• Users Online: 410
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 463-466

Is effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on visuomotor coordination dependent on task difficulty?


1 Department of Physical Therapy, Yeungnam University College,170, Daemyung-dong, Namgu, Daegu, 705-703, Republic of Korea
2 Department of Physical Therapy, College of Rehabilitation Science, Daegu University, 15, Jilyang, Gyeongsan-si, Kyeongbuk, 712-714, Republic of Korea
3 Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health Science, Cheongju University, 298 Daeseong-ro, Cheongwon-gu, Cheongju-si, Chungbuk 363-764, Republic of Korea

Date of Acceptance11-Feb-2015
Date of Web Publication31-Mar-2015

Correspondence Address:
Na Kyung Lee
Department of Physical Therapy, College of Rehabilitation Science, Daegu University, 15, Jilyang, Gyeongsan-si, Kyeongbuk, 712-714
Republic of Korea
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: This work was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning, No. 2012R1A1B4003477., Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.153697

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), an emerging technique for non-invasive brain stimulation, is increasingly used to induce changes in cortical excitability and modulate motor behavior, especially for upper limbs. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of tDCS of the primary motor cortex on visuomotor coordination based on three levels of task difficulty in healthy subjects. Thirty-eight healthy participants underwent real tDCS or sham tDCS. Using a single-blind, sham-controlled crossover design, tDCS was applied to the primary motor cortex. For real tDCS conditions, tDCS intensity was 1 mA while stimulation was applied for 15 minutes. For the sham tDCS, electrodes were placed in the same position, but the stimulator was turned off after 5 seconds. Visuomotor tracking task, consisting of three levels (levels 1, 2, 3) of difficulty with higher level indicating greater difficulty, was performed before and after tDCS application. At level 2, real tDCS of the primary motor cortex improved the accurate index compared to the sham tDCS. However, at levels 1 and 3, the accurate index was not significantly increased after real tDCS compared to the sham tDCS. These findings suggest that tasks of moderate difficulty may improve visuomotor coordination in healthy subjects when tDCS is applied compared with easier or more difficult tasks.

Keywords: neural regeneration; transcranial direct current stimulation; visuomotor coordination; task difficulty; primary motor area; motor learning; neural regeneration


How to cite this article:
Kwon YH, Kang KW, Son SM, Lee NK. Is effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on visuomotor coordination dependent on task difficulty?. Neural Regen Res 2015;10:463-6

How to cite this URL:
Kwon YH, Kang KW, Son SM, Lee NK. Is effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on visuomotor coordination dependent on task difficulty?. Neural Regen Res [serial online] 2015 [cited 2019 Nov 20];10:463-6. Available from: http://www.nrronline.org/text.asp?2015/10/3/463/153697

Author contributions: All authors conceived and designed the overall study, performed experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, and approved the final version of the paper.
Conflicts of interest: None declared.



  Introduction Top


Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is an emerging technique for non-invasive brain stimulation that allows the modulation of cortical excitability, resulting in changes in brain function (Reis et al., 2008). The advantages of tDCS over transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), an alternative non-invasive brain stimulation technique, are that it is relatively inexpensive, simple to use, and easily transportable (Clancy et al., 2014). In particular, tDCS delivers low-intensity current to the brain, thereby facilitating (anodal stimulation) or inhibiting (cathodal stimulation) spontaneous neuronal activity; neurophysiological long-lasting effects of a single tDCS session can outlast the stimulation period by up to 90 minutes (Nitsche et al., 2003; Stagg and Nitsche, 2011). Neuronal segments orientated toward the stimulation anode have been shown to hyperpolarize, and concomitantly the segments oriented toward the cathode depolarize (Radman et al., 2009a). Clinical brain stimulation modalities, and associated therapeutic outcomes, may depend specifically on subthreshold (e.g., tDCS) and suprathreshold (e.g., TMS) neuronal effects (Wagner et al., 2007). In response to the unique electric fields, cortical neuron morphology relative to electric fields and cortical cell types are factors in determining sensitivity to subthreshold and suprathreshold brain stimulation (Radman et al., 2009a, b). A small direct current, typically 1-2 mA, is then applied and has been shown to influence the spontaneous activity of cortical neurons (Clancy et al., 2014).

