Current issue
Journal content
Articles in press
Archive
About the Journal
About the Polish Annals of Medicine
Editorial Board
Open Access policy
Abstracting & indexing
Affiliated institutions
Contact
Instructions
Peer review process
Guide for authors
Publication ethics
Ethics and Patient Consent
User License
Usage of third party materials
Disclaimer
Reviewers
Guide for reviewers
List of reviewers
Review Form
RESEARCH PAPER
Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on dichotic listening test results in children with disorders of psychological development
| 1 | City Centre of Rehabilitation Treatment for Children with Psychoneurological Disabilities, Saint Petersburg, Russia |
| 2 | Saint-Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University, Saint Petersburg, Russia |
| 3 | Saint Petersburg Institute for Informatics and Automation of RAS, Saint Petersburg, Russia |
| 4 | Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, Russia |
| 5 | Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia, Saint Petersburg, Russia |
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Evgeny L. Wasserman
St. Petersburg Institute for Informatics and Automation of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 14 line 39, St. Petersburg 199178, Russia. Tel.: +7 8123214467.
St. Petersburg Institute for Informatics and Automation of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 14 line 39, St. Petersburg 199178, Russia. Tel.: +7 8123214467.
Submission date: 2015-02-24
Acceptance date: 2015-05-04
Online publication date: 2015-07-07
Publication date: 2020-03-26
Pol. Ann. Med. 2015;22(2):67–73
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
We use dichotic listening (DL) test to assess functional brain asymmetry when we treat children with disorders of psychological development (DPD) by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).
Aim:
In this work we carry out retrospective analysis of children with DPD and study the influence of tDCS on auditory verbal stimuli perception characteristics obtained by DL tests.
Material and methods:
We analyzed the DL test results of 6–13-year-old children; 26 children with specific developmental disorders of scholastic skills (SDDSS), 31 children with specific developmental disorders of speech and language (SDDSL), and 39 healthy children were tested. Some of the children with DPD (21 children) were tested only once, 26 – before and after tDCS, and 10 – before and after the treatment without tDCS. In all cases we estimated laterality indices (LI) and the amounts of ‘‘erroneous’’ answers (ErrA).
Results and discussion:
In the DPD group before the treatment the LI values were lower and the ErrA values were higher in comparison to the values of healthy children; the differences were more significant in the SDDSL than in the SDDSS subgroup. In the SDDSL subgroup after tDCS the LI values got closer to those of the healthy children, and the ErrA values decreased. The LI and ErrA values of children who had not received tDCS treatment did not change.
Conclusions:
The DL test reveals the characteristics of brain asymmetry in case of DPD, and can be useful when planning tDCS treatment and estimating its effectiveness.
We use dichotic listening (DL) test to assess functional brain asymmetry when we treat children with disorders of psychological development (DPD) by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).
Aim:
In this work we carry out retrospective analysis of children with DPD and study the influence of tDCS on auditory verbal stimuli perception characteristics obtained by DL tests.
Material and methods:
We analyzed the DL test results of 6–13-year-old children; 26 children with specific developmental disorders of scholastic skills (SDDSS), 31 children with specific developmental disorders of speech and language (SDDSL), and 39 healthy children were tested. Some of the children with DPD (21 children) were tested only once, 26 – before and after tDCS, and 10 – before and after the treatment without tDCS. In all cases we estimated laterality indices (LI) and the amounts of ‘‘erroneous’’ answers (ErrA).
Results and discussion:
In the DPD group before the treatment the LI values were lower and the ErrA values were higher in comparison to the values of healthy children; the differences were more significant in the SDDSL than in the SDDSS subgroup. In the SDDSL subgroup after tDCS the LI values got closer to those of the healthy children, and the ErrA values decreased. The LI and ErrA values of children who had not received tDCS treatment did not change.
Conclusions:
The DL test reveals the characteristics of brain asymmetry in case of DPD, and can be useful when planning tDCS treatment and estimating its effectiveness.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None declared.
REFERENCES (33)
1.
Njiokiktjien C. Pediatric Behavioural Neurology. vol. 2. Moscow: Terevinf; 2010 [in Russian].
2.
Teeter PA, Semrud-Clikeman M. Child Neuropsychology: Assessment and Interventions for Neurodevelopmental Disorders. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 1997.
3.
Fregni F, Boggio PS, Nitsche M, et al. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of prefrontal cortex enhances working memory. Exp Brain Res. 2005;166(1):23–30.
4.
Antal A, Paulus W. Transcranial direct current stimulation and visual perception. Perception. 2008;37(3):367–374.
5.
Palm U, Schiller C, Fintescu Z, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation in treatment resistant depression: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Brain Stimul. 2012;5(3):242–251.
6.
Zaghi S, Heine N, Fregni F. Brain stimulation for the treatment of pain: a review of costs, clinical effects, and mechanisms of treatment for three different central neuromodulatory approaches. J Pain Manag. 2009;2(3):339–352.
7.
Pinchuk D, Pinchuk O, Sirbiladze K, Shugar O. Clinical effectiveness of primary and secondary headache treatment by transcranial direct current stimulation. Front Neurol. 2013;4:25. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneu....
8.
