Low-frequency electrical stimulation combined with a cooling vest improves recovery of elite kayakers following a simulated 1000-m race in a hot environment

This study compared the effects of a low-frequency electrical stimulation (LFES; Veinoplus® Sport, Ad Rem Technology, Paris, France), a low-frequency electrical stimulation combined with a cooling vest (LFESCR) and an active recovery combined with a cooling vest (ACTCR) as recovery strategies on performance (racing time and pacing strategies), physiologic and perceptual responses between two sprint kayak simulated races, in a hot environment (∼32 wet-bulb-globe temperature). Eight elite male kayakers performed two successive 1000-m kayak time trials (TT1 and TT2), separated by a short-term recovery period, including a 30-min of the respective recovery intervention protocol, in a randomized crossover design. Racing time, power output, and stroke rate were recorded for each time trial. Blood lactate concentration, pH, core, skin and body temperatures were measured before and after both TT1 and TT2 and at mid- and post-recovery intervention. Perceptual ratings of thermal sensation were also collected. LFESCR was associated with a very likely effect in performance restoration compared with ACTCR (99/0/1%) and LFES conditions (98/0/2%). LFESCR induced a significant decrease in body temperature and thermal sensation at post-recovery intervention, which is not observed in ACTCR condition. In conclusion, the combination of LFES and wearing a cooling vest (LFESCR) improves performance restoration between two 1000-m kayak time trials achieved by elite athletes, in the heat.

Neural mechanisms underlying perilesional transcranial direct current stimulation in aphasia: A feasibility study

Little is known about the neural mechanisms by which transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) impacts on language processing in post-stroke aphasia. This was addressed in a proof-of-principle study that explored the effects of tDCS application in aphasia during simultaneous functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). We employed a single subject, cross-over, sham-tDCS controlled design, and the stimulation was administered to an individualized perilesional stimulation site that was identified by a baseline fMRI scan and a picture naming task. Peak activity during the baseline scan was located in the spared left inferior frontal gyrus and this area was stimulated during a subsequent cross-over phase. tDCS was successfully administered to the target region and anodal- vs. sham-tDCS resulted in selectively increased activity at the stimulation site. Our results thus demonstrate that it is feasible to precisely target an individualized stimulation site in aphasia patients during simultaneous fMRI, which allows assessing the neural mechanisms underlying tDCS application. The functional imaging results of this case report highlight one possible mechanism that may have contributed to beneficial behavioral stimulation effects in previous clinical tDCS trials in aphasia. In the future, this approach will allow identifying distinct patterns of stimulation effects on neural processing in larger cohorts of patients. This may ultimately yield information about the variability of tDCS effects on brain functions in aphasia.