@article{HiewNguemeniZeller2022,
  author    = {Hiew, Shawn and Nguemeni, Carine and Zeller, Daniel},
  title     = {Efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation in people with multiple sclerosis: a review},
  series = {European Journal of Neurology},
  volume    = {29},
  journal   = {European Journal of Neurology},
  number    = {2},
  doi       = {10.1111/ene.15163},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-259424},
  pages     = {648-664},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Background and purpose Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disease causing a wide range of symptoms including motor and cognitive impairment, fatigue and pain. Over the last two decades, non-invasive brain stimulation, especially transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), has increasingly been used to modulate brain function in various physiological and pathological conditions. However, its experimental applications for people with MS were noted only as recently as 2010 and have been growing since then. The efficacy for use in people with MS remains questionable with the results of existing studies being largely conflicting. Hence, the aim of this review is to paint a picture of the current state of tDCS in MS research grounded on studies applying tDCS that have been done to date. Methods A keyword search was performed to retrieve articles from the earliest article identified until 14 February 2021 using a combination of the groups (1) 'multiple sclerosis', 'MS' and 'encephalomyelitis' and (2) 'tDCS' and 'transcranial direct current stimulation'. Results The analysis of the 30 articles included in this review underlined inconsistent effects of tDCS on the motor symptoms of MS based on small sample sizes. However, tDCS showed promising benefits in ameliorating fatigue, pain and cognitive symptoms. Conclusion Transcranial direct current stimulation is attractive as a non-drug approach in ameliorating MS symptoms, where other treatment options remain limited. The development of protocols tailored to the individual's own neuroanatomy using high definition tDCS and the introduction of network mapping in the experimental designs might help to overcome the variability between studies.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{LiesnerKunde2020,
  author    = {Liesner, Marvin and Kunde, Wilfried},
  title     = {Suppression of mutually incompatible proprioceptive and visual action effects in tool use},
  series = {PLoS One},
  volume    = {15},
  journal   = {PLoS One},
  number    = {11},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0242327},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-231250},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Movements of a tool typically diverge from the movements of the hand manipulating that tool, such as when operating a pivotal lever where tool and hand move in opposite directions. Previous studies suggest that humans are often unaware of the position or movements of their effective body part (mostly the hand) in such situations. It has been suggested that this might be due to a "haptic neglect" of bodily sensations to decrease the interference of representations of body and tool movements. However, in principle this interference could also be decreased by neglecting sensations regarding the tool and focusing instead on body movements. While in most tool use situations the tool-related action effects are task-relevant and thus suppression of body-related rather than tool-related sensations is more beneficial for successful goal achievement, we manipulated this task-relevance in a controlled experiment. The results showed that visual, tool-related effect representations can be suppressed just as proprioceptive, body-related ones in situations where effect representations interfere, given that task-relevance of body-related effects is increased relative to tool-related ones.},
  language  = {en}
}