Enhancing the Cat's Corticospinal Motor Drive Specifically with Trans-Spinal Direct Current Stimulation

Jeong Chan^*
*Correspondence: Jeong Chan, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, College of Medicine, Yeungnam University, Daegu, Republic of Korea, Email:

Introduction

Because the corticospinal system is necessary for voluntary control of the arm and hand, it is an important outcome of spinal cord neurorehabilitation. One target for stimulation-based restorative therapies following stroke and spinal cord injury is the motor cortex (MCX), which is where the corticospinal tract (CST) originates. It is also possible to promote function following brain injury. Both CST structural remodeling and representational plasticity can be steered by MCX stimulation. The spinal cord is an alternative stimulation target that can activate intrinsic spinal circuits to boost CST transmission strength and fidelity. A non-invasive method for neuromodulating spinal cord networks, transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) can boost output from the corticospinal system, such as MCX-evoked spinal synaptic responses and MEPs. Most studies show that tsDCS alters MEPs, and human trials show that it is well tolerated. Because it is non-invasive, it is adaptable and costeffective. Utilization of an immediate current waveform permits bidirectional (excitation/hindrance) neuromodulation in light of terminal extremity (cathodal/ anodal). The majority of studies demonstrated that c-tsDCS increases muscle activity evoked by motor cortex stimulation, while a-tsDCS either has no effect or reduces activity, and a few other studies have found only minor differences between a- and c-tsDCS or dominant anodal facilitation. The ability to tailor the neuromodulation and plasticity that follows an injury can be achieved by adjusting surface electrode positions and the intensity and polarity of tsDCS in order to direct current to the spinal cord. However, a deeper comprehension of how tsDCS affects muscle response strength and targets specific spinal segments is necessary for clinical optimization of tsDCS [1].

Description

The study's overarching objective was to describe how tsDCS neuromodulation facilitated corticospinal drive to particular arm muscles (biceps or extensor carpi radialis, ECR). To study segmental localization, muscleeffect targeting, and clinical translation, we created a large-animal (cat) model. Similar to brain-based transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), tsDCS uses electrodes on the skin to apply low-intensity direct current to polarize underlying neural structures, resulting in changes in local synaptic and network activity he spatial characteristics of current flow to target neural elements and the subsequent neuromodulation are governed by the tsDCS "dose," which is defined as the electrode montage, current intensity, and polarity. This is the case for all forms of neuromodulation. The subtleties of the basic life structures shape current stream designs, which can be anticipated by Limited Component Strategy (FEM) reproductions. To investigate tsDCS mechanisms of action, a novel MRI/CT-derived model of intra-spinal current flow was evaluated in relation to evoked physiological measurements in conjunction with segmental neuronal morphology and connectivity data. During cervico-thoracic tsDCS, we measured how two forelimb muscles' MEPs were influenced by MCX. We demonstrate that MEPs are immediately modulated by tsDCS. Either the biceps or the ECR responses were preferentially enhanced by differential cathode positioning; which was explained by segmental current flow that was specific to each montage and the rostrocaudal distributions of the motor pools in each group. For effective neurorehabilitation, our findings demonstrate that tsDCS targets representative motor pools for proximal and distal muscles. This makes it possible for muscle- and response-specific neuromodulation to boost muscle strength. tsDCS and electrode montages A dorsal and ventral electrode (target and return electrode, respectively) were used to administer tsDCS. We utilized a tsDCS montage to convey current stream to the rostral cervical expansion in light of equal examinations looking at tsDCS neuromodulation treatment for cervical spinal rope injury. The dorsal terminal spread over C2-C6 and the ventral cathode put on the sternal manubrium. The dorsal electrode was used in later experiments to measure the focality of the electrode montage; additionally, the sternal manubrium received the ventral electrode [2].

