Objective:This study aimed to investigate the effect of robot-assisted gait training therapy combined with non-invasive brain stimulation on lower limb function in patients with stroke and spinal cord injury.Data sourcesPubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched.Study selectionRandomized controlled trials published as of 3 March 2021. RCTs evaluating RAGT combined with NIBS, such as transcranial direct current stimulation and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, for lower limb function and activities in patients with stroke and (...) SCI were included.Data extractionTwo reviewers independently screened the records, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias.Data synthesisA meta-analysis of five studies and risk of bias were conducted. Pooled estimates demonstrated that RAGT combined with NIBS significantly improved lower limb function [standardized mean difference = 0.52; 95% confidence interval = 0.06–0.99] but not lower limb activities. Subgroup analyses also failed to find a greater improvement in lower limb function of RAGT with tDCS compared to sham stimulation. No significant differences between participant characteristics or types of NIBS were observed.ConclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrated that RAGT therapy in combination with NIBS was effective in patients with stroke and SCI. However, a greater improvement in lower limb function and activities were not observed using RAGT with tDCS compared to sham stimulation. (shrink)

The essential role of creativity has been highlighted in several human knowledge areas. Regarding the neural underpinnings of creativity, there is evidence about the role of left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) on divergent thinking (DT) and convergent thinking (CT). Transcranial stimulation studies suggest that the left DLPFC is associated with both DT and CT, whereas left IFG is more related to DT. However, none of the previous studies have targeted both hubs simultaneously and compared (...) transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and random noise stimulation (tRNS). Additionally, given the relationship between cognitive flexibility and creativity, we included it in order to check if the improvement in creativity may be mediated by cognitive flexibility. In this double-blind, between-subjects study, 66 healthy participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups (N = 22) that received a transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS), or sham for 20 min. The tDCS group received 1.5 mA with the anode over the left DLPFC and cathode over the left IFG. Locations in tRNS group were the same and they received 1.5 mA of high frequency tRNS (100–500 Hz). Divergent thinking was assessed before (baseline) and during stimulation with unusual uses (UU) and picture completion (PC) subtests from Torrance Creative thinking Test, whereas convergent thinking was evaluated with the remote association test (RAT). Stroop test was included to assess cognitive flexibility. ANCOVA results of performance under stimulation (controlling for baseline performance) showed that there were significant differences in PC (F = 3.35, p = 0.042, np2 = 0.10) but not in UU (F = 0.61, p = 0.546) and RAT (F = 2.65, p = 0.079) scores. Post-hoc analyses showed that tRNS group had significantly higher scores compared to sham (p = 0.004) in PC. More specifically, tRNS showed higher performance in fluency (p = 0.012) and originality (p = 0.021) dimensions of PC compared to sham. Regarding cognitive flexibility, we did not find any significant effect of any of the stimulation groups (F = 0.34, p = 0.711). Therefore, no further mediation analyses were performed. Finally, the group that received tDCS reported more adverse effects than sham group (F = 3.46, p = 0.035). Altogether, these results suggest that tRNS may have some advantages over tDCS in DT. (shrink)