Posts Tagged Motor recovery

[Abstract] Timing-dependent interaction effects of tDCS with mirror therapy on upper extremity motor recovery in patients with chronic stroke: A randomized controlled pilot study

Highlights

  • The priming effect of dual tDCS was important to facilitate motor recovery in combination with mirror therapy in stroke.

Abstract

This study was a randomized, controlled pilot trial to investigate the timing-dependent interaction effects of dual transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in mirror therapy (MT) for hemiplegic upper extremity in patients with chronic stroke. Thirty patients with chronic stroke were randomly assigned to three groups: tDCS applied before MT (prior-tDCS group), tDCS applied during MT (concurrent-tDCS group), and sham tDCS applied randomly prior to or concurrent with MT (sham-tDCS group). Dual tDCS at 1 mA was applied bilaterally over the ipsilesional M1 (anodal electrode) and the contralesional M1 (cathodal electrode) for 30 min. The intervention was delivered five days per week for two weeks. Upper extremity motor performance was measured using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and the Box and Block Test (BBT). Assessments were administered at baseline, post-intervention, and two weeks follow-up. The results indicated that concurrent-tDCS group showed significant improvements in the ARAT in relation to the prior-tDCS group and sham-tDCS group at post-intervention. Besides, a trend toward greater improvement was also found in the FMA-UE for the concurrent-tDCS group. However, no statistically significant difference in the FMA-UE and BBT was identified among the three groups at either post-intervention or follow-up. The concurrent-tDCS seems to be more advantageous and time-efficient in the context of clinical trials combining with MT. The timing-dependent interaction factor of tDCS to facilitate motor recovery should be considered in future clinical application.

via Timing-dependent interaction effects of tDCS with mirror therapy on upper extremity motor recovery in patients with chronic stroke: A randomized controlled pilot study – Journal of the Neurological Sciences

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Research] Vagal nerve stimulation may improve post-stroke motor recovery

The Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) may promote reorganization of motor networks via engaging a variety of molecular and neuronal mechanisms through ascending neuromodulatory systems. A recently published review from Frontiers in Neuroscience (N.D. Engineer et al. Targeted Vagus nerve stimulation for rehabilitation after stroke, Front Neurosci. 2019, 29;13:280) has laid out how recent experimental and clinical studies are providing increasing evidence for a beneficial effect of vagus nerve stimulation for the motor recovery after stroke of both, ischemic and hemorrhagic origin. Two multi-site, randomized controlled pilot trials have suggested that when paired with neurorehabilitation, VNS stimulation may generate temporally precise neuromodulatory feedback within the synaptic eligibility trace and may hence, drive synaptic plasticity.

  1. A single-blinded, randomized feasibility study evaluating VNS paired with motor rehabilitation was performed by Dawson et al. (2016) in 20 participants > 6 months after ischemic stroke who had moderate to severe upper limb weakness. Subjects were randomized to VNS paired with rehabilitation (n = 9; implanted) or rehabilitation alone (n = 11; not implanted). VNS was triggered by a physiotherapist pushing a button during task-specific movements. The main outcome measures were a change in upper extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMAUE) score and response rate – FMA-UE change _6 points was considered clinically meaningful. After 6 weeks of in-clinic rehabilitation, participants in the paired VNS group showed a 9.6-point improvement from baseline while the control group improved by 3 points in the per-protocol analysis (between group difference = 6.5 points, CI: 0.4 to 12.6, p = 0.038). The response rates were 66 and 36.4% in VNS and control groups, respectively. No serious adverse device effects were reported.
  2. The second study was a multicenter, fully blinded and randomized study (Kimberley et al., 2018). All participants were implanted with the VNS device, which allowed the control group to crossover to receive paired VNS therapy after completion of blinded follow-up. This permitted a within subject comparison of gains. To evaluate the lasting effects of VNS stimulation combined with home-based physiotherapy was included as part of the study. Seventeen participants who had moderate to severe upper extremity impairment after stroke were enrolled at four sites. Both groups had 1 month of at-home exercises with no VNS followed by 2 months of home-based therapy. During home therapy, participants in both groups activated the VNS device at the start of each 30-min session via a magnetswipe over the implanted pulse generator to deliver either Active or Paired VNS (0.8 mA) or Control VNS (0 mA), respectively. After 2 months of home-based therapy, thepaired VNS group continued the VNS therapy while the Control Group switched over to receive paired VNS. After 6 weeks of in-clinic therapy, the FMA-UE score increased by 7.6 points for the VNS group and 5.3 points for controls. Three months after the end of in-clinic therapy (post-90), the FMA-UE increased by 9.5 in the paired VNS group and 3.8 points in controls. At post-90, response rate (FMA-UE change _6 points) was 88% in the VNS group and 33% in controls (p = 0.03).

Noteworthy in both studies seemed the greater improvement of the upper limb function when physiotherapy was applied simultaneously with vagal nerve stimulation. VNS likely supported the recovery of upper limb functions via activation of multiple neuromodulatory networks that regulate synaptic plasticity. This may include the noradrenergic, cholinergic, and serotonergic systems (Nichols et al., 2011; Hulsey et al., 2017). These neuromodulators, in turn, act synergistically to alter spike-timing dependent plasticity (STDP) properties in active networks. The studies above align well with the time scale of the synaptic eligibility trace. VNS may drive temporally precise neuromodulatory release to reinforce ongoing neural activity related to the therapeutic event. An open question is whether similar improvement can be achieved using non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation. To this moment, the identifying and consistently delivering stimulation within a particular range of parameters appears to be of greater challenge with non-invasive VNS than with the implanted VNS device.

Physiotherapy combined with vagal nerve stimulation seems to be a new and promising approach to enhance the functional recovery after stroke.

