Combining transcranial direct current stimulation with aerobic exercise to optimize cortical priming in stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aerobic exercise (AE) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are priming techniques that have been studied for their potential neuromodulatory effects on corticomotor excitability (CME); however, the synergistic effects of AE and tDCS are not explored in stroke. Here we investigated the synergistic effects of AE and tDCS on CME, intracortical and transcallosal inhibition, and motor control for the lower limb in stroke. Twenty-six stroke survivors participated in 3 sessions: tDCS, AE, and AE+tDCS. AE included moderate-intensity exercise and tDCS included 1 mA of anodal tDCS to the lower limb motor cortex with or without AE. Outcomes included measures of CME, short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI), ipsilateral silent period (iSP) (an index of transcallosal inhibition) for the tibialis anterior, and ankle reaction time. Ipsilesional CME significantly decreased for AE compared with AE+tDCS and tDCS. No differences were noted in SICI, iSP measures, or reaction time between all 3 sessions. Our findings suggest that a combination of exercise and tDCS, and tDCS demonstrate greater excitability of the ipsilesional hemisphere compared with exercise only; however, these effects were specific to the descending corticomotor pathways. No additive priming effects of exercise and tDCS over tDCS was observed. Novelty: An exercise and tDCS paradigm upregulated the descending motor pathways from the ipsilesional lower limb primary motor cortex compared with exercise. Exercise or tDCS administered alone or in combination did not affect intracortical or transcallosal inhibition or reaction time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".