehabilitation
2019, Clinical NeurophysiologyCitation Excerpt :One of the main difficulties with NIBS consists in an individually variable behavioural response, which limits the overall effect size. One main reason for this variability is that the expected inhibition or excitation does in fact not occur in all patients and can be even be paradoxically inverted (Hamada et al., 2013; Wiethoff et al., 2014; Hordacre et al., 2015; Li et al., 2015; Nicolo et al., 2015a; Vallence et al., 2015). This applies also to changes in FC, such that disruptions of FC can occur instead of the expected enhancements or vice versa (Rizk et al., 2013; Nicolo et al., 2016).
Comparison of Neuroplastic Responses to Cathodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation in Subacute Stroke
2018, Archives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationMetaplasticity and non-invasive brain stimulation: the search for new biomarkers and directions for therapeutic neuromodulation
2022, Annals of Clinical and Experimental Neurology