Abstract
Background: Walking in the “real world” involves motor and cognitive processes. In relation to this, declines in both motor function and cognition contribute to age-related gait dysfunction. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and treadmill walking (STW) have potential to improve gait, particularly during dual-task walking (DTW); walking whilst performing a cognitive task. Our aims were to analyze effects of combined anodal tDCS + STW intervention on cortical activity and gait during DTW.
Methods: Twenty-three young adults (YA) and 21 older adults (OA) were randomly allocated to active or sham tDCS stimulation groups. Participants performed 5-min of mixed treadmill walking (alternating 30 s bouts of STW and DTW) before and after a 20-min intervention of active or sham tDCS + STW. Anodal electrodes were placed over the left prefrontal cortex (PFC) and the vertex (Cz) using 9 cm2 electrodes at 0.6 mA. Cortical activity of the PFC, primary motor cortex (M1), premotor cortex (PMC), and supplementary motor area (SMA) bilaterally were recorded using a functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) system. Oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO2) levels were analyzed as indicators of cortical activity. An accelerometer measured gait parameters. We calculated the difference between DTW and STW for HbO2 and gait parameters. We applied linear mixed effects models which included age group (YA vs. OA), stimulation condition (sham vs. active), and time (pre- vs. post-intervention) as fixed effects. Treadmill belt speed was a covariate. Partial correlation tests were also performed.
Results: A main effect of age group was observed. OA displayed higher activity bilaterally in the PFC and M1, unilaterally in the right PMC and higher gait variability than YA. M1 activity decreased in both YA and OA following active tDCS + STW. There was no overall effect of tDCS + STW on PFC activity or gait parameters. However, negative correlations were observed between changes in left PFC and stride length variability following active tDCS + STW intervention.
Conclusion: Increased activity in multiple cortical areas during DTW in OA may act as a compensatory mechanism. Reduction in M1 activity following active tDCS + STW with no observed gait changes suggests improved neural efficiency.
Introduction
Walking ability is a sensitive indicator of health status in older adults (OA) (Studenski et al., 2011; ). Gait dysfunction is common in OA which decreases independence, heightens falls risk (; ; Verghese et al., 2009), increases health care costs (), and results in an overall decreased quality of life (). Age-related gait changes linked with increased falls risk include reduced gait speed and step length, and increased gait variability in comparison to young adults (YA) (; Verghese et al., 2009; ; ). These gait parameters have also been associated with deficits in cognitive parameters such as executive function and attention in OA and are a potential indicator of cognitive impairment (Yogev-Seligmann et al., 2008; ). The interplay between cognition and gait is frequently assessed in the laboratory with a dual-task walking (DTW) paradigm: walking whilst simultaneously conducting a cognitive task. DTW attempts to replicate features of “real world” walking when a person walks whilst performing additional tasks. Age-related gait impairments have been reported to be more pronounced during DTW, referred to as cognitive-motor interference [i.e., difference between DTW and single-task walking (STW)] (; ). These findings emphasize the need to investigate strategies for gait rehabilitation in OA during DTW.
Physical training may improve mobility, cognition and promote functional and structural brain adaptations (Steinberg et al., 2018; ). Additional interventions, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), may also enhance mobility and cognition (; ; Zhou et al., 2014; ; ; Steinberg et al., 2018). tDCS is a low-cost method of non-invasive brain stimulation involving the application of low-amplitude currents over cortical regions of interest to modulate cortical excitability, but insufficient to generate action potentials (; ). Briefly, a direct current device delivers low current (0.5–2 mA) through anodal (positive) and cathodal (negative) electrodes placed at specific locations on the scalp (; ; ). Anodal tDCS results in depolarization and cathodal tDCS in hyperpolarization of resting membrane potential, leading to increased neuronal excitability or reduced neuronal excitability, respectively (; ; ). Previous studies have shown that anodal tDCS causes enhancement of neural activity, which can result in improvement of motor control and cognitive function (; ; ; ; ). Since physical training and anodal tDCS can each independently improve gait and cognitive performance, applying both simultaneously may enhance outcomes and prolong effects (; Steinberg et al., 2018). Studies have demonstrated that acute physical training combined with anodal tDCS beneficially modifies gait parameters and cognition (,; ; ; ). However, recent reviews of the literature (; ) on the efficacy of combining physical training with anodal tDCS on gait were inconclusive. For example, a total of seven studies (, ; ; ; ; Seo et al., 2017; Yotnuengnit et al., 2018) did not observe an improvement in walking performance after physical training combined with tDCS in patients with neurological disorders. The interpretation of such studies is limited by the fact that most previous studies applied tDCS over a single cortical area, typically either over the primary motor cortex (M1) or prefrontal cortex (PFC) (; ). The efficacy of tDCS combined with physical training in gait rehabilitation therefore remains uncertain.
M1 and PFC play an important and specific role during walking. M1 is involved in the execution of movements (control of lower limb and trunk muscles) related to walking (, ), whilst the PFC has a modulatory function in the allocation of attention during gait (). In addition, M1 is the main contributor to the direct locomotor pathway, which is activated in the absence of pathologies or challenging situations (; ). PFC is involved in the indirect locomotor pathway, which contributes more to gait control when the direct locomotor pathway is impaired, even during single-task walking (STW) (; ). Studies assessing cortical activity using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) during different walking tasks provide evidence for the different roles of M1 and PFC. Previous studies have demonstrated that OA have higher prefrontal cortex (PFC) activity during STW compared to YA (; Vitorio et al., 2017; Stuart et al., 2018; ; ), which is increased during DTW (; Vitorio et al., 2017; Stuart et al., 2018; ; ). The increased PFC activity is theorized to be a cognitive compensation for age-related deficits (; ; ), recruiting additional cognitive resources, such as increased attention, during walking (). Previous studies have indicated that increased M1 activity improves gait parameters () and increased PFC activity improves cognitive function (Yanagisawa et al., 2010; ; ). Thus, M1 stimulation may facilitate the movement execution and PFC stimulation may promote greater cognitive resources for the task, which suggests that stimulation of both cortical areas may improve DTW performance.
In this study, we aimed to analyze the effect of a combined anodal tDCS (M1 and PFC stimulation) and treadmill walking intervention (tDCS + STW) on cortical activity (as measured by fNIRS) and gait parameters during DTW in YA and OA. As anodal tDCS is considered to increase excitability and facilitate the functional activation of M1 and PFC (), we hypothesized that activity in these areas would increase in both age groups during DTW following the anodal tDCS + STW intervention, but no such increases would occur in the control groups (following sham tDCS + STW). We also expected treadmill gait parameters during DTW in both OA and YA to improve (e.g., reduced gait variability) following the active tDCS + STW intervention but not in the control groups (following sham tDCS + STW), with greater benefits in OA, due to this group having greater gait impairments (; Yogev-Seligmann et al., 2008; ).
Materials and Methods
This study used a double-blinded, randomized, and sham-controlled design. Ethical approval was granted by Newcastle University (ref. 6770/2018). We performed a power analysis, using data from a previous study investigating age-related differences in cortical activity, to determine the sample size of 7 necessary to detect a difference in HbO2 of 12% with a standard deviation of 7% and power of 0.8 (Vitorio et al., 2018). An increase of over 38% in HbO2 levels in the PFC has previously been reported following the application of single anodal tDCS to the PFC (). A minimum sample size of 7 per group is therefore sufficient to detect anticipated changes in HbO2 following administration of tDCS.