Key points:

  • Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) may promote reorganization of motor networks
  • Experimental and clinical studies pointed towards a beneficial effect for the motor recovery after stroke
  • VNS may drive temporally precise neuromodulatory release to reinforce ongoing neural activity

References:

Targeted Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Rehabilitation After Stroke. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30983963

 

via Vagal nerve stimulation may improve post-stroke motor recovery

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Implementing biomarkers to predict motor recovery after stroke.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

There is growing interest in using biomarkers to predict motor recovery and outcomes after stroke. The PREP2 algorithm combines clinical assessment with biomarkers in an algorithm, to predict upper limb functional outcomes for individual patients. To date, PREP2 is the first algorithm to be tested in clinical practice, and other biomarker-based algorithms are likely to follow.

PURPOSE:

This review considers how algorithms to predict motor recovery and outcomes after stroke might be implemented in clinical practice.

FINDINGS:

There are two tasks: first the prediction information needs to be obtained, and then it needs to be used. The barriers and facilitators of implementation are likely to differ for these tasks. We identify specific elements of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research that are relevant to each of these two tasks, using the PREP2 algorithm as an example. These include the characteristics of the predictors and algorithm, the clinical setting and its staff, and the healthcare environment.

CONCLUSIONS:

Active, theoretically underpinned implementation strategies are needed to ensure that biomarkers are successfully used in clinical practice for predicting motor outcomes after stroke, and should be considered in parallel with biomarker development.

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Update on pharmacotherapy for stroke and traumatic brain injury recovery during rehabilitation

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW:

This article evaluates whether specific drugs are able to facilitate motor recovery after stroke or improve the level of consciousness, cognitive, or behavioral symptoms after traumatic brain injury.

RECENT FINDINGS:

After stroke, serotonin reuptake inhibitors can enhance restitution of motor functions in depressed as well as in nondepressed patients. Erythropoietin and progesterone administered within hours after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury failed to improve the outcome. A single dose of zolpidem can transiently improve the level of consciousness in patients with vegetative state or minimally conscious state.

SUMMARY:

Because of the lack of large randomized controlled trials, evidence is still limited. Currently, most convincing evidence exists for fluoxetine for facilitation of motor recovery early after stroke and for amantadine for acceleration of functional recovery after severe traumatic brain injury. Methylphenidate and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors might enhance cognitive functions after traumatic brain injury. Sufficiently powered studies and the identification of predictors of beneficial drug effects are still needed.

 

via Update on pharmacotherapy for stroke and traumatic brain injury recovery during rehabilitation. – PubMed – NCBI

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Pharmacological Therapies for Motor Recovery After Stroke – Full Text

Abstract and Introduction

Abstract

Stroke is the most common serious neurological disorder. To date, the focus for research and trials has been on prevention and acute care. Many patients are left with serious neurological impairments and limitations in activity and participation after stroke. Recent preliminary research and trials suggest that the brain is ‘plastic’ and that the natural history of stroke recovery can be improved by physical therapy and pharmacotherapy. Motor weakness and the ability to walk have been the primary targets for testing interventions that may improve recovery after stroke. Physical therapeutic interventions enhance recovery after stroke; however, the timing, duration and type of intervention require clarification and further trials. Pharmacotherapy, in particular with dopaminergic and selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors, shows promise in enhancing motor recovery after stroke; however, further large-scale trials are required.

Introduction

This review is a framework around an emerging and exciting area of stroke care – maximizing recovery after stroke. Stroke care is a continuum from prevention to hyperacute care to acute care to rehabilitation to community reintegration and back (Figure 1). The traditional medical model of care artificially divides care across multiple healthcare providers and locations. Prevention is most often in the hands of general and primary care medicine with the goal of maximizing stroke risk reduction strategies such as controlling hypertension. Hyperacute stroke care is in the hands of neurologists with a primary goal of providing thrombolysis to as many patients as possible and as quickly as possible. Acute stroke care is in the hands of neurologists and very often in the hands of internal medicine specialists who manage patients according to best practices on acute stroke units in acute care hospitals. Rehabilitation is under the care of physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians and allied health professionals usually in rehabilitation hospitals. Reintegration into the community is in the hands of home care and out-patient providers in the community. One patient, one neurological disorder and so many different care providers and locations.

Figure 1.The continuum of stroke care.

Recent research suggests that we are at the edge of major advances in post-stroke care. Animal and human studies show that the brain is ready to heal immediately after a stroke. The brain is ‘plastic’ and responds to external influences, such as physical therapy. The timing, the intensity and the exact external influence may all be important factors in maximizing recovery. Pharmacotherapy may influence how the injured brain recovers. This complex array of influences and recent research addressing these areas will be elaborated on in this review (Figure 2).

Figure 2.
Multiple factors may influence recovery after stroke.

via Pharmacological Therapies for Motor Recovery After Stroke

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Assist-as-needed control strategy for upper-limb rehabilitation based on subject’s functional ability – Full Text

The assist-as-needed technique in robotic rehabilitation is a popular technique that encourages patients’ active participation to promote motor recovery. It has been proven beneficial for patients with functional motor disability. However, its application in robotic therapy has been hindered by a poor estimation method of subjects’ functional or movement ability which is required for setting the appropriate robotic assistance. Moreover, there is also the need for consistency and repeatability of the functional ability estimation in line with the clinical procedure to facilitate a wider clinical adoption. In this study, we propose a new technique of estimation of subject’s functional ability based on the Wolf Motor Function Test. We called this estimation the functional ability index. The functional ability index enables the modulation of robotic assistance and gives a more consistent indication of subjects’ upper-limb movement ability during therapy session. Our baseline controller is an adaptive inertia-related controller, which is integrated with the functional ability index algorithm to provide movement assistance as when needed. Experimental studies are conducted on three hemiplegic patients with different levels of upper-limb impairments. Each patient is requested to perform reaching task of lifting a can from table-to-mouth according to the guidelines stipulated in the Wolf Motor Function Test. Data were collected using two inertial measurement unit sensors installed at the flexion/extension joints, and the functional ability score of each patient was rated by an experienced therapist. Results showed that the proposed functional ability index algorithm can estimate patients’ functional ability level consistently with clinical procedure and can modify generated robotic assistance in accordance with patients’ functional movement ability.

