Effects of 400 Hz cortico-cerebellar transcranial pulsed current stimulation montages on brain excitability and hand dexterity: a double-blind single-session trial

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-06 · read from full text

This double-blind, randomized, counterbalanced crossover single-session trial compared two bifocal 400 Hz cortico-cerebellar transcranial pulsed current stimulation montages in 26 healthy young participants: anodal tPCS over M1 with cathodal tPCS over the cerebellum (Montage 1) versus cathodal tPCS over M1 with anodal tPCS over the cerebellum (Montage 2), with sham stimulation as control. Corticospinal excitability and corticocortical excitability were measured using TMS before and immediately after stimulation, and hand dexterity was assessed using the Purdue Pegboard Test. Montage 1 significantly increased corticospinal excitability and improved dexterity (faster PPT completion times), whereas Montage 2 significantly decreased corticospinal excitability and did not significantly change dexterity. The authors’ main caveat is that the study is limited to single-session effects in healthy participants rather than evaluating sustained or clinical rehabilitation outcomes. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

backend=biber, style=alphabetic, sorting=ynt ]biblatex Objectives: This study compares the effects of two bifocal single session 400 Hz pulsed current stimulation (tPCS) montages, anodal tPCS over M1 with cathodal tPCS over the CB (a-tPCS M1 –c-tPCS CB ; Montage 1) and cathodal tPCS over M1 with anodal tPCS over the CB (c-tPCS M1 –a-tPCS CB ; Montage 2), on corticospinal excitability (CSE), corticocortical excitability (CCE), and hand dexterity. The findings aim to inform neuromodulation strategies for motor rehabilitation. Methods: This double-blinded, randomized, counterbalanced crossover trial included 26 healthy young participants, each completing three sessions: Montage 1, Montage 2, and sham stimulation. Data were collected before and immediately after each stimulation session, with a minimum 48-hour washout period to prevent carryover effects. CSE and CCE were assessed using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), while hand dexterity was evaluated using the Purdue Pegboard Test (PPT). Results: A single session of Montage 1 (a-tPCS M1 –c-tPCS CB ) significantly enhanced CSE and improved motor performance, as demonstrated by faster completion times on the PPT (p 0.05). Conclusions: These findings suggest that Montage 1 enhances CSE and hand dexterity, supporting its potential application in motor rehabilitation. The primary mechanisms underlying this increase in CSE were enhanced facilitation and reduced inhibition. In contrast, Montage 2 decreased CSE but did not lead to significant changes in hand dexterity, emphasizing the need for further investigation into its neuromodulatory mechanisms and potential clinical applications. The reduction in facilitation and increased inhibition were the key factors contributing to the decrease in CSE.
Full text 7,488 characters · extracted from preprint-html · click to expand
Effects of 400 Hz cortico-cerebellar transcranial pulsed current stimulation montages on brain excitability and hand dexterity: a double-blind single-session trial | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 30 April 2025 V1 Latest version Share on Effects of 400 Hz cortico-cerebellar transcranial pulsed current stimulation montages on brain excitability and hand dexterity: a double-blind single-session trial Authors : Shapour Jaberzadeh 0000-0003-2957-4510 [email protected] , Renming Liu , Mona Malekahmad 0000-0003-1546-2817 , and Maryam Zoghi Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.174599868.88597001/v1 250 views 129 downloads Contents Abstract Supplementary Material Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract backend=biber, style=alphabetic, sorting=ynt ]biblatex Objectives: This study compares the effects of two bifocal single session 400 Hz pulsed current stimulation (tPCS) montages, anodal tPCS over M1 with cathodal tPCS over the CB (a-tPCS M1 –c-tPCS CB ; Montage 1) and cathodal tPCS over M1 with anodal tPCS over the CB (c-tPCS M1 –a-tPCS CB ; Montage 2), on corticospinal excitability (CSE), corticocortical excitability (CCE), and hand dexterity. The findings aim to inform neuromodulation strategies for motor rehabilitation. Methods This double-blinded, randomized, counterbalanced crossover trial included 26 healthy young participants, each completing three sessions: Montage 1, Montage 2, and sham stimulation. Data were collected before and immediately after each stimulation session, with a minimum 48-hour washout period to prevent carryover effects. CSE and CCE were assessed using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), while hand dexterity was evaluated using the Purdue Pegboard Test (PPT). Results A single session of Montage 1 (a-tPCS M1 –c-tPCS CB ) significantly enhanced CSE and improved motor performance, as demonstrated by faster completion times on the PPT (p 0.05). Conclusions These findings suggest that Montage 1 enhances CSE and hand dexterity, supporting its potential application in motor rehabilitation. The primary mechanisms underlying this increase in CSE were enhanced facilitation and reduced inhibition. In contrast, Montage 2 decreased CSE but did not lead to significant changes in hand dexterity, emphasizing the need for further investigation into its neuromodulatory mechanisms and potential clinical applications. The reduction in facilitation and increased inhibition were the key factors contributing to the decrease in CSE. Supplementary Material File (400 hz tpcs_anodal and cathodal m1-cb stimulation_final 28th march.docx) Download 1.37 MB Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 30 April 2025 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Authors Affiliations Shapour Jaberzadeh 0000-0003-2957-4510 [email protected] Monash University Department of Physiotherapy View all articles by this author Renming Liu Monash University Department of Physiotherapy View all articles by this author Mona Malekahmad 0000-0003-1546-2817 Monash University Department of Physiotherapy View all articles by this author Maryam Zoghi Federation University Australia - Gippsland Campus View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 250 views 129 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Shapour Jaberzadeh, Renming Liu, Mona Malekahmad, et al. Effects of 400 Hz cortico-cerebellar transcranial pulsed current stimulation montages on brain excitability and hand dexterity: a double-blind single-session trial. Authorea . 30 April 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.174599868.88597001/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.174599868.88597001/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9fe699332f1e0db4',t:'MTc3OTIzMDM3NA=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: preprint-html

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-06-13T06:42:57.164913+00:00