Forty-four participants were recruited and assigned into two groups: healthy young adults (YA; n = 23) and healthy older adults (OA; n = 21). Prior to the experiment, OA and YA were randomly allocated to active tDCS intervention (active-OA and active-YA) or sham tDCS intervention (sham-OA and sham-YA) (Figure 1). The inclusion criteria were YA aged between 18–40 years and OA aged ≥60 years, able to walk unaided for 5-min and good English language comprehension. Exclusion criteria included cognitive impairment [Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score ≤ 21], psychiatric co-morbidities, history of drug or alcohol abuse, chronic musculoskeletal, cardiovascular or respiratory disease affecting gait, implanted metal objects, and a history of seizures or any contraindication to tDCS. This study was conducted according to the declaration of Helsinki and all participants signed an informed consent form prior to testing.
FIGURE 1
Study Design
Demographic characteristics and cognitive status were obtained for all participants at the beginning of the experiment. The MoCA was used to determine global cognitive function (). Fear of falling was assessed with the Falls Efficacy Scale - International (FES-I) score (Yardley et al., 2005). Participants also reported how many hours a week they exercised.
Participants performed two bouts of 5-min mixed treadmill walking before and after 20-min of tDCS + STW at self-selected speeds. We used the block design, adhering to previous recommendations for fNIRS studies (; Vitorio et al., 2017). The 5-min mixed treadmill walking consisted of 10 trials of alternating 30 s STW and 30 s DTW bouts. The self-selected treadmill speed was maintained during the entire experiment and was determined by increasing belt speed until it was faster than the participants’ preferred speed, then reducing belt speed until preferred speed was achieved (Vitorio et al., 2018). This was conducted whilst participants were blinded to their walking speed. DTW consisted of a digit vigilance task, which required participants to walk while listening to random numbers (from 1 to 9) played over a loudspeaker for 30 s. The intervals between numbers were randomized to prevent gait synchronization. Following cessation of the numbers, participants stated how many odd or even numbers they had heard. Speech was minimized to prevent motion artifact contaminating the fNIRS signals. Immediately before walking commenced, participants were given the class of numbers (odd or even) they were required to count. The performance in the cognitive digit vigilance task was quantified by the absolute error (difference between the correct answer and the response given by the participant) and expressed in percentage (0% indicates that there is no error).
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Treadmill Walking Intervention
The experimental setup is summarized in Figure 2. Participants performed a total of 20-min of single-task treadmill walking at self-selected speed combined with anodal tDCS. Only the experimenter that applied the tDCS was aware of the intervention allocation of the individual (active or sham) to ensure both the participant and other experimenters were blinded. The active group received anodal tDCS over Cz (i.e., the vertex, which overlies M1) and the left PFC, between AF3 to Fp1 (9 cm anterior and 3 cm lateral to Cz), on the 10/20 EEG system, using a 3 × 3 cm2 electrode. The cathode (5 × 5 cm2) was positioned over the right mastoid, contralateral to the left PFC (Figure 2A). We selected the left PFC because tDCS applied to this area acutely was observed to improve both cognitive (; ; Vanderhasselt et al., 2013) and motor functions (Wrightson et al., 2015; ; ). tDCS was applied using a battery-driven constant current stimulator (HDCStim, Newronika, Italy) with conductive paste to affix the electrodes to the scalp. tDCS was delivered at 0.6 mA for 20-min with a ramp-up of 10 s. We chose 0.6 mA because we used small tDCS electrodes (area 9 cm2). Thus, we decreased the intensity of the current to ensure that the current density (current strength divided by electrode size) was maintained at 0.067 mA/cm2, within the recommended safety limits (0.029–0.08 mA/cm2) (). In the sham stimulation, the tDCS montage was the same, but the current ramped down 10 s after the beginning of stimulation. This procedure provided a similar sensation of active stimulation but did not induce neurophysiological changes (). At the end of the experiment, the participants completed an adverse events questionnaire to monitor differences in the perception of the stimulation experienced during active and sham tDCS (). The rating of perceived exertion scale (Borg scale) was applied at the beginning, middle and end of the intervention period (0, 10, and 20 min, respectively) to measure the participant’s effort and exertion.
FIGURE 2
Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Recordings and Processing
After tDCS positioning, a headcap with fNIRS optodes was positioned on the participants’ head. Both the fNIRS system and tDCS electrodes remained in place during the entire experimental protocol. We did not remove the fNIRS system during the intervention to ensure the consistency in the brain regions sampled pre- and post-intervention. Changes in oxygenated (HbO2) and deoxygenated hemoglobin (HHb) were recorded with a sampling frequency of 22.2 Hz using a tethered fNIRS optical imaging system (LABNIRS; Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan), with continuous wave laser diodes with wavelengths of 780, 805, 830 nm. The optical density of the raw signal was converted into HbO2 and HHb using a modified Beer-Lambert Law. A 45-channel arrangement with 24 fiber optic optodes, consisting of 12 transmitters and 12 detectors, covered both hemispheres of the frontal lobe (Figures 2B–C). Emitter-detector distance was 30 mm. Participants wore a custom-made whole-head optode holder marked according to the international 10–20 EEG System (Figure 2B). A digitizer (FASTRAK, Polhemus, VT, United States) was used to register 3-dimensional coordinates of optodes and stimulation sites relative to landmarks (nasion, Cz, left and right pre-auricular points). The spatial registration was calculated using the free software package NIRS-SPM (Ye et al., 2009), which allows registration of fNIRS channel data onto the Montreal Neurological Institute standard space (Tsuzuki and Dan, 2014; Figure 2C). The brain regions of interest (ROI) measured included PFC (Brodmann areas 8, 9, 10, 45, and 46), PMC (Brodmann area 6, lateral), SMA (Brodmann area 6, medial), and M1 (Brodmann area 4) (Vitorio et al., 2018).
Processing of fNIRS followed previous recommendations (Vitorio et al., 2017). We selected the HbO2 concentration as it is the most sensitive indicator of walking-related changes in cortical activity (Suzuki et al., 2004; ). The fNIRS data were pre-processed using NIRS-SPM open source toolbox for MATLAB (Ye et al., 2009). A low-pass filter (cut-off 0.14 Hz) based on a canonical hemodynamic response function was used to reduce the high-frequency noise (). A wavelet-minimum description length detrending algorithm was applied to decompose NIRS measurements into global trends, hemodynamic signals, and uncorrelated noise components as distinct scales (). Pre-processed data were exported to MATLAB (MATLAB and Statistics Toolbox Release 2015a, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, United States), in which further data processing was performed using customized scripts. Firstly, HbO2 concentration signals were averaged per ROI (right and left PFC, PMC, SMA, and M1) and normalized by dividing them by corresponding signal amplitude (from minimum to maximum) value during the mixed treadmill walking (; Vitorio et al., 2018; , ). Then, data were divided into two phases (Figure 2F): (i) a period running from 5 to 25 s of STW and (ii) a period running from 5 to 25 s of DTW. The initial 5 s and final 5 s of the tasks were removed due to the hemodynamic response phase lag (Vitorio et al., 2018). Subsequently, the normalized HbO2 concentration was averaged (in time) over the STW (20 s) and DTW periods (20 s) for each ROI and each trial. Normalized HbO2 concentration from STW was subtracted from the DTW to evaluate the relative change in HbO2 concentration (ΔDTW–STW) (; ; Vitorio et al., 2018; ; , ). The fNIRS outcome measure, ΔHbO2, therefore represents the change in cortical activity during DTW compared to STW.