In the motor domain, tDCS has been effectively used to enhance motor performance in healthy and brain-damaged individuals (Convento et al., 2014). Motor learning has been consistently shown to be associated with a large-scale cortical network that includes areas such as the primary motor area (M1), premotor and supplementary motor areas, basal ganglia, and cerebellum (Ungerleider et al., 2002; Quartarone et al., 2004; Reis and Fritsch, 2011). Several studies have shown that this technique may modulate cortical excitability in the human motor cortex (Di Lazzaro et al., 2004; Kwon et al., 2008) and visual cortex (Antal et al., 2004a; Sparing et al., 2009), mediate beneficial effects on motor learning (Bolognini et al., 2009; Hunter et al., 2009) and visuomotor coordination tasks (Antal et al., 2004b, c), as well as have clinical applications (Arul-Anandam and Loo, 2009; Ferrucci et al., 2009). Especially, tDCS of the M1 can improve different motor functions, including motor execution (Antal et al., 2004c; Boggio et al., 2006), motor learning, and adaptation (Hunter et al., 2009; Stagg and Nitsche, 2011), consolidation of motor learning, and motor imagery.

Recently, several studies have reported that the percentage of correct movements increases in the early phase after tDCS of cortical areas compared to non-stimulation conditions, resulting in behavioral improvement at the beginning of the practice process (Antal et al., 2008). The chosen task is a visuomotor tracking paradigm, which offers a well-defined practice curve and can be modulated by tDCS of the M1 (Antal et al., 2004b). It is already well known that tDCS enhances cortical activation and motor performance by recruiting additional cortical neurons. However, there has been no study on the effects of task difficulty level on visuomotor coordination when tDCS is applied. Therefore, in this study, we investigated the effects of tDCS of the M1 on visuomotor coordination based on three levels of difficulty in healthy individuals.


  Subjects and Methods Top


Subjects

A total of 38 healthy volunteers, 27 females and 11 males, aged 21.8 ± 1.4 years, were recruited from Yeungnam University College, Republic of Korea into this study via advertisement. These participants were subjected to real tDCS (n = 19) or sham tDCS (n = 19). Prior to participation, all subjects underwent a neurological examination to screen for any exclusion criteria regarding the use of non-invasive brain stimulation, such as taking any medication. All subjects were right-handed, according to the modified Edinburg Handedness Inventory (Oldfield, 1971) (mean score 87.46 ± 19.62). All subjects provided written informed consent prior to the experiment, and the study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Yeungnam University Hospital (YUHS-40-14-032) in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Test procedure

This study was designed as a single-blind, sham-controlled, and randomized crossover trial. All subjects were seated in front of a table with their left hands on the table and performed a tracking task comprising three levels of task difficulty. The level of task difficulty was dependent on velocity and was presented as various amplitudes from 1.5-3 Hz (level 1: 80 rpm, level 2: 120 rpm and level 3: 160 rpm). The task order was presented randomly and counter-balanced across all subjects according to stimulation condition. Depending on the individual, all subjects felt the current as a mild itching sensation or not at all under the electrodes during the initial stages of stimulation, and subjects were blinded to stimulation conditions. For active conditions, tDCS intensity was 1mA while stimulation was applied for 15 minutes, in accordance with current safety data. For the sham control, electrodes were placed in the same position, but the stimulator was turned off after 5 seconds, as described previously. This ensured that participants could feel an itching sensation at the beginning of tDCS while no effective stimulation was delivered, thereby allowing successful blinding for real versus sham stimulations. The three-level tracking task test was performed before and after tDCS motor phase.

Transcranial direct current stimulation

A simple and constant current stimulator (Phoresor II Auto Model PM 850, IOMED, US) was used to deliver a direct current of 1 mA for 15 minutes with rubber surface electrodes (5 cm × 7 cm) housed in saline-soaked sponges. For stimulation of the primary motor area (M1), the anodal electrode was placed over C3 or C4 (according to the 10/20 electroencephalography system) in the right hemisphere while the reference electrode was placed over the supraorbital area in the left hemisphere. This area is well known as the neural representational area of hand motor function. All participants tolerated tDCS well, and no adverse effects related to the application of tDCS were observed or reported.

Tracking task

The tracking task was produced by metacarpal phalangeal joint extension and flexion movement. Participants were seated with their right elbows flexed on a table and used their left hands to hold a custom-made rotator machine with a built-in potentiometer. For the tracking task, the subjects were instructed to track the red target sine wave displayed on the computer screen for 15 seconds as accurately as possible. The response sine wave made by each subject was displayed as a black solid line, which was tracked up as the metacarpal phalangeal joint was extended and tracked down as the metacarpal phalangeal joint was flexed. For the tracking task, accuracy of tracking performance in each of the three trials was calculated as an accuracy index (AI). AI = 100(P-E)/P.