The assist-as-needed (AAN) robotic strategy is a popular strategy for encouraging patients’ active participation in robot-assisted rehabilitation therapy. Numerous clinical outcomes have suggested the effectiveness of the AAN scheme to induce neuroplasticity in patients with neurological impairment.1 The AAN strategy focuses on providing the minimal amount of robotic assistance necessary for a patient to complete a movement,2 thus a significant effort is required from the patient. If the patient can perform the task flawlessly, robotic assistance is withdrawn. However, if the patient cannot complete the given task, assistance is offered only as much as it is needed.3

Deploying robotic assistance in accordance with the AAN strategy still come with many shortcomings.3,4 One major issue is how to appropriately estimate patients’ functional ability to set the correct level of robotic assistance. Another issue is the consistency of the estimated subject’s functional ability with clinical data and the repeatability across a wide range of subjects. An appropriate estimation of subject’s functional ability consistent with clinical data can give a realistic basis for deploying robotic assistance, since it gives a measure of subject’s actual disability level or recovery progress.5,6

A few strategies of AAN have been proposed recently which have attempted to address the challenges in the scheme. Wolbrecht et al.7 proposed a model-based robotic assistance strategy which can enable a robot to learn the patients’ ability in real time based on a radial-basis function (RBF). The RBF is applied under an adaptive control framework.

Another AAN strategy was proposed by Pehlivan et al.3 The authors introduced a minimal assist-as-needed (mAAN) strategy which uses a Kalman filter to estimate subjects’ functional inputs instead of the RBF technique that is a sensor-less force estimation strategy. Under the scheme, the ANN strategy is achieved in the following two ways: (1) by updating the derivative feedback gain to modify the bounds of allowable error on the desired trajectory and (2) by decaying a feed-forward disturbance rejection term which reduces the constraint on allowable quick movements. The combined effect could vary the robotic assistance according to the subjects’ capability.8 The potential limitation of this approach is the reliance on the robot model for the estimation of subject’s capability. It is well known that model errors always exist and can significantly excite the disturbance term making it difficult to accurately estimate the subject’s input. There is the implication that different robot models would produce different functional ability estimates which will hinder an appropriate standardization or deployment of robotic assistance for clinical purpose.9,10

Pérez-Rodríguez et al.11 also introduced an AAN strategy called anticipatory assistance-as-needed control algorithm capable of ensuring that the deviation from a patients’ desired trajectory is restored by giving an anticipated force assistance. This way, robotic assistance is always given as a restoring force to maintain the subject on the reference (desired) trajectory. With regards to the validity of this strategy, there are however no experimental studies till date.

Other noteworthy AAN strategies include the rule-based assistive strategy proposed by Wang et al.,12 which is applied in Physiotherabot; the hybrid impedance control for wrist and forearm rehabilitation proposed by Akdoğan and Adli,13 which is applied on a 3-degree-of-freedom (3-DOF) upper-limb rehabilitation robot; and the visual error augmentation-based AAN proposed by Akdoğan et al.,14 which can provide robotic assistance as needed by amplifying tracking error to heighten the participant’s motivation.

Efforts in developing an appropriate estimation strategy for AAN robotic assistance are still on course;15 however, there has been less focus on developing appropriate estimation techniques of subject’s functional ability that are consistent with the clinical procedure and that can be integrated in the control loop to provide robotic assistance.15,16

In this paper, we propose an ANN strategy to direct robotic assistance based on a novel functional ability index (FAI). The main originality of this work is the derivation of the new FAI estimation algorithm in accordance with the clinical procedure for the estimation of subject’s motor ability in movement task. As a preliminary investigation, we derive our FAI following the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), a popular motor function test with consistency over a wide range of neurologically impaired patients. The FAI serves as input to a decay algorithm under the adaptive control law which consequently varies the robotic assistance according to the subject’s functional ability. The FAI is independent on the robot model or controller adaptation law and thus it is unaffected by modelling uncertainties.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: section ‘System dynamic and control’ presents the dynamics for the robotic rehabilitation system, the proposed FAI, and the proposed control algorithm. Section ‘Experimental study’ presents the data collection and simulation study; section ‘Results’ describes the results; section ‘Discussion’ presents the discussion; and section ‘Conclusion’ concludes the paper.

The mechanical system

The proposed prototype of the exoskeleton system is shown in Figure 1. The system is an upper-limb rehabilitation robotic device with two active degrees of freedom (DOFs) at the shoulder and elbow joint, respectively. If actively controlled, the exoskeleton can permit abduction/adduction (AA) movement of the shoulder joint and flexion/extension (FE) movement of the elbow, thus allowing the possibility of performing the table to mouth reaching task.


                        figure

Figure 1. Exoskeleton device is of 2 degrees of freedom (DOFs).

Continue —> Assist-as-needed control strategy for upper-limb rehabilitation based on subject’s functional ability – Shawgi Younis Ahmed Mounis, Norsinnira Zainul Azlan, Fatai Sado,

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract + References] A Wireless BCI-FES Based on Motor Intent for Lower Limb Rehabilitation

Abstract

Recent investigations have proposed brain computer interfaces combined with functional electrical stimulation as a novel approach for upper limb motor recovery. These systems could detect motor intention movement as a power decrease of the sensorimotor rhythms in the electroencephalography signal, even in people with damaged brain cortex. However, these systems use a large number of electrodes and wired communication to be employed for gait rehabilitation. In this paper, the design and development of a wireless brain computer interface combined with functional electrical stimulation aimed at lower limb motor recovery is presented. The design requirements also account the dynamic of a rehabilitation therapy by allowing the therapist to adapt the system during the session. A preliminary evaluation of the system in a subject with right lower limb motor impairment due to multiple sclerosis was conducted and as a performance metric, the true positive rate was computed. The developed system evidenced a robust wireless communication and was able to detect lower limb motor intention. The mean of the performance metric was 75%. The results encouraged the possibility of testing the developed system in a gait rehabilitation clinical study.

