Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Psychomotor Retardation in Major Depression: A Pilot Feasibility Study
Publication: The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
Abstract
This pilot study investigated the feasibility of a comprehensive battery of tests assessing psychomotor retardation after a 3-week protocol of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression. In addition to the beneficial effect of this treatment on depression, the results showed positive changes in psychomotor retardation.
Psychomotor retardation is an important symptom of major depression and is characterized by an adverse reduction in many behavioral components, such as speech, facial expression, ideation, and fine and gross motor skills.1,2 Although clinical rating scales are often included in the diagnostic process, they do not provide information about psychomotor functioning. Moreover, psychomotor retardation has been associated with alterations in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and abnormalities in the basal ganglia and dopaminergic pathways.2–7 Modulating dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity with noninvasive brain stimulation may improve psychomotor retardation in depression.
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex has been proposed as an alternative, effective, and safe therapeutic strategy for major depression.8,9 Although its positive neurostimulation-related effects on changes in depressive symptomatology are well documented,10 currently very few studies have investigated whether rTMS changed psychomotor retardation in major depression. Some studies have suggested that rTMS significantly decreased psychomotor retardation,11–13 whereas others have found that rTMS did not influence this symptom.14 In these studies, psychomotor retardation was assessed either with one specific scale or with only one item of a specific depression scale, but no detailed information about psychomotor functioning was provided. Accordingly, we hypothesized that an objective detailed assessment of psychomotor retardation was necessary to examine the effects of rTMS, applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, on this key symptom. Thus, we investigated the feasibility and acceptability of a comprehensive battery of tests for psychomotor retardation (i.e., assessing its main motor and cognitive components) in naturalistic conditions before and after a 3-week rTMS protocol for major depression.
Methods
Participants
Seven patients with major depression participated in this open, unblinded study at Nantes University Hospital. Inclusion criteria were ages 18–75 years, diagnosis of major depression according to DSM-IV, partial medication resistance or low tolerance, a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score ≥20, and no neurological, psychotic, or addictive disorders. Exclusion criteria included contraindication to rTMS and any change in psychoactive drugs during rTMS therapy. Patients were stimulated to the left or right add-on to continued psychopharmacological treatment in a naturalistic clinical setting. All eligible patients provided a signed form for participation. Table 1 summarizes patients’ characteristics.
| Characteristic | Baseline Value | Before rTMS Treatment | After rTMS Treatment | % Evolution | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 54 (9.2);(45–71) | ||||
| Gender | |||||
| Men | 2 | ||||
| Women | 5 | ||||
| Tests assessing psychomotor retardation | |||||
| MADRS | 32.28 (20–41) | 32.28 (20–41) | 18.14 (2–34) | –43.8 | 0.02b |
| 3-Meter Timed Up and Go test (seconds) | 8.18 (5.7–13.3) | 7.7 (5.7–10.1) | –3.2 | 0.40 | |
| Balance (COP mean velocity in millimeters per second) | |||||
| Simple task | |||||
| Eyes open | 12.48 (5.83) | 10.68 (5.11) | –16.86 | 0.07 | |
| Eyes closed | 16.61 (6.43) | 14.80 (5.70) | –12.17 | 0.07 | |
| Dual task | |||||
| Eyes open | 14.75 (7.50) | 12.62 (6.07) | –20.74 | 0.04b | |
| Eyes closed | 18.49 (5.46) | 14.91 (3.11) | –24.04 | 0.04b | |
| Finger-tapping test (no. of taps) | |||||
| Left | 51.14 (2–62) | 54.42 (44–67) | +3.86 | 0.09 | |
| Right | 54.85 (45–71) | 57 (38–73) | +6.97 | 0.03b | |
| Handgrip test (kg) | |||||
| Left | 22.27 (16.66–35.03) | 22.73 (11.03–37.3) | +8.09 | 0.23 | |
| Right | 22.38 (14.16–36.44) | 23.3 (16.51–36.37) | +4.62 | 0.73 | |
| Letter fluency task | 16.60 (4.32–31) | 16.57 (8–22) | –0.19 | 0.86 | |
| Category fluency task | 19.7 (7.8–27.75) | 22.14 (8–36) | +12.37 | 0.61 | |
| Subtest WAIS-IV symbol search | 24.57 (9–36) | 24.42 (8–42) | –0.61 | 0.90 | |
| DP-15 | 1.28 (0–3) | 2.28 (0–5) | +10.0 | 0.17 | |
| RPE | 4.57 (2–8) | 3.42 (0–7) | –7.61 | 0.39 |
a
Data are presented as means with standard deviations or minimum to maximum values. Maximum scores were 60, for the MADRS and WAIS-IV symbol search test, 15 for the DP-15, and 10 for the RPE. COP, center of pressure; DP-15, perceived difficulty 15-point category scale; MADRS, Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale; RPE, ratings of perceived exertion; rTMS, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
b
Significant evolutions (p values from paired-sample Wilcoxon tests).