P value was the magnitude of the target pattern of each subject, measured as the root mean square (RMS) value between the sine wave and the vertical line at the up and down apexes. E value was calculated as the RMS error between the target and the response sine wave. The magnitude of P is based on the scale of the vertical axis, which is each subject's range of wrist motion. Therefore, the AI is normalized to each subject's own range of motion and takes into account any differences in excursion of the tracking target among subjects. The maximal score is 100. Negative scores occur when the response line is so distant from target that it falls on the opposite side of the midline.

Statistical analysis

Demographic data, such as gender and age, were analyzed using an independent t-test. The pre- and after-effects of tDCS were determined using two-way analysis of variance (factors: real-tDCS, sham-tDCS, factors × test: pre-tDCS, post-tDCS) with repeated measures of the three dependent variables (levels 1, 2, and 3). All statistical analyses were performed using PAWS 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), and P < 0.05 was used as the criterion for statistical significance.


  Results Top


General data of participants

The mean age of the real tDCS group (5 males and 12 females) and sham tDCS group (6 males and 13 females) was 21.89 ± 0.87 years and 21.63± 1.67 years. There was no significant difference in distribution of sex between real tDCS and sham tDCS groups.

tDCS improved visuomotor coordination ability

[Table 1] indicates the pre-test and post-test of the AI depending on three levels of task difficulty for each group. Univariate analysis reveals significant difference in levels of task difficulty. At level 2, univariate analysis shows a large main effect of time (F = 21.996, P < 0.001) and group-by-time interaction (F = 7.970, P < 0.008), suggesting that AI was increased in the tDCS condition compared to the sham tDCS condition. However, at levels 1 and 3, univariate analysis showed only a large main effect of time (F = 26.148, P < 0.001, F = 6.822, P < 0.001, respectively).
Table 1 Mean and standard deviation (SD) of the accurate index (AI) depending on three levels of tracking task difficulty

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


In the current study, we attempted to determine whether or not the effects of tDCS on visuomotor coordination depend on the level of task difficulty in healthy subjects. Examinations were performed to evaluate three levels of task difficulty using a tracking task with various velocities. Only at level 2, the tDCS group significantly increased the AI compared with the sham tDCS group. Consequently, we observed improvement of visuomotor coordination only at moderate task difficulty after tDCS of the M1.

At level 2 task difficulty, our observation of increased motor performance after tDCS is consistent with previous reports using similar paradigms for the upper limb (Reis et al., 2009; Stagg and Nitsche, 2011). Possible mechanisms behind the effects of tDCS can be based on two main factors. First, motor learning is typically accompanied by activity-dependent modifications of synapses inducing Hebbian plasticity in the form of long term potentiation-like or long term depression-like changes within cortical neurons (Abbott and Nelson, 2000; Muellbacher et al., 2002). Neuronal circuits involved with hand tracking were likely active or at a heightened state before and during performance of the motor task. Hence, it is possible that these were more accessible to the membrane-shifting properties of tDCS thereby shaping synaptic plasticity and resulting in improved motor performance and learning. On the contrary, moderate changes in background excitability may reduce the threshold at which synapses are strengthened, thus enabling pre-activated synapses in cortical networks to be engaged more easily and produce a stronger, more enhanced output during execution of the task (Antal et al., 2008). These results indicate that application of anodal tDCS enhanced visuomotor coordination compared with the sham tDCS group.

Secondly, increased visuomotor coordination can be attributed to peripheral afferent feedback associated with a task and the effect of multiple cortical areas projecting into the motor cortex. Changes in afferent feedback from fingers and intrinsic muscles have been shown to influence patterns of cortical activity associated with tracking tasks (Doemges and Rack, 1992). Further, given that multiple cortical areas contribute to the control of movement, the increased AI may reflect greater inputs from other areas projecting into the motor cortex during performance of the task (Pearce and Kidgell, 2009). Combined with previous findings, the results of this study indicate that increasing the precision of a movement task can elevate cortical excitability due to the greater motor demand of the more precise task (Classen et al., 1998; Hasegawa et al., 2001). In our study, the level 2 task (moderate level) increased cortical excitability compared to level 1task when tDCS was applied.

Typically with more difficult tasks, task lateralization may be efficient when easier targets are presented, whereas bilateral activation may improve the brain's resolving power with difficulty to discriminate targets. In addition, higher motor task difficulty is associated with enhanced premotor cortex activation according to several studies (Catalan et al., 1998; Haaland et al., 2004). In the level 3 task, there was no significant difference in AI between real tDCS and sham tDCS. These results indicate that the difficulty level of the task was influenced by alternative brain activity. Finally, the findings suggest that complex reasoning can be understood in terms of adaptive activation of large-scale brain networks.