Gait Parameters Recordings and Processing
A tri-axial accelerometer (Axivity Ltd., Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom), sampling at 100 Hz, positioned over the 5th lumbar vertebra, recorded trunk acceleration during the 5-min mixed treadmill walking before and after the intervention (Figure 2D). Gait parameters were extracted from the accelerometry data using previously validated algorithms (). Briefly, acceleration data were transformed to a horizontal-vertical coordinate system () and filtered with a fourth-order Butterworth filter (20 Hz) (Zijlstra and Hof, 2003; ). Initial and final contact events within the gait cycle were estimated with a continuous wavelet transform (CWT) of the vertical acceleration which was first integrated and then differentiated using a Gaussian CWT. The initial and final contact events were detected as the local minima and maxima of the CWT, respectively (; Figure 2G). Both right and left heel strike were identified. Initial contact and final contact detection times were used to estimate the step, stance time (). Step/stride length was determined from the initial contact events through application of the inverted pendulum model described by Zijlstra and Hof (2003). We chose gait parameters that have been previously related to falls, such as the stance time ratio (Verghese et al., 2009), cadence (), stride time variability (), and stride length variability (Verghese et al., 2009). We calculated the gait variability using the standard deviation from all steps (). Stance time ratio, also referred to as duty factor, is the ratio between the foot contact time and the stride time (Voigt et al., 2019). This parameter has important links to motor control system dynamics as well as to muscle metabolic energy expenditure (). Gait speed was a covariate because we used a fixed treadmill speed for each individual. The difference between DTW and STW (ΔDTW–STW) for these selected gait parameters, which represents the cognitive-motor interference, was also calculated ().
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (v22, IBM, Armonk, NY, United States) for Windows. The level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Characterization data were analyzed using two-way ANOVAs with age group (YA and OA) and stimulation condition (active vs. sham tDCS) as independent variables. Chi-square test was applied to compare difference in sex between age groups or stimulation condition. The Borg scale was analyzed using linear mixed effects models with age group, stimulation condition, intervention duration (0, 10, and 20 min), and interactions as fixed effects. Differences in DTW related changes in gait, HbO2 per ROI, and cognitive task were analyzed using linear mixed effects models. Fixed effects included were age group, stimulation condition, and time (pre- vs. post-intervention) with treadmill speed as a covariate. Post hoc tests with Bonferroni adjustment were used to localize the differences in significant main effects or interactions. Partial correlation tests were calculated separately for active and sham groups to explore the associations between gait parameters and cortical activity in response to intervention (ΔPOST–PRE), while controlling for treadmill velocity and age. The partial eta-squared (η2p: 0.01 = small, 0.06 = moderate, 0.14 = large) and Cohen’s d (d: 0.2 = small, 0.5 = moderate, 0.8 = large) statistic provided estimates of the effect sizes.
Results
The characteristics of the participants are summarized in Table 1. The two-way ANOVA revealed a main effect of age group for body mass [F(1,38) = 27.37, p = 0.045, η2p = 0.113], preferred treadmill speed [F(1,38) = 27.37, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.419] and the Adverse Effects of tDCS Questionnaire [F(1,38) = 16.05, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.297]. OA had higher body mass compared to YA (77.0 ± 4.4 kg; 64.3 ± 4.2 kg); OA walked at a slower treadmill speed than YA (2.71 ± 0.17 ms–2; 3.87 ± 0.15 ms–2), OA showed lower scores (fewer adverse effects) on the Adverse Effects of tDCS Questionnaire than YA (10.58 ± 0.55; 13.56 ± 0.50). There was no significant effect of stimulation condition.
TABLE 1
| Older adults | Young adults | |||
| Active (n = 10) | Sham (n = 9) | Active (n = 12) | Sham (n = 11) | |
| Age (years)* | 66.0 ± 6.3 | 69.9 ± 4.8 | 19.3 ± 1.1 | 20.9 ± 4.2 |
| Male/Female | 5/5 | 2/7 | 1/11 | 2/9 |
| Height (cm) | 171.6 ± 10.7 | 167.7 ± 11.3 | 167.6 ± 7.7 | 174.4 ± 9.7 |
| Body mass (kg)* | 71.0 ± 9.4 | 73.6 ± 8.3 | 62.8 ± 10.0 | 65.89 ± 11.9 |
| Education (years) | 16.9 ± 2.9 | 15.7 ± 4.0 | 15.2 ± 1.0 | 16.3 ± 2.4 |
| MoCA (0–30) | 28.2 ± 1.1 | 28.3 ± 1.6 | 28.4 ± 2.1 | 28.8 ± 1.4 |
| FES-I (16–64) | 17.6 ± 1.2 | 18.1 ± 0.9 | 18.5 ± 2.1 | 18.6 ± 3.0 |
| Exercise (hours/week) | 8.2 ± 5.6 | 11.2 ± 5.9 | 7.3 ± 4.0 | 6.3 ± 6.5 |
| Treadmill Speed (Km/h)* | 2.9 ± 0.8 | 2.5 ± 1.0 | 4.0 ± 0.4 | 3.7 ± 0.7 |
| AE Questionnaire (10–40)* | 10.5 ± 0.7 | 10.7 ± 1.3 | 13.4 ± 1.7 | 13.7 ± 4.3 |
Participant characteristics (Mean ± SD).
MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; FES-I, Falls Efficacy Scale International; AE Questionnaire, Adverse Events Questionnaire. *: Significant effect of Age Group p < 0.05.
The linear mixed effects models showed a main effect of intervention duration (0, 10, and 20 min) for the Borg scale [F(2,108) = 10.398, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.161] (Figure 3). The perceived exertion increased throughout the tDCS + STW intervention with the Borg scale score being higher in the 10th min compared to 0 min (p = 0.015, d = 0.728) and in the 20th min compared to 0 min (p < 0.001, d = 1.007) and 10th min (p = 0.039, d = 0.409).
FIGURE 3
Linear mixed effects models did not show main effects of age group, stimulation condition, and time, in addition to interaction effects for the performance (% of error) in the cognitive digit vigilance task during DTW (Table 2).
TABLE 2
| Older adults | Young adults | |||||||
| Variables | Active tDCS (n = 10) | Sham tDCS (n = 8) | Active tDCS (n = 12) | Sham tDCS (n = 11) | ||||
| Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | |
| Cadence (step/min) | −0.08 ± 3.24 | 1.64 ± 1.68 | −0.30 ± 3.50 | 0.92 ± 1.16 | −0.01 ± 2.42 | 0.13 ± 0.85 | 0.22 ± 0.88 | 0.64 ± 1.00 |
| Stance time ratioa | −0.002 ± 0.004 | 0.004 ± 0.009 | −0.006 ± 0.012 | 0.000 ± 0.007 | −0.001 ± 0.007 | −0.002 ± 0.003 | 0.001 ± 0.003 | 0.000 ± 0.002 |
| Stride time variability (s) | 0.024 ± 0.034 | −0.010 ± 0.020 | 0.050 ± 0.048 | 0.010 ± 0.040 | −0.005 ± 0.064 | −0.003 ± 0.004 | 0.001 ± 0.007 | 0.001 ± 0.018 |
| Stride length variability (s) | −0.011 ± 0.012 | 0.005 ± 0.021 | 0.004 ± 0.021 | 0.007 ± 0.018 | −0.023 ± 0.025 | −0.013 ± 0.019 | −0.012 ± 0.014 | −0.012 ± 0.016 |
| Cognitive task errors (%)b | 3.53 ± 4.07 | 3.98 ± 5.78 | 4.32 ± 5.10 | 3.68 ± 7.35 | 4.15 ± 4.69 | 1.05 ± 1.60 | 4.58 ± 7.25 | 2.93 ± 5.51 |
Means and standard deviation of dual task interference on gait parameters (ΔDTW–STW) and cognitive task error for pre- and post-intervention.
aRatio between the foot contact time and the stride time. bDigit vigilance task.