References

  1. 1.
    Pfurtscheller, G., Mcfarland, D.: BCIs that use sensorimotor rhythms. In: Wolpaw, J.R., Wolpaw, E. (eds.) Brain-Computer Interfaces: Principles and Practice, pp. 227–240. Oxford University Press (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carrere, L.C., Tabernig, C.B.: Detection of foot motor imagery using the coefficient of determination for neurorehabilitation based on BCI technology. IFMBE Proc. 49, 944–947 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13117-7_239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sannelli, C., Vidaurre, C., Müller, K.R., Blankertz, B.: A large scale screening study with a SMR-based BCI: categorization of BCI users and differences in their SMR activity (2019)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Do, A.H., Wang, P.T., King, C.E., Schombs, A., Cramer, S.C., Nenadic, Z.: Brain-computer interface controlled functional electrical stimulation device for foot drop due to stroke, pp. 6414–6417 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ramos-Murguialday, A., Broetz, D., Rea, M., Yilmaz, Ö., Brasil, F.L., Liberati, G., Marco, R., Garcia-cossio, E., Vyziotis, A., Cho, W., Cohen, L.G., Birbaumer, N.: Brain-Machine-interface in chronic stroke rehabilitation: a controlled study. Ann. Neurol. 74, 100–108 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.23879.Brain-Machine-InterfaceCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biasiucci, A., Leeb, R., Iturrate, I., Perdikis, S., Al-Khodairy, A., Corbet, T., Schnider, A., Schmidlin, T., Zhang, H., Bassolino, M., Viceic, D., Vuadens, P., Guggisberg, A.G., Millán, J.D.R.: Brain-actuated functional electrical stimulation elicits lasting arm motor recovery after stroke. Nat. Commun. 9, 1–13 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04673-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tabernig, C.B., Lopez, C.A., Carrere, L.C., Spaich, E.G., Ballario, C.H.: Neurorehabilitation therapy of patients with severe stroke based on functional electrical stimulation commanded by a brain computer interface. J. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. Eng. 5, 205566831878928 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1177/2055668318789280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McCrimmon, C.M., King, C.E., Wang, P.T., Cramer, S.C., Nenadic, Z., Do, A.H.: Brain-controlled functional electrical stimulation therapy for gait rehabilitation after stroke: a safety study. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 12 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-015-0050-4
  9. 9.
    g.Nautilus wireless biosignal acquisition Homepage. http://www.gtec.at/Products/Hardware-and-Accessories/g.Nautilus-Specs-Features
  10. 10.
    Emotiv EpocFlex flexible wireless EEG system Homepage. https://www.emotiv.com/epoc-flex/
  11. 11.
    Vuckovic, A., Wallace, L., Allan, D.: Hybrid brain-computer interface and functional electrical stimulation for sensorimotor training in participants with tetraplegia: a proof-of-concept study. J. Neurol. Phys. Ther. 39, 3–14 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schalk, G., McFarland, D.J., Hinterberger, T., Birbaumer, N., Wolpaw, J.R.: BCI2000: a general-purpose brain-computer interface (BCI) system. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 51, 1034–1043 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2004.827072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCrimmon, C.M., Fu, J.L., Wang, M., Lopes, L.S., Wang, P.T., Karimi-Bidhendi, A., Liu, C.Y., Heydari, P., Nenadic, Z., Do, A.H.: Performance assessment of a custom, portable, and low-cost brain-computer interface platform. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 64, 2313–2320 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2017.2667579CrossRefGoogle Scholar

via A Wireless BCI-FES Based on Motor Intent for Lower Limb Rehabilitation | SpringerLink

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract + References] Motor stroke recovery after tDCS: a systematic review

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on motor recovery in adult patients with stroke, taking into account the parameters that could influence the motor recovery responses. The second aim was to identify the best tDCS parameters and recommendations available based on the enhanced motor recovery demonstrated by the analyzed studies. Our systematic review was performed by searching full-text articles published before February 18, 2019 in the PubMed database. Different methods of applying tDCS in association with several complementary therapies were identified. Studies investigating the motor recovery effects of tDCS in adult patients with stroke were considered. Studies investigating different neurologic conditions and psychiatric disorders or those not meeting our methodologic criteria were excluded. The main parameters and outcomes of tDCS treatments are reported. There is not a robust concordance among the study outcomes with regard to the enhancement of motor recovery associated with the clinical application of tDCS. This is mainly due to the heterogeneity of clinical data, tDCS approaches, combined interventions, and outcome measurements. tDCS could be an effective approach to promote adaptive plasticity in the stroke population with significant positive premotor and postmotor rehabilitation effects. Future studies with larger sample sizes and high-quality studies with a better standardization of stimulation protocols are needed to improve the study quality, further corroborate our results, and identify the optimal tDCS protocols.