To administer tsDCS, we made use of a commercially available isolated stimulation unit (Model 0707A, Soterix Medical, USA). Hydrogel electrodes (PALS, North Coast Medical, USA) or saline-soaked sponges activated by a carbon rubber insert in a silicone casing (Caputron, USA) were used to create pairs of surface electrodes with a diameter of less than 3 cm. To reduce current density at the electrode surface, the electrode size for cat stimulation was determined by practical experimental and anatomical considerations. The size is typically reduced in human cases and increased in our rat study. To reduce electrical resistance, the hair was trimmed and the skin was cleansed with isopropyl alcohol. The terminals were put on the midline and got on the skin surface with lashes. Typically, tsDCS was on for 40 seconds, with a 30 second ramp up and 30 second ramp down. The delivery of current and the quality of the electrode contact were continuously monitored; there was no difference in the electrode materials that we examined. Before tsDCS, baseline MEPs was measured right away. After tsDCS, a brief erythema was observed, but there were no signs of tissue damage or petechiae.

Motoneuron distributions in the biceps and ECR muscles were mapped anatomically using retrograde tracing, as in our previous study. As previously, anesthesia and a tracer was injected three minutes apart with a microsyringe. From the distal to the proximal approach, the needle was inserted parallel to the long axis of the muscle into the muscle belly. Saline was used to clean the muscle's surface, sutures were used to close the wound, and topical antibiotics were used (in addition to the methods described above). After a week, the spinal cord was extracted through terminal procedures. For transcardial perfusion with saline and 4% paraformaldehyde, the animal was deeply anesthetized with Sodium Pentobarbitol (30 mg/kg). For precise segmental identification, the cord was examined while in the dural sac to examine the dorsal root ganglia and entry zones [3].

Using acute MEP changes as an immediate biomarker of corticospinal modulation and integrating segmental FEM current flow models with rostrocaudal motor pool representations, we developed a framework for the rational design and testing of tsDCS interventions in this translational study. Comparatively, the model has better spatial features, such as co-registration of high-resolution MRI and CT, which are ideal for separating soft and ossified tissues, respectively. Post-mortem specimens were used for the MRI and CT, which removed movement artifacts. We demonstrate the targeting of tsDCS intervention by demonstrating that, depending on the electrode location, noninvasive tsDCS can facilitate cortico-spinal drive for one muscle more than for another. Motor pool rostrocaudal location and MEP selectivity were found to be anatomically linked. The cathode location that was effective for MCX-evoked biceps (proximal muscle) activation steered more current rostrally in the cervical cord, while the location that was effective for ECR (distal muscle) activation steered more current caudally, as revealed by computational modeling of this selectivity. Methods for directing tsDCS toward the desired motor functions are crucial to both clinical efficacy and mechanism-driven therapy. To help guide tsDCS neurorehabilitation after injury, the framework we developed provides a path to achieve and optimize motor-specific responses [4].

According to other studies, cathodal tsDCS enhancement and anodal suppression of corticospinal output did not require a significant amount of time to build (i.e., there was no wind-up period). Montage focality demonstrates that motoneurons are a target of tsDCS action. Rather than the long-term plasticity that has been suggested for tDCS, this quick response is more in line with a direct effect on ionic fluxes that control neuronal excitability. It is well known that direct current applied to afferent fiber terminals within the spinal cord immediately polarizes them and modifies 1A afferent EPSPs into motoneurons. During stimulation, both cathodal and anodal cervical c- and a-tsDCS in rats cause immediate enhancement of spontaneous forelimb motor unit firing. An excitability change that is reversed by voltage-gated Ca2+ channel blockade is produced only by c-tsDCS, indicating activation of a motoneuron persistent inward current (PIC). Motoneuron dendrites may be more sensitive to tsDCS than other types of neurons due to the extensive dendritic arbor and high density of voltage-gated Ca²⁺ channels. Non-linear and spatial motoneuron properties, such as the non-linear property of motoneuron membrane channels, may explain differential response to cathodal versus anodal tsDCS; proximity to the current source and the orientation of the dendritic arbor, which controls membrane polarization's magnitude and direction. The neurophysiological effects of tsDCS polarity, on the other hand, will be complicated to account for because they will depend on state as well as network connectivity— including the function of inhibitory neurons. The association between montagespecificity and motor pool locations, with a higher density of ECR motoneurons caudally and biceps motoneurons in the rostral segments, supports spinal motoneurons as a target of tsDCS and may explain the regional extent of tsDCS neuromodulation on corticospinal drive known as the "receptive field [5]."

Modulation of descending MCX signaling

The MCX influences spinal motoneurons via species-dependent brain stem projections (such as the cortico-reticulospinal tract) and monosynaptic and oligosynaptic spinal interneuronal pathways. While in people and numerous non-human primate species single reflex associations are available, in the feline the briefest CST-to-motoneuron way is disynaptic. Through any or all of these channels, MCX stimulation and voluntary muscle recruitment can produce muscle responses. Due to corticospinal tract axon loss and reticulospinal axon sparing and plasticity, descending cortical signaling may also preferentially activate reticulospinal tracts following SCI. tsDCS may have distinct effects on two aspects of the rostro-caudal organization of the spinal underpinnings of proximal-distal muscle control in addition to motoneurons. First, proximal and distal muscle synergies are differentially controlled by propriospinal and segmental interneurons, which are located rostrally and caudally, respectively. Humans have been found to belong to these interneuron classes. Similar to the effects of cerebellar tDCS, which can regulate task-dependent adaptation of arm/proximal movements, this differential organization and susceptibility to neuromodulation whereas adaptation of finger and hand movements is controlled by tDCS in the motor cortex. Alternate motor synergies, such as differential tapping into proximal and distal control circuits, may engage the underlying spinal circuitry for motor control. Second, the MCX elbow flexor and wrist joint zones have different access to premotor interneurons due to their distinct anatomical terminations in the rostral and caudal cervical cords. It is possible that the rostral and caudal cathodal positions will target different control circuits. To predict differential actions of tsDCS montages that enhance motorspecific interventions, our method suggests that segmental current flow maps from FEM simulations must be combined with segmental representations of the postulated neuronal element targeted (such as motoneurons, interneurons, or fibers) [5].

Conclusion

The tsDCS can be used as a customized therapy, including in neurorehabilitation following an injury. It is painless and, we show, can be MEP reaction particular. Human translators would benefit from three of our study's findings. First, segmental regions could be targeted with image-based modeling, similar to how epidural spinal stimulation uses empirical targeting of muscle effects. Due to the complex and segmental structural differences between individuals (and species), as well as the low-impedance current entry zones and segmental localization of motor circuits, this is especially crucial for spinal stimulation. Second, scaled estimates of necessary currents and a clinically based physiological biomarker for efficacy—MEP facilitation during stimulation—provide quick outcome feedback for within-session optimization. Thirdly, considering our demonstration of montage-specific motor effects and threshold non-linearities, consider sampling multiple muscle groups simultaneously to generate a receptive field for efficient neuromodulation and input-output relations.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Hachem, Laureen D., Christopher S. Ahuja and Michael G. Fehlings. "Assessment and management of acute spinal cord injury: From point of injury to rehabilitation." J Spinal Cord Med 40 (2017): 665-675.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Ontaneda, Daniel, Alan J. Thompson, Robert J. Fox and Jeffrey A. Cohen. "Progressive multiple sclerosis: Prospects for disease therapy, repair, and restoration of function." Lancet 389 (2017): 1357-1366.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Picelli, Alessandro, Stefano Tamburin, Michele Passuello and Andreas Waldner, et al. "Robot-assisted arm training in patients with Parkinson’s disease: A pilot study." J Neuroeng Rehabil 11 (2014): 1-4.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Tamburin, Stefano, Stefano Paolucci, Francesca Magrinelli and Massimo Musicco, et al. "The Italian consensus conference on pain in neurorehabilitation: Rationale and methodology." J Pain Res 9 (2016): 311-318.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Maki, Yohko, Takashi Sakurai, Jiro Okochi and Haruyasu Yamaguchi, et al. "Rehabilitation to live better with dementia." Geriatr Gerontol Int 18 (2018):1529-1536.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at