Data from some participants were excluded from analysis because of excessive fNIRS noise across all channels (one from sham-OA group), or because of problems with the accelerometer recordings (one from sham-OA group and one from sham-YA group). Hence, fNIRS analysis was based on n = 10 for the active-OA, n = 8 for the sham-OA, n = 12 for the active-YA, and n = 11 for the sham-YA. The accelerometer analysis was based on n = 10 for the active-OA, n = 8 for the sham-OA, n = 12 for the active-YA, and n = 10 for the sham-YA.
Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined With Treadmill Walking on ΔHbO2 Levels
The linear mixed effects models showed a main effect of age group, with OA presenting higher ΔHbO2 in the left PFC [F(1,74) = 5.348, p = 0.024, η2p = 0.067], right PFC [F(1,74) = 11.859, p = 0.001, η2p = 0.138], right PMC [F(1,74) = 6.601, p = 0.012, η2p = 0.082], left M1 [F(1,74) = 4.579, p = 0.036, η2p = 0.058], and right M1 [F(1,74) = 4.084, p = 0.047, η2p = 0.052] compared to YA (Figure 4). In addition, an interaction effect between stimulation condition and time was found for ΔHbO2 in the left M1 [F(1,74) = 4.795, p = 0.032, η2p = 0.061] (Figure 4). Post hoc test showed that both OA and YA receiving active tDCS decreased left M1 ΔHbO2 after the tDCS + STW intervention compared to pre-intervention (p = 0.040, d = 0.615). No other main effects of age group, stimulation condition or time, or interaction effects, were found.
FIGURE 4
Effect of Age, Time, and Intervention on Dual-Task-Related Gait Changes
Gait parameters are presented in Table 2 and the summary of effects are presented in Table 3. A main effect of age group was observed for Δstride time variability [F(1,72) = 6.011, p = 0.017, η2p = 0.077] and Δstride length variability [F(1,72) = 14.572, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.168], with OAs presenting higher Δ values than YAs. There was a main effect of time for Δstride time variability [F(1,72) = 4.985, p = 0.029, η2p = 0.065], showing that the difference in stride time variability between DTW and STW (delta value) decreased in participants post-intervention compared to pre-intervention. An interaction between age group and time was found for Δstance time ratio [F(1,72) = 4.798, p = 0.032, η2p = 0.062] and Δstride time variability [F(1,72) = 5.928, p = 0.017, η2p = 0.076]. Post hoc tests showed higher Δstride time variability in pre-intervention for OA compared to YA (p = 0.001, d = 0.855). In addition, OA increased Δstance time ratio (p = 0.013, d = 0.645) and decreased Δstride time variability (p = 0.002, d = 1.001) in post-intervention compared to pre-intervention, while no change was observed for YA. No other main effects of age, stimulation condition or time, or interaction effects, were found.
TABLE 3
| Gait parameters | Main effect | Interactions | |||
| Age groupc | Intervention groupd | Timee | Age × Time | Intervention × Time | |
| Cadence | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Stance time ratioa | ns | ns | ns | OA: Pre < Post | ns |
| Stride time variability | ns | ns | Pre > Post | Pre: OA > YA | ns |
| OA: Pre > Post | |||||
| Stride length variability | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Cognitive task errorsb | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
Summary of main effect and interactions in 3-way linear mixed models analyses of gait parameters.
aRatio between the foot contact time and the stride time. bDigit vigilance task. cOlder adults (OA) vs. young adults (YA). dActive tDCS + STW vs. Sham tDCS + STW. ePre- vs. post-intervention. ns: not significant.
Association Between Change in Cortical Activity and Gait Parameters in Response to Intervention (ΔPOST–PRE)
A negative correlation was observed between ΔHbO2 in the left PFC and Δstride length variability for active groups (Figure 5). There were no other significant associations between ΔHbO2 and changes in gait parameters that occurred in any of the groups.
FIGURE 5
Discussion
In this study we investigated the effects of combined anodal tDCS applied over M1 and PFC, and treadmill walking on cortical activity and gait parameters in YA and OA. Contrary to our hypothesis, we found that active anodal tDCS + STW decreased M1 activity in both YA and OA and did not modify gait parameters. A negative correlation was observed between changes in PFC activity and stride length variability.
A novelty of this study was to apply tDCS over two brain areas, M1 and PFC as previous studies have applied the stimulation to these areas separately. These regions were selected as DTW involves both motor and higher executive function control (, ; ). Our main findings showed that M1 ΔHbO2 decreased following the active tDCS + STW intervention with no change in PFC. Previous studies have indicated that anodal tDCS increases excitability in the target area, due to postulated increased action potential firing rates, prolonged changes in membrane potential and decreased inhibitory interneural activity (; ; ; ). Therefore, we expected to observe an increase in PFC and M1 activity. A possible explanation, according to the neural efficiency hypothesis, is that anodal tDCS may have improved the efficiency of M1 activity (Zarahn et al., 2007). Increased cortical activity has been considered a compensatory strategy for maintaining motor performance (; Stuart et al., 2018). However, reduced cortical activity without changing motor performance demonstrates an improvement in neural efficiency, that is, individuals with higher neural ability display a lower energy consumption of the brain (Zarahn et al., 2007). Indeed, both YA and OA did not change the locomotor pattern post-intervention. Taken together, our findings showed that anodal tDCS over M1 contributes to improving neural efficiency to control walking when performing a cognitive task simultaneously.
A further possible explanation for decreased M1 activity after active tDCS + STW intervention is homeostatic metaplasticity. developed a mathematical model, the Bienenstock–Cooper–Munro (BCM) theory, to describe modulation of synaptic excitability based on homeostatic metaplasticity of synapses. Homeostatic metaplasticity is a mechanism that maintains neuronal excitability within a physiological dynamic range (). This theory postulates that plasticity at a synapse is bidirectional, resulting in either long-term potentiation (LTP) or long-term depression (LTD), and that the threshold for induction of LTP versus LTD of synapses is not stable but dynamic (; ). The BCM model states that prior excitation will elevate the excitation threshold and thus decrease the predisposition for excitation, whereas prior inhibition will lower the excitation threshold and thus increase the predisposition for excitation (; ). Therefore, as both tDCS and treadmill walking increase cortical excitability, performing DTW after tDCS + STW may facilitate LTD (decreased M1 activity).
We did not observe statistical differences in PFC ΔHbO2, gait parameters or in the cognitive task following active tDCS + STW intervention. There are several possible explanations. Firstly, we have used a small electrode size (3 cm × 3 cm). A small electrode allows stimulating a more focal area while a large anodal electrode targets a more widespread region (; Thair et al., 2017). Stimulating not only the area underlying the anodal electrode, but also surrounding areas within the regions may enhance the tDCS benefits. For example, using a 3 cm × 3 cm anodal electrode did not show benefits on saccadic eye movement behavior, but showed improvements in oculomotor control following tDCS using 5 cm × 7 cm anodal electrode. Secondly, the stimulation intensity may have been too low. We applied 0.6 mA, whereas most studies have used either 1.0 or 2.0 mA (; ). We selected this intensity to ensure the current density was within the recommended safety limit of 0.029–0.08 mA/cm2 (). The surface area of our anodal electrodes was 9 cm2 resulting in a current density of 0.067 mA/cm2. Several studies that used 1–2 mA also reported inconclusive results (; ). While some studies have shown positive effects of stimulation combined with training in gait parameters (,; ; ; ), others have not (, ; ; ; ; Seo et al., 2017; Yotnuengnit et al., 2018). Although OA decreased stride time variability in the post-compared to pre-intervention, this was not related to active tDCS + STW, since both sham and active interventions presented a reduction. This indicates a training effect for OA, who are generally less familiar with treadmill walking than YA. Thirdly, studies that observed positive effects of anodal tDCS combined with training have investigated patients with neurological disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease and stroke (; ). Fourthly, the lack of change in gait parameters following active tDCS + STW may be explained by the physically active participants who all performed more than 150 min of physical activity per week. A single session of 20 min treadmill walking combined with low current tDCS may therefore not be sufficient to induce gait changes (Silva et al., 2019). Specifically, regarding the cognitive task, a possible reason for no observed improvement could be the high cognitive functionality of the OA group (no difference in MoCA between age groups) and the floor effect (participants presented a low percentage of errors in the cognitive digit vigilance task – Table 2), reducing the amount participants could improve. We recommend the cognitive task is standardized by age group in future studies (). Taken together, further investigation is necessary to optimize tDCS protocols in gait rehabilitation.