References

  • Allman, C., Amadi, U., Winkler, A.M., Wilkins, L., Filippini, N., Kischka, U., Stagg, C.J., and Johansen-Berg, H. (2016). Ipsilesional anodal tDCS enhances the functional benefits of rehabilitation in patients after stroke. Sci. Transl. Med. 8, 330re1.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ameli, M., Grefkes, C., Kemper, F., Riegg, F.P., Rehme, A.K., Karbe, H., Fink, G.R., and Nowak, D.A. (2009). Differential effects of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over ipsilesional primary motor cortex in cortical and subcortical middle cerebral artery stroke. Ann. Neurol. 66, 298–309.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Andrade, S.M., Batista, L.M., Nogueira, L.L., de Oliveira, E.A., de Carvalho, A.G., Lima, S.S., Santana, J.R., de Lima, E.C., and Fernández-Calvo, B. (2017a). Constraint-induced movement therapy combined with transcranial direct current stimulation over premotor cortex improves motor function in severe stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Rehab. Res. Pract. 2017, 6842549.Google Scholar
  • Andrade, S.M., Ferreira, J.J.A., Rufino, T.S., Medeiros, G., Brito, J.D., da Silva, M.A., and Moreira, R.N. (2017b). Effects of different montages of transcranial direct current stimulation on the risk of falls and lower limb function after stroke. Neurol. Res. 39, 1037–1043.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bikson, M., Grossman, P., Thomas, C., Zannou, A.L., Jiang, J., Adnan, T., Mourdoukoutas, A.P., Kronberg, G., Truong, D., Boggio, P., et al. (2016). Safety of transcranial direct current stimulation: evidence based update 2016. Brain Stimul. 9, 641–661.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bolognini, N. and Vallar, G. (2015). Stimolare il cervello. Manuale di stimolazione cerebrale non invasiva (pp. 1–224). il Mulino.Google Scholar
  • Bolognini, N., Pascual-Leone, A., and Fregni, F. (2009). Using non-invasive brain stimulation to augment motor training-induced plasticity. J. Neuroeng. Rehab. 6, 8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bolognini, N., Vallar, G., Casati, C., Latif, L.A., El-Nazer, R., Williams, J., Banco, E., Macea, D.D., Tesio, L., Chessa, C., et al. (2011). Neurophysiological and behavioral effects of tDC combined with constraint-induced movement therapy in post stroke patients. Neurorehab. Neural Rep. 25, 819–829.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bortoletto, M., Rodella, C., Salvador, R., Miranda, P.C., and Miniussi, C. (2016). Reduced current spread by concentric electrodes in transcranial electrical stimulation (tES). Brain Stimul. 9, 525–528.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bradnam, L.V., Stinear, C.M., Barber, P.A., and Byblow, W.D. (2012). Contralesional hemisphere control of the proximal paretic upper limb following stroke. Cereb. Cortex 22, 2662–2671.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Brunelin, J., Mondino, M., Gassab, L., Haesebaert, F., Gaha, L., Suaud-Chagny, M.F., Saoud, M., Mechri, A., and Poulet, E. (2012a). Examining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a treatment for hallucinations in schizophrenia. Am. J. Psychiatry 169, 719–724.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Brunoni, A.R., Zanao, T.A., Ferrucci, R., Priori, A., Valiengo, L., de Oliveira, J.F., Boggio, P.S., Lotufo, P.A., Benseñor, I.M., and Fregni, F. (2013c). Bifrontal tDCS prevents implicit learning acquisition in antidepressant-free patients with major depressive disorder. Prog. Neuro-Psychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 43, 146–150.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Burke Quinlan, E., Dodakian, L., See, J., McKenzie, A., Le, V., Wojnowicz, M., Shahbaba, B., and Cramer, S.C. (2015). Neural function, injury, and stroke subtype predict treatment gains after stroke. Ann. Neurol. 77, 132–145.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Byblow, W.D., Stinear, C.M., Barber, P.A., Petoe, M.A., and Ackerley, S.J. (2015). Proportional recovery after stroke depends on corticomotor integrity. Ann. Neurol. 78, 848–859.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Chang, M.C., Kim, D.Y., and Park, D.H. (2015). Enhancement of cortical excitability and lower limb motor function in patients with stroke by transcranial direct current stimulation. Brain Stimul. 8, 561–566.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).Google Scholar
  • Coin, A., Najjar, M., Catanzaro, S., Orru, G., Sampietro, S., Sergi, G., Manzato, E., Perissinotto, E., Rinaldi, G., Sarti, S., et al. (2009). A retrospective pilot study on the development of cognitive, behavioral and functional disorders in a sample of patients with early dementia of Alzheimer type. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 49, 35–38.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Conti, C.L. and Nakamura-Palacios, E.M. (2013). Bilateral transcranial direct current stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex changes the drug-cued reactivity in the anterior cingulate cortex of crack-cocaine addicts. Brain Stimul. 7, 130–132.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Da Costa Santos, C.M., de Mattos Pimenta, C.A., and Nobre, M.R. (2007). The PICO strategy for the research question construction and evidence search. Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem. 15, 508–511.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • De Vries, M.H., Barth, A.C., Maiworm, S., Knecht, S., Zwitserlood, P., and Flöel, A. (2010). Electrical stimulation of Broca’s area enhances implicit learning of an artificial grammar. J. Cognit. Neurosci. 22, 2427–2436.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Di Lazzaro, V., Dileone, M., Capone, F., Pellegrino, G., Ranieri, F., Musumeci, G., Florio, L., Di Pino, G., and Fregni, F. (2014). Immediate and late modulation of interhemispheric imbalance with bilateral transcranial direct current stimulation in acute stroke. Brain Stimul. 7, 841–848.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Feng, W., Wang, J., Chhatbar, P.Y., Doughty, C., Landsittel, D., Lioutas, V.A., and Schlaug, G. (2015). Corticospinal tract lesion load: an imaging biomarker for stroke motor outcomes. Ann. Neurol. 78, 860–870.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ferrucci, R., Mameli, F., Guidi, I., Mrakic-Sposta, S., Vergari, M., Marceglia, S., Cogiamanian, F., Barbieri, S., Scarpini, E., and Priori, A. (2008). Transcranial direct current stimulation improves recognition memory in Alzheimer disease. Neurology 71, 493–498.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Figlewski, K., Blicher, J.U., Mortensen, J., Severinsen, K.E., Nielsen, J.F., and Andersen, H. (2017). Transcranial direct current stimulation potentiates improvements in functional ability in patients with chronic stroke receiving constraint-induced movement therapy. Stroke 48, 229–232.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fregni, F., Boggio, P.S., Nitsche, M., Bermpohl, F., Antal, A., Feredoes, E., Marcolin, M.A., Rigonatt, S.P., Silva, M.T., and Pascual-Leone, A. (2005). Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of prefrontal cortex enhances working memory. Exp. Brain Res. 166, 23–30.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fregni, F., Boggio, P.S., Lima, M.C., Ferreira, M.J., Wagner, T., Rigonatti, S.P., Castro, A.W., Souza, D.R., Riberto, M., Freedman, S.D., et al. (2006a). A sham controlled, phase II trial of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of central pain in traumatic spinal cord injury. Pain 122, 197–209.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fregni, F., Boggio, P.S., Santos, M.C., Lima, M., Vieira, A.L., Rigonatti, S.P., Silva, M.T., Barbosa, E.R., Nitsche, M.A., and Pascual-Leone, A. (2006b). Non invasive cortical stimulation with transcranial direct current stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 21, 1693–1702.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fregni, F., Gimenes, R., Valle, A.C., Ferreira, M.J., Rocha, R.R., Natalle, L., Bravo, R., Rigonatti, S.P., Freedman, S.D., Nitsche, M.A., et al. (2006c). A randomized, sham-controlled, proof of principle study of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia. Arthritis Rheum 54, 3988–3998.