Study Design
A pre–post study design was adopted in which the participants underwent a battery of psychomotor tests before and after 15 sessions of active rTMS, which were conducted within a 3-week period. For rTMS, the intensity was 110% of the individual’s motor threshold, which was the minimum stimulus required to induce contraction of the right thumb at least five of 10 times. Five patients underwent high-frequency rTMS on the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (10 Hz, 40 trains of 4 seconds with 28-second intertrain intervals, providing a total of 1,600 pulses over 20 minutes). Two patients underwent low-frequency rTMS on the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (1 Hz, 12 trains of 60 seconds with 30-second intertrain intervals, providing a total of 720 pulses over 17 minutes). Both sessions (before and after rTMS) lasted 45 minutes and included seven psychomotor tests.
Assessments
To examine gait speed and balance, the patients performed the Timed Up and Go test. Balance was measured using a force platform to record the center-of-pressure–based parameters such as the mean velocity (in millimeters per second). Four conditions were tested (random order): two trials of standing balance with eyes open or eyes closed and two trials (eyes open versus eyes closed) of counting backward (dual task; the enumerated figures were recorded with a tape recorder). The trial duration was 60 seconds, followed by a short rest period. A finger-tapping test examined motor speed. Participants were asked to tap their right and left index finger on a lever as quickly as possible within a 10-second time interval. Finally, manual strength was measured with a handheld dynamometer and repeated with both hands three times with 30 seconds of recovery between each effort. Verbal fluency tasks were proposed to test clustering and shifting ability. Participants were required to say as many words as possible within 1 minute, which began with a given letter (R or P) and belonged to a specified semantic category (fruit or clothes). The symbol subtest of the WAIS symbol search was performed as a processing speed index. The order of the tests was randomly counterbalanced within sessions. The perceived difficulty 15-point category scale15 assessing the perceived difficulty of performing the tasks and the 10-point Borg scale of perceived exertion16 provided feedback regarding the feasibility and acceptability of psychomotor assessments.
Results
All participants complied with the protocol. None of the participants withdrew from the study. Participants reported no adverse effects of the intervention associated with completion of the battery. The low 15-point categorical scale scores and ratings of perceived exertion suggest that psychomotor assessments are highly acceptable. Notably, the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale scores showed a significant decrease after the rTMS intervention (paired-sample Wilcoxon test: p=0.02, large Cohen's d=1.42). Moreover, t tests revealed positive effects of the rTMS intervention on postural control, with a significant decrease in center-of-pressure mean velocity at post-rTMS evaluation compared with baseline assessment in a dual-task condition (eyes open condition: –20.74%, p=0.04, medium Cohen’s d=0.42; eyes closed condition: –24.04%, p=0.04, large Cohen’s d=1.04). Note that no change in the number of enumerated figures or errors while counting backward aloud was found. A positive effect was also found for the dominant right finger–tapping performance (+6.97%, p=0.03, small Cohen’s d=0.21). All results are summarized in Table 1.
Discussion
Our study showed that administering a comprehensive psychomotor battery of tests during rTMS is feasible, free of adverse effects, and well tolerated by the patients in naturalistic conditions before or after the treatment. Moreover, this pilot study—despite the limited sample—showed a significant effect of rTMS treatment on depression, which is consistent with the previous literature.17 In addition, after the intervention, participants showed positive changes in psychomotor impairment, and they were able to perform more functional motor activities (e.g., more efficient postural control) associated with probable improvement in cognitive efficiency (e.g., improved dual postural performance). Accordingly, a better reweighting of velocity information, as indicated by lower mean velocity values after rTMS treatment, appears to be a meaningful objective index of an effective adaptive process, given the baseline characteristics related to psychomotor retardation (Mignardot et al.18 arrived at similar conclusions in patients with Alzheimer’s disease). This point is also of special interest for clinical balance assessment and the risk for falls in major depression.19 Overall, our findings are in line with previous studies that reported improvements in the Depressive Retardation Rating Scale scores, a subjective scale validated to assess the severity of psychomotor retardation.11 In support of our expectations, these present objective and motoric markers are likely sensitive to improvement of psychomotor retardation in depressed patients after 3 weeks of rTMS intervention.13 However, two studies reported that psychomotor retardation significantly improved only after 10 sessions of rTMS,11,12 yet another study with 15 sessions did not report any improvements.14 The features of the assessment tools for psychomotor retardation may thus influence the results of the studies, regardless of rTMS duration or other parameters, such as frequency and laterality of stimulation site.12 Concerning the underlying neurophysiological mechanisms, two different but not exclusive processes may have induced improvement of psychomotor retardation. First, such improvement is probably attributable to an effect of rTMS on dopamine release in the caudate nucleus and mesolimbic and mesostriatal systems.20 Second, rTMS, when applied to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, is known to have remote effects on other dorsal regions, such as the anterior cingulate cortex, which is implicated in attentional and cognitive control. Thus, the rTMS probably reduced the attentional and cognitive deficits related to psychomotor retardation in patients with major depression.21
In summary, our study shows that our comprehensive battery of tests assessing psychomotor retardation is feasible, safe, and well accepted in rTMS routine practice for patients with major depression, and it allows us to identify motor and cognitive dimensions of the RPM. However, this clinical study has a number of limitations. First, a psychomotor retardation scale was not included in this feasibility study to link to the current objective tests with respect to a validated scale. We nevertheless assume that the comprehensive battery of tests we used constitutes a reliable tool for the assessment of psychomotor retardation. In addition, it might be more sensitive to positive effects of rTMS intervention compared with the psychomotor retardation scale. Second, the pilot study reported here involved a small group of participants. Nevertheless, if the reported effects are large (see the Cohen’s d values as measures of effect size), supporting the consistency of the significant findings, they need to be confirmed in a larger population. These positive results would then help guide the feasible development of a large, double-blind, sham-controlled trial protocol for administering rTMS treatment in appropriate sample sizes22 of patients with depression and for testing its predictive efficiency while accounting for the objective RPM baseline assessment.