Although the tDCS + STW intervention was not found to increase PFC HbO2, within the active tDCS groups, partial correlation showed that higher increases in PFC activity were associated with greater decreases in stride length variability. Our data also showed that OA presented higher activity bilaterally in the PFC and M1, and unilaterally in the right PMC compared to YA, which may reflect a mechanism to compensate for age-related decrease in gait automaticity (Stuart et al., 2018; ). In addition, OA presented higher gait variability than YA, which suggests reduced movement automaticity (; Verghese et al., 2009; ; ). Taken together, these findings may indicate that the combined intervention could expand the availability of prefrontal executive-attentional resources to be allocated to the control of walking, leading to better movement automaticity ().
A key strength of this study is the sham protocol, which was effective in blinding participants to the tDCS condition. Indeed, we did not observe a difference in the adverse events questionnaire between the sham and active groups, which confirms the participant blinding. Also, the concurrent assessment of multiple cortical areas (PFC, PMC, SMA, and M1) while walking together with gait parameters provides better understanding of aspects involved in the gait control and the potential mechanisms underlying gait improvements obtained with the combined intervention. However, this study presents some limitations. The small sample size is an important limitation resulting in low statistical power and may account for the lack of significant change in fNIRS signals, gait parameters and cognitive tasks following anodal tDCS. The small sample size may also have prevented us from finding other associations between changes in cortical activity and gait parameters. The absence of a control group who did not perform any of the intervention protocols or an isolated tDCS session limits our interpretations. The study only involved a single session rather than a series of sessions which may have provided significant longitudinal results (). The number of women and men in the groups was unbalanced. Previous studies have reported sex-specific cortical activation, which suggests that sex may affect fNIRS signals (; ; ). Another limitation concerns the treadmill task. Previous studies have reported a significant difference in hemodynamic data when individuals walked on a treadmill compared to overground (; Thumm et al., 2018) due to a treadmill acting as an external regulator of gait (Suzuki et al., 2004; ). There are limitations in recording fNIRS signals as we did not use short-separation channels to control for scalp blood flow. However, we applied Wavelet-MDL detrending to remove unknown global trends from our data, which has been shown to be acceptable (; ; Vitorio et al., 2017). Another limitation is the use of a subjective scale (Borg) to assess exercise intensity. Although the Borg scale is a valid tool for monitoring exercise intensity (), an objective physiological measure (e.g., heart rate) would be more precise in order to ensure that all four groups experienced the similar intensity of walking (). A further limitation is that the older adults who frequently volunteer for studies are often physically more active and cognitively higher functioning than is typical for their age group, which may have lessened the chances of the older adults benefiting from the active combined intervention due to less room for improvement relative to the general population. Therefore, we recommend addressing these limitations in future studies.
In conclusion, an intervention using anodal tDCS applied to both PFC and M1 cortical regions combined with STW decreased M1 cortical activity during DTW in both YA and OA. As gait parameters remained unchanged, this suggests an improvement in neural efficiency. In addition, higher increases in PFC activity after combined tDCS + STW intervention is related to better gait automaticity.
Publisher’s Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Newcastle University Faculty of Medical Sciences Ethics Committee (Ref. 6770/2018). The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
DO-S designed the study, collected, analyzed, and interpreted the data, and drafted the manuscript for intellectual content. AP designed and conceptualized the study, interpreted the data, and revised the manuscript for intellectual content. AI designed the study, collected, analyzed, and interpreted the data, and revised the manuscript for intellectual content. LTBG and LR interpreted the data and revised the manuscript for intellectual content. MB designed the study, interpreted the data, and revised the manuscript for intellectual content. All authors approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This research was supported by Newcastle University. The research was also supported by the Reece Foundation and by the Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES; grant number 88881.189725/2018-01) as scholarship for DO-S. The authors declare that this study received funding from Barbour Foundation. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Shimadzu Corporation for providing the 24 optode (optic fiber) fNIRS (LABNIRS) system to the Faculty of Medical Sciences at Newcastle University.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
AboutorabiA.ArazpourM.BahramizadehM.HutchinsS. W.FadayevatanR. (2016). The effect of aging on gait parameters in able-bodied older subjects: a literature review.Aging Clin. Exp. Res.28393–405. 10.1007/s40520-015-0420-6
2
Al-YahyaE.DawesH.SmithL.DennisA.HowellsK.CockburnJ. (2011). Cognitive motor interference while walking: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.35715–728. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.08.008
3
Al-YahyaE.MahmoudW.MeesterD.EsserP.DawesH. (2019). Neural substrates of cognitive motor interference during walking; peripheral and central mechanisms.Front. Hum. Neurosci.12:536. 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00536
4
AndrewsS. C.HoyK. E.EnticottP. G.DaskalakisZ. J.FitzgeraldP. B. (2011). Improving working memory: the effect of combining cognitive activity and anodal transcranial direct current stimulation to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.Brain Stimul.484–89. 10.1016/j.brs.2010.06.004
5
BakerJ. M.LiuN.CuiX.VrtickaP.SaggarM.HosseiniS. M. H.et al (2016). Sex differences in neural and behavioral signatures of cooperation revealed by fNIRS hyperscanning.Sci. Rep.6:26492. 10.1038/srep26492
6
BeckO. N.GosyneJ.FranzJ. R.SawickiG. S. (2020). Cyclically producing the same average muscle-tendon force with a smaller duty increases metabolic rate.Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.287:20210012. 10.1098/rspb.2020.0431
7
BerettaV. S.ConceiçãoN. R.Nóbrega-SousaP.Orcioli-SilvaD.DantasL. K. B. F.GobbiL. T. B.et al (2020). Transcranial direct current stimulation combined with physical or cognitive training in people with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review.J. Neuroeng. Rehabil.17:74. 10.1186/s12984-020-00701-6
8
BeurskensR.BockO. (2012). Age-related deficits of dual-task walking: a review.Neural Plast.2012:131608. 10.1155/2012/131608
9
BienenstockE.CooperL.MunroP. (1982). Theory for the development of neuron selectivity: orientation specificity and binocular interaction in visual cortex.J. Neurosci.232–48. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.02-01-00032.1982
10
BierreK. L.LucasS. J. E.GuineyH.CotterJ. D.MachadoL. (2017). Cognitive difficulty intensifies age-related changes in anterior frontal hemodynamics: novel evidence from near-infrared spectroscopy.J. Gerontol. Ser. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci.72181–188. 10.1093/gerona/glw061
11
BiksonM.NameA.RahmanA. (2013). Origins of specificity during tDCS: anatomical, activity-selective, and input-bias mechanisms.Front. Hum. Neurosci.7:688. 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00688
12
BrunoniA. R.AmaderaJ.BerbelB.VolzM. S.RizzerioB. G.FregniF. (2011). A systematic review on reporting and assessment of adverse effects associated with transcranial direct current stimulation.Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol.141133–1145. 10.1017/S1461145710001690
13
BrunoniA. R.NitscheM. A.BologniniN.BiksonM.WagnerT.MerabetL.et al (2012). Clinical research with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): challenges and future directions.Brain Stimul.5175–195. 10.1016/j.brs.2011.03.002
14
ByunK.HyodoK.SuwabeK.OchiG.SakairiY.KatoM.et al (2014). Positive effect of acute mild exercise on executive function via arousal-related prefrontal activations: an fNIRS study.NeuroImage98336–345. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.04.067
15
CabezaR.AndersonN. D.LocantoreJ. K.McIntoshA. R. (2002). Aging gracefully: compensatory brain activity in high-performing older adults.NeuroImage171394–1402. 10.1006/nimg.2002.1280
16
ChenM. J.FanX.MoeS. T. (2002). Criterion-related validity of the Borg ratings of perceived exertion scale in healthy individuals: a meta-analysis.J. Sports Sci.20873–899. 10.1080/026404102320761787
17
ChenP.StenlingA.MachadoL. (2018). Evidence transcranial direct current stimulation can improve saccadic eye movement control in older adults.Vision2:42. 10.3390/vision2040042
18
ChenP. L.MachadoL. (2017). Developing clinically practical transcranial direct current stimulation protocols to improve saccadic eye movement control.J. Eye Mov. Res.10. 10.16910/jemr.10.3.5
19
ChrysikouE. G.HamiltonR. H.CoslettH. B.DattaA.BiksonM.Thompson-SchillS. L. (2013). Noninvasive transcranial direct current stimulation over the left prefrontal cortex facilitates cognitive flexibility in tool use.Cogn. Neurosci.481–89. 10.1080/17588928.2013.768221
20
ClarkD. J.ChristouE. A.RingS. A.WilliamsonJ. B.DotyL. (2014). Enhanced somatosensory feedback reduces prefrontal cortical activity during walking in older adults.J. Gerontol. Ser. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci.691422–1428. 10.1093/gerona/glu125
21
Costa-RibeiroA.MauxA.BosfordT.AokiY.CastroR.BaltarA.et al (2017). Transcranial direct current stimulation associated with gait training in Parkinson’s disease: a pilot randomized clinical trial.Dev. Neurorehabil.20121–128. 10.3109/17518423.2015.1131755
22
Costa-RibeiroA.MauxA.BosfordT.TenórioY.MarquesD.CarneiroM.et al (2016). Dopamine-independent effects of combining transcranial direct current stimulation with cued gait training on cortical excitability and functional mobility in Parkinson’s disease.J. Rehabil. Med.48819–823. 10.2340/16501977-2134
23
da ConceiçãoN. R.GobbiL. T. B.Nóbrega-SousaP.Orcioli-SilvaD.BerettaV. S.Lirani-SilvaE.et al (2021). Aerobic Exercise combined with transcranial direct current stimulation over the prefrontal cortex in Parkinson disease: effects on cortical activity, gait, and cognition.Neurorehabil. Neural Rep.35717–728.
24
de PazR. H.Serrano-MuñozD.Pérez-NombelaS.Bravo-EstebanE.Avendaño-CoyJ.Gómez-SorianoJ. (2019). Combining transcranial direct-current stimulation with gait training in patients with neurological disorders: a systematic review.J. NeuroEng. Rehabil.16:114. 10.1186/s12984-019-0591-z
25
de RondV.Orcioli-SilvaD.DijkstraB. W.Orban de XivryJ.-J.PantallA.NieuwboerA. (2021). Compromised brain activity with age during a game-like dynamic balance task: single- vs. dual-task performance.Front. Aging Neurosci.13:657308. 10.3389/fnagi.2021.657308
26
Del DinS.GodfreyA.RochesterL. (2016). Validation of an accelerometer to quantify a comprehensive battery of gait characteristics in healthy older adults and Parkinson’s disease: toward clinical and at home use.IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform.20838–847. 10.1109/JBHI.2015.2419317
27
El-SayesJ.HarasymD.TurcoC. V.LockeM. B.NelsonA. J. (2019). Exercise-induced neuroplasticity: a mechanistic model and prospects for promoting plasticity.Neuroscientist2565–85. 10.1177/1073858418771538
28
Fernández-LagoH.BelloO.Mora-CerdáF.Montero-CámaraJ.Fernández-Del-OlmoM. Á (2017). Treadmill walking combined with anodal transcranial direct current stimulation in parkinson disease: a pilot study of kinematic and neurophysiological effects.Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil.96801–808. 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000751
29
FregniF.BoggioP. S.NitscheM.BermpohlF.AntalA.FeredoesE.et al (2005). Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of prefrontal cortex enhances working memory.Exp. Brain Res.16623–30. 10.1007/s00221-005-2334-6
30
FristonK. J.JosephsO.ZarahnE.HolmesA. P.RouquetteS.PolineJ. B. (2000). To smooth or not to smooth? Bias and efficiency in fMRI time-series analysis.NeuroImage12196–208. 10.1006/nimg.2000.0609
31
HaradaT.MiyaiI.SuzukiM.KubotaK. (2009). Gait capacity affects cortical activation patterns related to speed control in the elderly.Exp. Brain Res.193445–454. 10.1007/s00221-008-1643-y
32
HausdorffJ. M.RiosD. A.EdelbergH. K. (2001). Gait variability and fall risk in community-living older adults: a 1-year prospective study.Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil.821050–1056. 10.1053/apmr.2001.24893
33
HausdorffJ. M.SchweigerA.HermanT.Yogev-SeligmannG.GiladiN. (2008). Dual-task decrements in gait: contributing factors among healthy older adults.J. Gerontol. Ser. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci.631335–1343. 10.1093/gerona/63.12.1335
34
HeinrichS.RappK.RissmannU.BeckerC.KönigH.-H. (2009). Cost of falls in old age: a systematic review. Osteoporos. Intl. 21891–902. 10.1007/s00198-009-1100-1
35
HeroldF.WiegelP.ScholkmannF.ThiersA.HamacherD.SchegaL. (2017). Functional near-infrared spectroscopy in movement science: a systematic review on cortical activity in postural and walking tasks.Neurophotonics4:41403. 10.1117/1.NPh.4.4.041403
36
HurleyR.MachadoL. (2017). Using tDCS priming to improve brain function: can metaplasticity provide the key to boosting outcomes?Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.83155–159. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.09.029
37
HurleyR.MachadoL. (2018). Using transcranial direct current stimulation to improve verbal working memory: a detailed review of the methodology.J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol.40790–804. 10.1080/13803395.2018.1434133
38
IshikuroK.DouguN.NukuiT.YamamotoM.NakatsujiY.KurodaS.et al (2018). Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the frontal polar area on motor and executive functions in Parkinson’s disease; a pilot study.Front. Aging Neurosci.10:231. 10.3389/fnagi.2018.00231
39
JangK. E.TakS.JungJ.JangJ.JeongY.YeJ. C. (2009). Wavelet minimum description length detrending for near-infrared spectroscopy.J. Biomed. Opt.14:034004. 10.1117/1.3127204
40
JavadiA. H.WalshV. (2012). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex modulates declarative memory.Brain Stimul.5231–241. 10.1016/j.brs.2011.06.007
41
JiZ.FengT.MeiL.LiA.ZhangC. (2019). Influence of acute combined physical and cognitive exercise on cognitive function: an NIRS study.PeerJ7:e7418. 10.7717/peerj.7418
42
KaskiD.AllumJ. H.BronsteinA. M.DominguezR. O. (2014a). Applying anodal tDCS during tango dancing in a patient with Parkinson’s disease.Neurosci. Lett.56839–43. 10.1016/j.neulet.2014.03.043
43
KaskiD.DominguezR. O.AllumJ. H.IslamA. F.BronsteinA. M. (2014b). Combining physical training with transcranial direct current stimulation to improve gait in Parkinson’s disease: a pilot randomized controlled study.Clin. Rehabil.281115–1124. 10.1177/0269215514534277
44
KoenraadtK. L. M.RoelofsenE. G. J.DuysensJ.KeijsersN. L. W. (2014). Cortical control of normal gait and precision stepping: an fNIRS study.NeuroImage85(Pt 1)415–422. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.070