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fusco, A., Assenza, F., Iosa, M., Izzo, S., Altavilla, R., Paolucci, S., and Vernieri, F. (2014). The ineffective role of cathodal tDCS in enhancing the functional motor outcomes in early phase of stroke rehabilitation: an experimental trial. BioMed Res. Int. 2014, 547290.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Geroin, C., Picelli, A., Munari, D., Waldner, A., Tomelleri, C., and Smania, N. (2011). Combined transcranial direct current stimulation and robot-assisted gait training in patients with chronic stroke: a preliminary comparison. Clin. Rehabil. 25, 537–548.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gladwin, T.E., den Uyl, T.E., Fregni, F.F., and Wiers, R.W. (2012). Enhancement of selective attention by tDCS: interaction with interference in a Sternberg task. Neurosci. Lett. 512, 33–37.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Grefkes, C. and Fink, G.R. (2014). Connectivity-based approaches in stroke and recovery of function. Lancet Neurol. 13, 206–216.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hamoudi, M., Schambra, H.M., Fritsch, B., Schoechlin-Marx, A., Weiller, C., Cohen, L.G., and Reis, J. (2018). Transcranial direct current stimulation enhances motor skill learning but not generalization in chronic stroke. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 32, 295–308.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-analyses Relating to Achievement (Park Square, Oxford: Rutledge).Google Scholar
  • Herrmann, C.S., Rach, S., Neuling, T., and Strüber, D. (2013). Transcranial alternating current stimulation: a review of the underlying mechanisms and modulation of cognitive processes. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7, 279.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hesse, S., Waldner, A., Mehrholz, J., Tomelleri, C., Pohl, M., and Werner, C. (2011). Combined transcranial direct current stimulation and robot-assisted arm training in subacute stroke patients: an exploratory, randomized multicenter trial. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 25, 838–846.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Holman, L., Head, M.L., Lanfear, R., and Jennions, M.D. (2015). Evidence of experimental bias in the life sciences: why we need blind data recording. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002190.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Horn, S.D., DeJong, G., Smout, R.J., Gassaway, J., James, R., and Conroy, B. (2005). Stroke rehabilitation patients, practice, and outcomes: is earlier and more aggressive therapy better? Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 86, 101–114.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Horvath, J.C., Forte, J.D., and Carter, O. (2015a). Quantitative review finds no evidence of cognitive effects in healthy populations from single-session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Brain Stimul. 8, 535–550.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Horvath, J.C., Forte, J.D., and Carter, O. (2015b). Evidence that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) generates little-to-no reliable neurophysiologic effect beyond MEP amplitude modulation in healthy human subjects: a systematic review. Neuropsychologia 66, 213–236.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hoyer, E.H. and Celnik, P.A. (2011). Understanding and enhancing motor recovery after stroke using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 29, 395–409.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hummel, F.C. and Cohen, L.G. (2006). Non-invasive brain stimulation: a new strategy to improve neurorehabilitation after stroke? Lancet Neurol. 5, 708–712.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hummel, F., Celnik, P., Giraux, P., Floel, A., Wu, W.H., Gerloff, C., and Cohen, L.G. (2005). Effects of non-invasive cortical stimulation on skilled motor function in chronic stroke. Brain 128, 490–499.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hummel, F.C., Voller, B., Celnik, P., Floel, A., Giraux, P., Gerloff, C., and Cohen, L.G. (2006). Effects of brain polarization on reaction times and pinch force in chronic stroke. BMC Neurosci. 7, 73.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ilić, N.V., Dubljanin-Raspopović, E., Nedeljković, U., Tomanović-Vujadinović, S., Milanović, S.D., Petronić-Marković, I., and Ilić, T.V. (2016). Effects of anodal tDCS and occupational therapy on fine motor skill deficits in patients with chronic stroke. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 34, 935–945.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ivanenko, Y.P., Poppele, R.E., and Lacquaniti, F. (2009). Distributed neural networks for controlling human locomotion: lessons from normal and SCI subjects. Brain Res. Bull. 78, 13–21.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Khedr, E.M., Shawky, O.A., El-Hammady, D.H., Rothwell, J.C., Darwish, E.S., Mostafa, O.M., and Tohamy, A.M. (2013). Effect of anodal versus cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation on stroke rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Neurorehab. Neural Rep. 7, 592–601.Google Scholar
  • Kim, D.Y., Lim, J.Y., Kang, E.K., You, D.S., Oh, M.K., Oh, B.M., and Paik, N.J. (2010). Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on motor recovery in patients with subacute stroke. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 89, 879–886.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Koo, W.R., Jang, B.H., and Kim, C.R. (2018). Effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on somatosensory recovery after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 97, 507–513.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kwakkel, G. and Kollen, B.J. (2013). Predicting activities after stroke: what is clinically relevant? Int. J. Stroke 8, 25–32.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Langhorne, P., Coupar, F., and Pollock, A. (2009). Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 8, 741–754.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lee, S.J. and Chun, M.H. (2014). Combination transcranial direct current stimulation and virtual reality therapy for upper extremity training in patients with subacute stroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 95, 431–438.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lefaucheur, J.P., Antal, A., Ayache, S.S., Benninger, D.H., Brunelin, J., Cogiamanian, F., Cotelli, M., De Ridder, D., Ferrucci, R., Langguth, B., et al. (2017). Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Clin. Neurophysiol. 128, 56–92.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Leon, D., Cortes, M., Elder, J., Kumru, H., Laxe, S., Edwards, D.J., Tormos, J.M., Bernabeu, M., and Pascual-Leone, A. (2017). tDCS does not enhance the effects of robot-assisted gait training in patients with subacute stroke. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 35, 377–384.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Liew, S.L., Santarnecchi, E., Buch, E.R., and Cohen, L.G. (2014). Non-invasive brain stimulation in neurorehabilitation: local and distant effects for motor recovery. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 378.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lindenberg, R., Renga, V., Zhu, L.L., Nair, D., and Schlaug, G. (2010). Bihemispheric brain stimulation facilitates motor recovery in chronic stroke patients. Neurology 75, 2176–2184.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lopez-Espuela, F., Zamorano, J.D.P., Ramírez-Moreno, J.M., Jiménez-Caballero, P.E., Portilla-Cuenca, J.C., Lavado-García, J.M., and Casado-Naranjo, I. (2015). Determinants of quality of life in stroke survivors after 6 months, from a comprehensive stroke unit: a longitudinal study. Biol. Res. Nurs. 17, 461–468.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lüdemann-Podubecká, J., Bösl, K., Rothhardt, S., Verheyden, G., and Nowak, D.A. (2014). Transcranial direct current stimulation for motor recovery of upper limb function after stroke. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 47, 245–259.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Marshall, L., Molle, M., Hallschmid, M., and Born, J. (2004). Transcranial direct current stimulation during sleep improves declarative memory. J. Neurosci. 24, 9985.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mazzoleni, S., Tran, V.D., Iardella, L., Dario, P., and Posteraro, F. (2017). Randomized, sham-controlled trial based on transcranial direct current stimulation and wrist robot-assisted integrated treatment on subacute stroke patients: intermediate results. In: 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR). IEEE, 555–560. doi:10.1109/icorr.2017.8009306.Google Scholar