The clinical implication of our findings is that moderate task difficulty may be useful to improve visuomotor coordination in healthy subjects when tDCS is applied compared with easier or more difficult tasks. However, the present study has some limitations. The single-blinded test is the most important limitation of this study, and further studies involving double-blinded tests are required to avoid unconscious bias. It is possible that fewer effects may reach a statistically significant level if more subjects had been tested. In addition, due to the size of the electrodes and the placement position of the return electrode, the learning improvements cannot be solely attributed to the M1, and it is also likely that motor areas adjacent to the M1 or premotor areas are affected by stimulation, contributing to our results[33].

 
  References Top

1.
Abbott LF, Nelson SB (2000) Synaptic plasticity: taming the beast. Nat Neurosci 3 Suppl:1178-1183.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Antal A, Begemeier S, Nitsche MA, Paulus W (2008) Prior state of cortical activity influences subsequent practicing of a visuomotor coordination task. Neuropsychologia 46:3157-3161.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Antal A, Kincses TZ, Nitsche MA, Bartfai O, Paulus W (2004a) Excitability changes induced in the human primary visual cortex by transcranial direct current stimulation: direct electrophysiological evidence. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:702-707.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Antal A, Nitsche MA, Kruse W, Kincses TZ, Hoffmann KP, Paulus W (2004b) Direct current stimulation over V5 enhances visuomotor coordination by improving motion perception in humans. J Cogn Neurosci 16:521-527.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Antal A, Nitsche MA, Kincses TZ, Kruse W, Hoffmann KP, Paulus W (2004c) Facilitation of visuo-motor learning by transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor and extrastriate visual areas in humans. Eur J Neurosci 19:2888-2892.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Arul-Anandam AP, Loo C (2009) Transcranial direct current stimulation: a new tool for the treatment of depression? J Affect Disord 117:137-145.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Boggio PS, Castro LO, Savagim EA, Braite R, Cruz VC, Rocha RR, Rigonatti SP, Silva MT, Fregni F (2006) Enhancement of non-dominant hand motor function by anodal transcranial direct current stimulation. Neurosci Lett 404:232-236.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Bolognini N, Pascual-Leone A, Fregni F (2009) Using non-invasive brain stimulation to augment motor training-induced plasticity. J Neuroeng Rehabil 6:8.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Catalan MJ, Honda M, Weeks RA, Cohen LG, Hallett M (1998) The functional neuroanatomy of simple and complex sequential finger movements: a PET study. Brain 121:253-264.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Clancy JA, Johnson R, Raw R, Deuchars SA, Deuchars J (2014) Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the motor cortex increases sympathetic nerve activity. Brain Stimul 7:97-104.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Classen J, Liepert J, Wise SP, Hallett M, Cohen LG (1998) Rapid plasticity of human cortical movement representation induced by practice. J Neurophysiol 79:1117-1123.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Convento S, Bolognini N, Fusaro M, Lollo F, Vallar G (2014) Neuromodulation of parietal and motor activity affects motor planning and execution. Cortex 57:51-59.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Di Lazzaro V, Oliviero A, Pilato F, Saturno E, Dileone M, Marra C, Daniele A, Ghirlanda S, Gainotti G, Tonali PA (2004) Motor cortex hyperexcitability to transcranial magnetic stimulation in Alzheimer's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 75:555-559.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Doemges F, Rack PM (1992) Changes in the stretch reflex of the human first dorsal interosseous muscle during different tasks. J Physiol 447:563-573.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Ferrucci R, Bortolomasi M, Vergari M, Tadini L, Salvoro B, Giacopuzzi M, Barbieri S, Priori A (2009) Transcranial direct current stimulation in severe, drug-resistant major depression. J Affect Disord 118:215-219.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Haaland KY, Elsinger CL, Mayer AR, Durgerian S, Rao SM (2004) Motor sequence complexity and performing hand produce differential patterns of hemispheric lateralization. J Cogn Neurosci 16:621-636.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Hasegawa Y, Kasai T, Tsuji T, Yahagi S (2001) Further insight into the task-dependent excitability of motor evoked potentials in first dorsal interosseous muscle in humans. Exp Brain Res 140:387-396.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Hunter T, Sacco P, Nitsche MA, Turner DL (2009) Modulation of internal model formation during force field-induced motor learning by anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of primary motor cortex. J Physiol 587:2949-2961.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Kwon YH, Ko MH, Ahn SH, Kim YH, Song JC, Lee CH, Chang MC, Jang SH (2008) Primary motor cortex activation by transcranial direct current stimulation in the human brain. Neurosci Lett 435:56-59.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Muellbacher W, Ziemann U, Wissel J, Dang N, Kofler M, Facchini S, Boroojerdi B, Poewe W, Hallett M (2002) Early consolidation in human primary motor cortex. Nature 415:640-644.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Nitsche MA, Schauenburg A, Lang N, Liebetanz D, Exner C, Paulus W, Tergau F (2003) Facilitation of implicit motor learning by weak transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex in the human. J Cogn Neurosci 15:619-626.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97-113.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Pearce AJ, Kidgell DJ (2009) Corticomotor excitability during precision motor tasks. J Sci Med Sport 12:280-283.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Quartarone A, Morgante F, Bagnato S, Rizzo V, Sant'Angelo A, Aiello E, Reggio E, Battaglia F, Messina C, Girlanda P (2004) Long lasting effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on motor imagery. Neuroreport 15:1287-1291.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Radman T, Ramos RL, Brumberg JC, Bikson M (2009a) Role of cortical cell type and morphology in subthreshold and suprathreshold uniform electric field stimulation in vitro. Brain Stimul 2:215-228, 228 e211-213.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Radman T, Datta A, Ramos RL, Brumberg JC, Bikson M (2009b) One-dimensional representation of a neuron in a uniform electric field. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2009:6481-6484.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Reis J, Fritsch B (2011) Modulation of motor performance and motor learning by transcranial direct current stimulation. Curr Opin Neurol 24:590-596.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Reis J, Schambra HM, Cohen LG, Buch ER, Fritsch B, Zarahn E, Celnik PA, Krakauer JW (2009) Noninvasive cortical stimulation enhances motor skill acquisition over multiple days through an effect on consolidation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:1590-1595.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Reis J, Robertson E, Krakauer JW, Rothwell J, Marshall L, Gerloff C, Wassermann E, Pascual-Leone A, Hummel F, Celnik PA, Classen J, Floel A, Ziemann U, Paulus W, Siebner HR, Born J, Cohen LG (2008) Consensus: "Can tDCS and TMS enhance motor learning and memory formation?". Brain Stimul 1:363-369.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Sparing R, Thimm M, Hesse MD, Kust J, Karbe H, Fink GR (2009) Bidirectional alterations of interhemispheric parietal balance by non-invasive cortical stimulation. Brain 132:3011-3020.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Stagg CJ, Nitsche MA (2011) Physiological basis of transcranial direct current stimulation. Neuroscientist 17:37-53.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Ungerleider LG, Doyon J, Karni A (2002) Imaging brain plasticity during motor skill learning. Neurobiol Learn Mem 78:553-564.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Wagner T, Valero-Cabre A, Pascual-Leone A (2007) Noninvasive human brain stimulation. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 9:527-565.  Back to cited text no. 33
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]