45
KoganemaruS.MikamiY.MaezawaH.MatsuhashiM.IkedaS.IkomaK.et al (2018). Anodal transcranial patterned stimulation of the motor cortex during gait can induce activity-dependent corticospinal plasticity to alter human gait.PLoS One13:e0208691. 10.1371/journal.pone.0208691
46
KumruH.MurilloN.Benito-PenalvaJ.TormosJ. M.VidalJ. (2016). Transcranial direct current stimulation is not effective in the motor strength and gait recovery following motor incomplete spinal cord injury during Lokomat(§) gait training.Neurosci. Lett.620143–147. 10.1016/j.neulet.2016.03.056
47
la FougèreC.ZwergalA.RomingerA.FörsterS.FeslG.DieterichM.et al (2010). Real versus imagined locomotion: a [18F]-FDG PET-fMRI comparison.NeuroImage501589–1598. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.060
48
Leon-CarrionJ.DamasJ.IzzetogluK.PourrezaiK.Martín-RodríguezJ. F.Barroso y MartinJ. M.et al (2006). Differential time course and intensity of PFC activation for men and women in response to emotional stimuli: a functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) study.Neurosci. Lett.40390–95. 10.1016/j.neulet.2006.04.050
49
LiT.LuoQ.GongH. (2010). Gender-specific hemodynamics in prefrontal cortex during a verbal working memory task by near-infrared spectroscopy.Behav. Brain Res.209148–153. 10.1016/j.bbr.2010.01.033
50
LinS.-I.ChangK.-C.LeeH.-C.YangY.-C.TsauoJ.-Y. (2015). Problems and fall risk determinants of quality of life in older adults with increased risk of falling.Geriatr. Gerontol. Int.15579–587. 10.1111/ggi.12320
51
LordS. R.LloydD. G.Keung LiS. E. K. (1996). Sensori-motor function, gait patterns and falls in community-dwelling women.Age Ageing25292–299. 10.1093/ageing/25.4.292
52
MachadoL. (2021). Understanding cognition and how it changes with aging, brain disease, and lifestyle choices.J. R. Soc. N. Z.51128–142. 10.1080/03036758.2020.1796102
53
MaidanI.NieuwhofF.Bernad-ElazariH.ReelickM. F.BloemB. R.GiladiN.et al (2016). the role of the frontal lobe in complex walking among patients with Parkinson’s disease and healthy older adults: an fNIRS study.Neurorehabil. Neural Rep.30963–971. 10.1177/1545968316650426
54
ManentiR.BrambillaM.BenussiA.RosiniS.CobelliC.FerrariC.et al (2016). Mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease is improved by transcranial direct current stimulation combined with physical therapy.Mov. Disord.31715–724. 10.1002/mds.26561
55
ManorB.ZhouJ.HarrisonR.LoO.-Y.TravisonT. G.HausdorffJ. M.et al (2018). Transcranial direct current stimulation may improve cognitive-motor function in functionally limited older adults.Neurorehabil. Neural Rep.32788–798. 10.1177/1545968318792616
56
McCamleyJ.DonatiM.GrimpampiE.MazzaC. (2012). An enhanced estimate of initial contact and final contact instants of time using lower trunk inertial sensor data.Gait Posture36316–318. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.02.019
57
MirelmanA.MaidanI.Bernad-ElazariH.ShustackS.GiladiN.HausdorffJ. M. (2017). Effects of aging on prefrontal brain activation during challenging walking conditions.Brain Cogn.11541–46. 10.1016/j.bandc.2017.04.002
58
Moe-NilssenR. (1998). A new method for evaluating motor control in gait under real-life environmental conditions. Part 1: the instrument.Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon)13320–327. 10.1016/s0268-0033(98)00089-8
59
MorrisR.LordS.BunceJ.BurnD.RochesterL. (2016). Gait and cognition: mapping the global and discrete relationships in ageing and neurodegenerative disease.Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.64326–345. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.02.012
60
MurakamiT.Müller-DahlhausF.LuM.-K.ZiemannU. (2012). Homeostatic metaplasticity of corticospinal excitatory and intracortical inhibitory neural circuits in human motor cortex.J. Physiol.5905765–5781. 10.1113/jphysiol.2012.238519
61
MurrayL. M.EdwardsD. J.RuffiniG.LabarD.StampasA.Pascual-LeoneA.et al (2015). Intensity dependent effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on corticospinal excitability in chronic spinal cord injury.Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil.96S114–S121. 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.11.004
62
NasreddineZ. S.PhillipsN. A.BedirianV.CharbonneauS.WhiteheadV.CollinI.et al (2005). The montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment.J. Am. Geriatr. Soc.53695–699. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x
63
NitscheM. A.CohenL. G.WassermannE. M.PrioriA.LangN.AntalA.et al (2008). Transcranial direct current stimulation: state of the art 2008.Brain Stimul.1206–223. 10.1016/j.brs.2008.06.004
64
NitscheM. A.PaulusW. (2000). Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation.J. Physiol.527(Pt 3)633–639. 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.t01-1-00633.x
65
Nóbrega-SousaP.GobbiL. T. B.Orcioli-SilvaD.ConceiçãoN. R.BerettaV. S.VitórioR. (2020). Prefrontal cortex activity during walking: effects of aging and associations with gait and executive function.Neurorehabil. Neural Rep.34915–924. 10.1177/1545968320953824
66
Orcioli-SilvaD.VitórioR.BerettaV. S.da ConceiçãoN. R.Nóbrega-SousaP.OliveiraA. S.et al (2021). Is cortical activation during walking different between Parkinson’s disease motor subtypes?J. Gerontol. Ser. A76561–567. 10.1093/gerona/glaa174
67
Orcioli-SilvaD.VitórioR.Nóbrega-SousaP.da ConceiçãoN. R.BerettaV. S.Lirani-SilvaE.et al (2020). Levodopa facilitates prefrontal cortex activation during dual task walking in Parkinson disease.Neurorehabil. Neural Rep.34589–599. 10.1177/1545968320924430
68
ParkS. D.KimJ. Y.SongH. S. (2015). Effect of application of transcranial direct current stimulation during task-related training on gait ability of patients with stroke.J. Phys. Ther. Sci.27623–625. 10.1589/jpts.27.623
69
PelicioniP. H. S.TijsmaM.LordS. R.MenantJ. (2019). Prefrontal cortical activation measured by fNIRS during walking: effects of age, disease and secondary task.PeerJ7:e6833. 10.7717/peerj.6833
70
PetersenN. T.ButlerJ. E.Marchand-PauvertV.FisherR.LedebtA.PyndtH. S.et al (2001). Suppression of EMG activity by transcranial magnetic stimulation in human subjects during walking.J. Physiol.537651–656. 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.00651.x
71
PetersenT. H.Willerslev-OlsenM.ConwayB. A.NielsenJ. B. (2012). The motor cortex drives the muscles during walking in human subjects.J. Physiol.5902443–2452. 10.1113/jphysiol.2012.227397
72
Plummer-D’AmatoP.BrancatoB.DantowitzM.BirkenS.BonkeC.FureyE. (2012). Effects of gait and cognitive task difficulty on cognitive-motor interference in aging.J. Aging Res.2012:583894. 10.1155/2012/583894
73
SawaR.DoiT.MisuS.TsutsumimotoK.NakakuboS.AsaiT.et al (2014). The association between fear of falling and gait variability in both leg and trunk movements.Gait Posture40123–127. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.03.002
74
ScherrJ.WolfarthB.ChristleJ. W.PresslerA.WagenpfeilS.HalleM. (2013). Associations between Borg’s rating of perceived exertion and physiological measures of exercise intensity.Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.113147–155. 10.1007/s00421-012-2421-x
75
SchneiderN.DaganM.KatzR.ThummP. C.BrozgolM.GiladiN.et al (2021). Combining transcranial direct current stimulation with a motor-cognitive task: the impact on dual-task walking costs in older adults.J. NeuroEng. Rehabil.18:23. 10.1186/s12984-021-00826-2
76
SeoH. G.LeeW. H.LeeS. H.YiY.KimK. D.OhB.-M. (2017). Robotic-assisted gait training combined with transcranial direct current stimulation in chronic stroke patients: a pilot double-blind, randomized controlled trial.Restor. Neurol. Neurosci.35527–536. 10.3233/RNN-170745
77
SilvaL. V. D. C.PortoF.FregniF.GurgelJ. L. (2019). Transcranial direct-current stimulation in combination with exercise: a systematic review.Rev. Brasil. Med. Esporte25520–526.