  • Menezes, I.S., Cohen, L.G., Mello, E.A., Machado, A.G., Peckham, P.H., Anjos, S.M., Siqueira, I.L., Conti, J., Plow, E.B., and Conforto, A.B. (2018). Combined brain and peripheral nerve stimulation in chronic stroke patients with moderate to severe motor impairment. Neuromodulation 21, 176–183.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Miranda, P.C., Lomarev, M., and Hallett, M. (2006). Modeling the current distribution during transcranial direct current stimulation. Clin. Neurophysiol. 117, 1623–1629.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D.G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Int. Med. 151, 264–269.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Nicolo, P., Magnin, C., Pedrazzini, E., Plomp, G., Mottaz, A., Schnider, A., and Guggisberg, A.G. (2018). Comparison of neuroplastic responses to cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation and continuous theta burst stimulation in subacute stroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 99, 862–872.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Nitsche, M.A. and Paulus, W. (2000). Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J. Physiol. 527, 633–639.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nitsche, M.A. and Paulus, W. (2001). Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology 57, 1899–1901.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Nitsche, M.A., Schauenburg, A., Lang, N., Liebetanz, D., Exner, C., Paulus, W., and 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.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Nitsche, M.A., Seeber, A., Frommann, K., Klein, C.C., Rochford, C., Nitsche, M.S., Fricke, K., Liebetanz, D., Lang, N., Antal, A., et al. (2005). Modulating parameters of excitability during and after transcranial direct current stimulation of the human motor cortex. J. Physiol. 568, 291–303.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nitsche, M.A., Kuo, M.F., Karrasch, R., Wächter, B., Liebetanz, D., and Paulus, W. (2009). Serotonin affects transcranial direct current-induced neuroplasticity in humans. Biol. Psychiatry 66, 503–508.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nowak, D.A., Bösl, K., Podubeckà, J., and Carey, J.R. (2010). Noninvasive brain stimulation and motor recovery after stroke. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 28, 531–544.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nudo, R.J. and Milliken, G.W. (1996). Reorganization of movement representations in primary motor cortex following focal ischemic infarcts in adult squirrel monkeys. J. Neurophysiol. 75, 2144–2149.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Platz, T. (2004). Impairment-oriented training (IOT): scientific concept and evidence-based treatment strategies. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 22, 301–315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Plow, E.B., Carey, J.R., Nudo, R.J., and Pascual-Leone, A. (2009). Invasive cortical stimulation to promote recovery of function after stroke: a critical appraisal. Stroke 40, 1926–1931.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Polanía, R., Nitsche, M.A., and Paulus, W. (2011). Modulating functional connectivity patterns and topological functional organization of the human brain with transcranial direct current stimulation. Hum. Brain Mapping 32, 1236–1249.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Priori, A., Berardelli, A., Rona, S., Accornero, N., and Manfredi, M. (1998). Polarization of the human motor cortex through the scalp. Neuroreport 9, 2257–2260.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rossi, C., Sallustio, F., Di Legge, S., Stanzione, P., and Koch, G. (2013). Transcranial direct current stimulation of the affected hemisphere does not accelerate recovery of acute stroke patients. Eur. J. Neurol. 20, 202–204.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Saeys, W., Vereeck, L., Lafosse, C., Truijen, S., Wuyts, F., and Van De Heyning, P. (2015). Transcranial direct current stimulation in the recovery of postural control after stroke: a pilot study. Disabil. Rehabil. 37, 1–7.Google Scholar
  • Sattler, V., Acket, B., Raposo, N., Thalamas, C., Loubinoux, I., Chollet, F., and Simonetta-Moreau, M. (2015). Anodal tDCS combined with radial nerve stimulation promotes hand motor recovery in the acute phase after ischemic stroke. Neurorehab. Neural Rep. 29, 743–754.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Seo, H.G., Lee, W.H., Lee, S.H., Yi, Y., Kim, K.D., and Oh, B.M. (2017). Robotic-assisted gait training combined with transcranial direct current stimulation in chronic stroke patients: a pilot double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 35, 527–536.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shekhawat, G.S., Searchfield, G.D., and Stinear, C.M. (2013a). Randomized trial of transcranial direct current stimulation and hearing aids for tinnitus management. Neurorehab. Neural Rep. 28, 410–419.Google Scholar
  • Simonetti, D., Zollo, L., Milighetti, S., Miccinilli, S., Bravi, M., Ranieri, F., Magrone, G., Guglielmelli, E., Di Lazzaro, V., and Sterzi, S. (2017). Literature review on the effects of tDCS coupled with robotic therapy in post stroke upper limb rehabilitation. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11, 268.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stinear, C.M. and Byblow, W.D. (2014). Predicting and accelerating motor recovery after stroke. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 27, 624–630.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Straudi, S., Fregni, F., Martinuzzi, C., Pavarelli, C., Salvioli, S., and Basaglia, N. (2016). tDCS and robotics on upper limb stroke rehabilitation: effect modification by stroke duration and type of stroke. BioMed Res. Int. 2016, 8.Google Scholar
  • Suzuki, Y., and Naito, E. (2012). Neuro-modulation in dorsal premotor cortex facilitates human multi-task ability. J. Behav. Brain Sci. 2, 372.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Terney, D., Chaieb, L., Moliadze, V., Antal, A., and Paulus, W. (2008). Increasing human brain excitability by transcranial high-frequency random noise stimulation. J. Neurosci. 28, 14147–14155.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Viana, R.T., Laurentino, G.E., Souza, R.J., Fonseca, J.B., Silva Filho, E.M., Dias, S.N., Teixeira-Salmela, L.F., and Monte-Silva, K.K. (2014). Effects of the addition of transcranial direct current stimulation to virtual reality therapy after stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabilitation 34, 437–446.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wang, Y., Shen, Y., Cao, X., Shan, C., Pan, J., He, H., Ma, Y., and Yuan, T.F. (2016). Transcranial direct current stimulation of the frontal-parietal-temporal area attenuates cue-induced craving for heroin. J. Psychiatry Res. 79, 1–3.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Wu, D., Qian, L., Zorowitz, R.D., Zhang, L., Qu, Y., and Yuan, Y. (2013). Effects on decreasing upper-limb post stroke muscle tone using transcranial direct current stimulation: a randomized sham-controlled study. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 94, 1–8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Zehr, E.P. (2005). Neural control of rhythmic human movement: the common core hypothesis. Exercise Sport Sci. Rev. 33, 54–60.Google Scholar
  • Ziemann, U., Paulus, W., Nitsche, M.A., Pascual-Leone, A., Byblow, W.D., Berardelli, A., Siebner, H.R., Classen, J., Cohen, L.G., and Rothwell, J.C. (2008). Consensus: motor cortex plasticity protocols. Brain Stimul. 1, 164–182.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