Footnote
Drs. Thomas-Ollivier and Deschamps are co-first authors.
References
1.
Bennabi D, Vandel P, Papaxanthis C, et al: Psychomotor retardation in depression: a systematic review of diagnostic, pathophysiologic, and therapeutic implications. Biomed Res Int 2013; 2013:158746
2.
Buyukdura JS, McClintock SM, Croarkin PE: Psychomotor retardation in depression: biological underpinnings, measurement, and treatment. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2011; 35:395–409
3.
Bench CJ, Friston KJ, Brown RG, et al: Regional cerebral blood flow in depression measured by positron emission tomography: the relationship with clinical dimensions. Psychol Med 1993; 23:579–590
4.
Bracht T, Federspiel A, Schnell S, et al: Cortico-cortical white matter motor pathway microstructure is related to psychomotor retardation in major depressive disorder. PLoS One 2012; 7:e52238
5.
Martinot M, Bragulat V, Artiges E, et al: Decreased presynaptic dopamine function in the left caudate of depressed patients with affective flattening and psychomotor retardation. Am J Psychiatry 2001; 158:314–316
6.
Meyer JH, McNeely HE, Sagrati S, et al: Elevated putamen D(2) receptor binding potential in major depression with motor retardation: an [11C]raclopride positron emission tomography study. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163:1594–1602
7.
Walther S, Hügli S, Höfle O, et al: Frontal white matter integrity is related to psychomotor retardation in major depression. Neurobiol Dis 2012; 47:13–19
8.
Berlim MT, Van den Eynde F, Daskalakis ZJ: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and acceptability of bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating major depression. Psychol Med 2013; 43:2245–2254
9.
Lefaucheur JP, André-Obadia N, Antal A, et al: Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Clin Neurophysiol 2014; 125:2150–2206
10.
Dell’osso B, Camuri G, Castellano F, et al: Meta-review of metanalytic studies with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for the treatment of major depression. Clin Pract Epidemol Ment Health 2011; 7:167–177
11.
Baeken C, De Raedt R, Santermans L, et al: HF-rTMS treatment decreases psychomotor retardation in medication-resistant melancholic depression. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2010; 34:684–687
12.
Höppner J, Schulz M, Irmisch G, et al: Antidepressant efficacy of two different rTMS procedures. High frequency over left versus low frequency over right prefrontal cortex compared with sham stimulation. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2003; 253:103–109
13.
Ullrich H, Kranaster L, Sigges E, et al: Ultra-high-frequency left prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation as augmentation in severely ill patients with depression: a naturalistic sham-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial. Neuropsychobiology 2012; 66:141–148
14.
Hoeppner J, Padberg F, Domes G, et al: Influence of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on psychomotor symptoms in major depression. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2010; 260:197–202
15.
Delignières D: Perceived difficulty and resources investment in motor tasks. Eur Yearbook Sport Psychol 1998; 2:33–54
16.
Borg G: Borg’s Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics, 1998
17.
Aleman A: Use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment in psychiatry. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci 2013; 11:53–59
18.
Mignardot JB, Beauchet O, Annweiler C, et al: Postural sway, falls, and cognitive status: a cross-sectional study among older adults. J Alzheimers Dis 2014; 41:431–439
19.
Launay C, De Decker L, Annweiler C, et al: Association of depressive symptoms with recurrent falls: a cross-sectional elderly population based study and a systematic review. J Nutr Health Aging 2013; 17:152–157
20.
Strafella AP, Paus T, Fraraccio M, et al: Striatal dopamine release induced by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex. Brain 2003; 126:2609–2615
21.
De Raedt R, Vanderhasselt MA, Baeken C: Neurostimulation as an intervention for treatment resistant depression: from research on mechanisms towards targeted neurocognitive strategies. Clin Psychol Rev (Epub ahead of print, Nov. 4, 2014)
22.
Browne RH: On the use of a pilot sample for sample size determination. Stat Med 1995; 14:1933–1940
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 25 March 2015
Revision received: 19 June 2015
Accepted: 16 August 2015
Published online: 9 October 2015
Published in print: Winter 2016
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).