78
SteinbergF.PixaN. H.FregniF. (2018). A review of acute aerobic exercise and transcranial direct current stimulation effects on cognitive functions and their potential synergies.Front. Hum. Neurosci.12:534. 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00534
79
StuartS.VitorioR.MorrisR.MartiniD. N.FinoP. C.ManciniM. (2018). Cortical activity during walking and balance tasks in older adults and in people with Parkinson’s disease: a structured review.Maturitas11353–72. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.04.011
80
StudenskiS.PereraS.PatelK.RosanoC.FaulknerK.InzitariM.et al (2011). Gait speed and survival in older adults.JAMA30550–58. 10.1001/jama.2010.1923
81
SuzukiM.MiyaiI.OnoT.OdaI.KonishiI.KochiyamaT.et al (2004). Prefrontal and premotor cortices are involved in adapting walking and running speed on the treadmill: an optical imaging study.NeuroImage231020–1026. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.002
82
ThairH.HollowayA. L.NewportR.SmithA. D. (2017). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): a beginner’s guide for design and implementation.Front. Neurosci.11:641. 10.3389/fnins.2017.00641
83
ThummP. C.MaidanI.BrozgolM.ShustakS.GazitE.Shema ShiratzkiS.et al (2018). Treadmill walking reduces pre-frontal activation in patients with Parkinson’s disease.Gait Post.62384–387. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.03.041
84
TsuzukiD.DanI. (2014). Spatial registration for functional near-infrared spectroscopy: from channel position on the scalp to cortical location in individual and group analyses.NeuroImage85(Pt 1)92–103. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.025
85
VanderhasseltM.-A.de RaedtR.BrunoniA. R.CampanhãC.BaekenC.RemueJ.et al (2013). tDCS over the left prefrontal cortex enhances cognitive control for positive affective stimuli.PLoS One8:e62219. 10.1371/journal.pone.0062219
86
VergheseJ.HoltzerR.LiptonR. B.WangC. (2009). Quantitative gait markers and incident fall risk in older adults.J. Gerontol. Ser. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci.64896–901. 10.1093/gerona/glp033
87
VitorioR.StuartS.GobbiL. T. B.RochesterL.AlcockL.PantallA. (2018). Reduced gait variability and enhanced brain activity in older adults with auditory cues: a functional near-infrared spectroscopy study.Neurorehabil. Neural Rep.32976–987. 10.1177/1545968318805159
88
VitorioR.StuartS.RochesterL.AlcockL.PantallA. (2017). fNIRS response during walking — Artefact or cortical activity? A systematic review.Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.83160–172. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.10.002
89
VoigtM.HyttelM. K.JakobsenL. S.JensenM. K.BalleH.HansenE. A. (2019). Human walk-to-run transition in the context of the behaviour of complex systems.Hum. Mov. Sci.67:102509. 10.1016/j.humov.2019.102509
90
WrightsonJ. G.TwomeyR.RossE. Z.SmeetonN. J. (2015). The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on task processing and prioritisation during dual-task gait.Exp. Brain Res.2331575–1583. 10.1007/s00221-015-4232-x
91
YanagisawaH.DanI.TsuzukiD.KatoM.OkamotoM.KyutokuY.et al (2010). Acute moderate exercise elicits increased dorsolateral prefrontal activation and improves cognitive performance with Stroop test.NeuroImage501702–1710. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.023
92
YardleyL.BeyerN.HauerK.KempenG.Piot-ZieglerC.ToddC. (2005). Development and initial validation of the falls efficacy scale-international (FES-I).Age Ageing34614–619. 10.1093/ageing/afi196
93
YeJ. C.TakS.JangK. E.JungJ.JangJ. (2009). NIRS-SPM: statistical parametric mapping for near-infrared spectroscopy.NeuroImage44428–447. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.08.036
94
Yogev-SeligmannG.HausdorffJ. M.GiladiN. (2008). The role of executive function and attention in gait.Mov. Disord.23329–342. 10.1002/mds.21720
95
YotnuengnitP.BhidayasiriR.DonkhanR.ChaluaysrimuangJ.PiravejK. (2018). Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation plus physical therapy on gait in patients with Parkinson disease: a randomized controlled trial.Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil.977–15. 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000783
96
ZarahnE.RakitinB.AbelaD.FlynnJ.SternY. (2007). Age-related changes in brain activation during a delayed item recognition task.Neurobiol. Aging28784–798. 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2006.03.002
97
ZhouJ.HaoY.WangY.Jor’danA.Pascual-LeoneA.ZhangJ.et al (2014). Transcranial direct current stimulation reduces the cost of performing a cognitive task on gait and postural control.Eur. J. Neurosci.391343–1348. 10.1111/ejn.12492
98
ZijlstraW.HofA. L. (2003). Assessment of spatio-temporal gait parameters from trunk accelerations during human walking.Gait Post.181–10. 10.1016/s0966-6362(02)00190-x
Summary
Keywords
non-invasive brain stimulation, functional near-infrared spectroscopy, locomotion, cognition, ageing
Citation
Orcioli-Silva D, Islam A, Baker MR, Gobbi LTB, Rochester L and Pantall A (2021) Bi-Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined With Treadmill Walking Decreases Motor Cortical Activity in Young and Older Adults. Front. Aging Neurosci. 13:739998. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2021.739998
Received
12 July 2021
Accepted
01 November 2021
Published
03 December 2021
Volume
13 - 2021
Edited by
Notger G. Müller, German Center for Neurodegeneratives, Helmholtz Association of German Research Centers (HZ), Germany
Reviewed by
Liana Machado, University of Otago, New Zealand; Sophie Claire Andrews, Neuroscience Research Australia, Australia
Updates
Copyright
© 2021 Orcioli-Silva, Islam, Baker, Gobbi, Rochester and Pantall.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Annette Pantall, annette.pantall@ncl.ac.uk
This article was submitted to Neurocognitive Aging and Behavior, a section of the journal Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.