Pinchuk D, Vasserman M, Sirbiladze K, Pinchuk O. Changes of electrophysiological parameters and neuropsychological characteristics in children with psychic development disorders after transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Pol Ann Med. 2012;19(1):9–14.
9.
Bogdanov OV, Pinchuk DY, Pisar'kova EV, Shelyakin AM, Sirbiladze KT. The use of the method of transcranial micropolarization to decrease the severity hyperkineses in patients with infantile cerebral palsy. Neurosci Behav Physiol. 1994;24(5):442–445.
10.
Pinchuk D, Katisheva M, Sidorenko G, Yurieva R. Investigation of brain plasticity in children with minimal brain disfunctions during directed transcranial stimulations. In: 10-th World Congress of International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disabilities. Helsinki, Finland, July 8–13, 19961996.136–137.
11.
Pinchuk DY. Transcranial Micropolarization of Brain. Clinical Picture. Physiology. 20 Years of Clinical Experience. St. Petersburg: Chelovek; 2007 [in Russian].
12.
Johnson BW, McArthur G, Hautus M, et al. Lateralized auditory brain function in children with normal reading ability and in children with dyslexia. Neuropsychologia. 2013;51(4):633–641.
13.
Obrzut JE, Mahoney EB. Use of the dichotic listening technique with learning disabilities. Brain Cogn. 2011;76(2):323–331.
14.
Pinheiro FH, Oliveira AM, Cardoso AC, Capellini SA. Dichotic listening tests in students with learning disabilities. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;76(2):257–262.
15.
Bless JJ, Westerhausen R, Arciuli J, Kompus K, Gudmundsen M, Hugdahl K. ‘‘Right on all occasions?’’ – on the feasibility of laterality research using a smartphone dichotic listening application. Front Psychol. 2013;4:42. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsy....
16.
Hugdahl K. Fifty years of dichotic listening research – still going and going and. . .. Brain Cogn. 2011;76(2):211–213.
17.
Andersson M, Ystad M, Lundervold A, Lundervold AJ. Correlations between measures of executive attention and cortical thickness of left posterior middle frontal gyrus – a dichotic listening study. Behav Brain Funct. 2009;5:41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1744....
18.
Hiscock M, Kinsbourne M. Attention and the right-ear advantage: what is the connection? Brain Cogn. 2011;76(2):263–275.
19.
Westerhausen R, Woerner W, Kreuder F, Schweiger E, Hugdahl K, Wittling W. The role of the corpus callosum in dichotic listening: a combined morphological and diffusion tensor imaging study. Neuropsychology. 2006;20(3):272–279.
20.
Wasserman EL, Kartashev NK. Dichotic [Computer Program], Version 1.3. St. Petersburg, Russia: St. Petersburg Institute for Informatics and Automation of RAS; 2008.
21.
Wasserman E, Kartashev N. Dichotic listening: computer implementation, methodical problems, and modeling prospects. In: The Third International Conference «Problems of Cybernetics and Informatics» (PCI'2010), vol. 1. Baku, Azerbaijan, 2010 September 6–9, 2010Baku: Elm; 2010:106–109.
22.
Agresti A, Coull B. Approximate is better than ‘‘exact’’ for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Statist. 1998;52(2):119–126.
23.
Brown LD, Cai TT, DasGupta A. Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Statist Sci. 2001;16(2):101–133.
24.
Homan RW, Herman J, Purdy P. Cerebral location of international 10–20 system electrode placement. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1987;66(4):376–382.
25.
Bastani A, Jaberzadeh S. Does anodal transcranial direct current stimulation enhance excitability of the motor cortex and motor function in healthy individuals and subjects with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Neurophysiol. 2012;123(4):644–657.
26.
Liebetanz D, Koch R, Mayenfels S, König F, Paulus W, Nitsche MA. Safety limits of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation in rats. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009;120(6):1161–1167.
27.
Schlaug G, Renga V. Transcranial direct current stimulation: a noninvasive tool to facilitate stroke recovery. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2008;5(6):759–768.
28.
Yuen TG, Agnew WF, Bullara LA, Jacques S, McCreery DB. Histological evaluation of neural damage from electrical stimulation: considerations for the selection of parameters for clinical application. Neurosurgery. 1981;9(3):292–299.
29.
Obrosov AN, Karachevtseva TV, eds. In: Handbook of Physiotherapy and Physioprophylaxis of Childhood Diseases. Moscow: Meditsina; 1987 [in Russian].
30.
Carlsson G, Hugdahl K, Uvebrant P, Wiklund LM, von Wendt L. Pathological left-handedness revisited: dichotic listening in children with left vs right congenital hemiplegia. Neuropsychology. 1992;30(5):471–481.
31.
Rasmussen T, Milner B. The role of early left-brain injury in determining lateralization of cerebral speech functions. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1977;299:355–369.
32.
Hugdahl K. What can be learned about brain function from dichotic listening? Rev Esp Neuropsicol. 2000;2(3):62–84.
33.
Hirnstein M, Westerhausen R, Hugdahl K. The right planum temporale is involved in stimulus-driven, auditory attention – evidence from transcranial magnetic stimulation. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(2):e57316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/jour....
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.