via Motor stroke recovery after tDCS: a systematic review : Reviews in the Neurosciences

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Task-oriented Motor Learning in Upper Extremity Rehabilitation Post Stroke

Abstract

Background: Upper extremity deficits are the most popular symptoms following stroke. Task-oriented training has the ability to increase motor area excitability in the brain, which can stimulate the recovery of motor control.

Objective: This study was aimed to examine the efficiency of the task-oriented approach on paretic upper extremity following a stroke, and to identify efficient treatment dosage in those populations.

Method: We searched through PubMed, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), National Rehabilitation Information (REHABDATA), and Web of Science databases. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and pseudo-RCTs those investigating upper extremity in patients with stroke published in English language were selected. Different scales and measurement methods to assess range of motion, strength, spasticity, and upper extremity function were considered. The quality assessment of included articles was evaluated utilizing the PEDro scale. Effect sizes were calculated.

Results: Six RCTs were included in the present study. The quality assessment for included studies ranged from 6 to 8 with 6.5 as a median. A total of 456 post-stroke patients, 41.66% of which were women, were included in all studies. The included studies demonstrated a meaningful influence of task-oriented training intervention on the hemiplegic upper limb motor functions but not spasticity post-stroke.

Conclusion: Task-oriented training does not produce a superior effect than other conventional physical therapy interventions in treating upper extremity in patients with stroke. There is no evidence supporting the beneficial effect of task-oriented on spasticity. Task-oriented training with the following dosage 30 to 90 minutes/session, 2 to 3 sessions weekly for 6 to 10 weeks may improve motor function and strength of paretic upper extremity post-stroke.

via Task-oriented Motor Learning in Upper Extremity Rehabilitation Post Stroke – Anas R. Alashram, Giuseppe Annino, Nicola Biagio Mercuri,

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Forced, Not Voluntary, Aerobic Exercise Enhances Motor Recovery in Persons With Chronic Stroke

Background. The recovery of motor function following stroke is largely dependent on motor learning–related neuroplasticity. It has been hypothesized that intensive aerobic exercise (AE) training as an antecedent to motor task practice may prime the central nervous system to optimize motor recovery poststroke.

Objective. The objective of this study was to determine the differential effects of forced or voluntary AE combined with upper-extremity repetitive task practice (RTP) on the recovery of motor function in adults with stroke.

Methods. A combined analysis of 2 preliminary randomized clinical trials was conducted in which participants (n = 40) were randomized into 1 of 3 groups: (1) forced exercise and RTP (FE+RTP), (2) voluntary exercise and RTP (VE+RTP), or (3) time-matched stroke-related education and RTP (Edu+RTP). Participants completed 24 training sessions over 8 weeks.

Results. A significant interaction effect was found indicating that improvements in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) were greatest for the FE+RTP group (P = .001). All 3 groups improved significantly on the FMA by a mean of 11, 6, and 9 points for the FE+RTP, VE+RTP, and Edu+RTP groups, respectively. No evidence of a treatment-by-time interaction was observed for Wolf Motor Function Test outcomes; however, those in the FE+RTP group did exhibit significant improvement on the total, gross motor, and fine-motor performance times (P ≤ .01 for all observations).

Conclusions. Results indicate that FE administered prior to RTP enhanced motor skill acquisition greater than VE or stroke-related education. AE, FE in particular, should be considered as an effective antecedent to enhance motor recovery poststroke.

via Forced, Not Voluntary, Aerobic Exercise Enhances Motor Recovery in Persons With Chronic Stroke – Susan M. Linder, Anson B. Rosenfeldt, Sara Davidson, Nicole Zimmerman, Amanda Penko, John Lee, Cynthia Clark, Jay L. Alberts, 2019

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: