YouTube video by Neuroelectrics

Fundación Hospitalarias Madrid. This study presents a novel transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) protocol combined with cognitive stimulation to address post-stroke hemispatial neglect. Ini...

Brain networks should be ideal targets for non-invasive brain stimulation, as network dysfunction is a common feature of various neuropsychiatric diso…

Drug-resistant epilepsy often requires precise identification of seizure onset zones using SEEG recordings. This article presents a Variational Autoencoder–based deep learning framework that detects a...

Explore how a dancer’s brain responds to ballet movements. EEG research uncovers changes in brain activity during jumps, spins, and pliés.

Background Traditional neuromodulation strategies show promise in enhancing cognitive abilities in bipolar disorder (BD) but remain suboptimal. This study introduces a novel multimodal neurostimulatio...

PDF | Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is an exciting neuromodulatory instrument that can enhance executive function, working memory, and... | Find, read and cite all the research you ne...

Alzheimer’s disease disrupts brain networks and is marked by shifts in brain rhythms detectable by EEG long before significant cell death. Recognizing these changes is vital for early detection and ta...

YouTube video by Neuroelectrics

The metacontrol framework claims that cognitive control operates along a continuum between persistence and flexibility. While spontaneous mind-wandering is often considered a failure of control, emerg...

🧠 We’re proud to announce a strategic partnership between Neuroelectrics and Persyst Development LLC, uniting two leaders in EEG technology to deliver a seamless acquisition and analysis experience. ...

How ChatGPT affects brain activity, memory, and ownership. Learn from a new MIT study on the cognitive impact of AI writing tools and discover smarter usage strategies.

Background Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a popular approach to augment the effects of neurorehabilitation. Most studies stimulated the ipsilesional primary motor cortex (iM1); nonetheless, the success of iM1 stimulation was variable, suggesting that it may not be optimal for improving recovery. Ipsilesional premotor cortex (iPMC) may be an alternative candidate based on its likelihood of survival post-stroke and its contribution to functions. This study aimed to determine the effects of tDCS on the iPMC and iM1 with mirror therapy (MT) on motor control, muscle function, and brain activity in chronic stroke. Methods Thirty-six participants were randomly distributed into (1) iPMC-tDCS with MT (PMC), (2), iM1-tDCS with MT (M1), and (3) sham tDCS with MT (sham). Motor control was assessed using kinematics. Muscle function was assessed using the modified Ashworth and the Medical Research Council Scales. The M1 and PMC activity was recorded using electroencephalography (EEG), and the event-related desynchronization and the laterality index (LI) were examined. Results Significant within-group differences were identified in the kinematic outcomes. After interventions, the PMC group showed reduced paretic upper limb muscle spasticity and improved paretic limb control with greater movement smoothness and peak velocity. The M1 group showed reduced trunk compensation with fewer trunk displacement and flexion. However, the sham group relied more on trunk compensation, demonstrating increased trunk peak velocity and smoothness. Significant between-group differences were also found in paretic limb control and trunk displacement. Post-hoc analysis revealed that the PMC group improved paretic limb control, and the M1 group showed reduced trunk displacement more than the sham group. Significant within-and between-group differences were identified in EEG outcomes. The iM1 and contralesional PMC (cPMC) activity increased from pre-to-post intervention in the M1 group. In contrast, the iM1 activity decreased, and the LI declined from pre- to post-intervention in the sham group. Significant group differences were found in the iM1 activity, with the PMC and M1 having greater iM1 activation than the sham group. Conclusions Differential treatment benefits were identified between iPMC- and iM1-tDCS with MT. iPMC-tDCS with MT uniquely improved paretic upper limb control with reduced muscle spasticity while iM1-tDCS with MT mitigated trunk compensation during reaching. These findings suggest that both iPMC- and iM1-tDCS could augment the effects of stroke neurorehabilitation and may be considered in clinical applications. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04655209. Registered on 15th November 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04655209 .

This webinar will focus on bridging invasive and noninvasive neuromodulation in Parkinson’s disease. We will discuss how DBS network mapping can be used to identify brain networks that may be targeted...

We are thrilled to announce our latest study, conducted in collaboration with artist Refik Anadol, now published in The Arts in Psychotherapy via ScienceDirect. At the The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA)...