This article has been cited by
1 Effect of Anodal and Cathodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on DLPFC on Modulation of Inhibitory Control in ADHD
Zahra Soltaninejad,Vahid Nejati,Hamed Ekhtiari
Journal of Attention Disorders. 2019; 23(4): 325
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Comparisons of Accuracy of Knee Joint Motion During Closed verse Open Kinetic Chain Tasks in Subjects with Flexible Flatfeet
Ju Sang Kim,Yong Hyun Kwon,Mi Young Lee
The Journal of Korean Physical Therapy. 2019; 31(1): 13
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation of Primary Motor Cortex on Reaction Time and Tapping Performance: A Comparison Between Athletes and Non-athletes
Oliver Seidel,Patrick Ragert
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2019; 13
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Modulation of linguistic prediction by TDCS of the right lateral cerebellum
R.C. Miall,J. Antony,A. Goldsmith-Sumner,S.R. Harding,C. McGovern,J.L. Winter
Neuropsychologia. 2016; 86: 103
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over primary motor cortex leg area promotes dynamic balance task performance
Elisabeth Kaminski,Christopher J. Steele,Maike Hoff,Christopher Gundlach,Viola Rjosk,Bernhard Sehm,Arno Villringer,Patrick Ragert
Clinical Neurophysiology. 2016; 127(6): 2455
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1426    
    Printed15    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded276    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 5    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]