Posts Tagged Priming
[Abstract] The Effect of Priming on Outcomes of Task-Oriented Training for the Upper Extremity in Chronic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Background. Priming results in a type of implicit memory that prepares the brain for a more plastic response, thereby changing behavior. New evidence in neurorehabilitation points to the use of priming interventions to optimize functional gains of the upper extremity in poststroke individuals. Objective. To determine the effects of priming on task-oriented training on upper extremity outcomes (body function and activity) in chronic stroke.
Methods. The PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, EMBASE, and PEDro databases were searched in October 2019. Outcome data were pooled into categories of measures considering the International Classification Functional (ICF) classifications of body function and activity. Means and standard deviations for each group were used to determine group effect sizes by calculating mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals via a fixed effects model. Heterogeneity among the included studies for each factor evaluated was measured using the I2 statistic.
Results. Thirty-six studies with 814 patients undergoing various types of task-oriented training were included in the analysis. Of these studies, 17 were associated with stimulation priming, 12 with sensory priming, 4 with movement priming, and 3 with action observation priming. Stimulation priming showed moderate-quality evidence of body function. Only the Wolf Motor Function Test (time) in the activity domain showed low-quality evidence. However, gains in motor function and in use of extremity members were measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (UE-FMA). Regarding sensory priming, we found moderate-quality evidence and effect size for UE-FMA, corresponding to the body function domain (MD 4.77, 95% CI 3.25-6.29, Z = 6.15, P < .0001), and for the Action Research Arm Test, corresponding to the activity domain (MD 7.47, 95% CI 4.52-10.42, Z = 4.96, P < .0001). Despite the low-quality evidence, we found an effect size (MD 8.64, 95% CI 10.85-16.43, Z = 2.17, P = .003) in movement priming. Evidence for action observation priming was inconclusive.
Conclusion. Combining priming and task-oriented training for the upper extremities of chronic stroke patients can be a promising intervention strategy. Studies that identify which priming techniques combined with task-oriented training for upper extremity function in chronic stroke yield effective outcomes in each ICF domain are needed and may be beneficial for the recovery of upper extremities poststroke.
via The Effect of Priming on Outcomes of Task-Oriented Training for the Upper Extremity in Chronic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis – Erika Shirley Moreira da Silva, Gabriela Nagai Ocamoto, Gabriela Lopes dos Santos-Maia, Roberta de Fátima Carreira Moreira Padovez, Claudia Trevisan, Marcos Amaral de Noronha, Natalia Duarte Pereira, Alexandra Borstad, Thiago Luiz Russo,
[Editorial] Motor Priming for Motor Recovery: Neural Mechanisms and Clinical Perspectives – Neurology
Editorial on the Research Topic
The Oxford dictionary defines the term priming as “a substance that prepares something for use or action.” In this special issue, we define motor priming as a technique, experience, or activity targeting the motor cortex resulting in subsequent changes in motor behavior. Inadequate functional recovery after neural damage is a persisting burden for many, and this insufficiency highlights the need for new neurorehabilitation paradigms that facilitate the capacity of the brain to learn and recover. The concept of motor priming has gained importance in the last decade. Numerous motor priming paradigms have emerged to demonstrate success to improve functional recovery after injury. Some of the successful priming paradigms that have shown to alter motor behavior and are easily implementable in clinical practice include non-invasive brain stimulation, movement priming, motor imagery, and sensory priming. The full clinical impact of these priming paradigms has not yet been realized due to limited evidence regarding neural mechanisms, safety and effectiveness, dosage, individualization of parameters, identification of the appropriate therapies that need to be provided in combination with the priming technique, and the vital time window to maximize the effectiveness of priming. In this special issue, four manuscripts address critical questions that will enhance our understanding of motor priming paradigms and attempt to bridge the gap between neurophysiology and clinical implementation.
In their study, “Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation to Enhance Upper Limb Motor Practice Poststroke: A Model for Selection of Cortical Site,” Harris-Love and Harrington elegantly address the extremely important issue of individualizing brain stimulation for upper limb stroke recovery. Many brain stimulation techniques show high interindividual variability and low reliability as the “one-size-for-all” does not fit the vast heterogeneity in recovery observed in stroke survivors. In this article, the authors propose a novel framework that personalizes the application of non-invasive brain stimulation based on understanding of the structural anatomy, neural connectivity, and task attributes. They further provide experimental support for this idea with data from severely impaired stroke survivors that validate the proposed framework.
The issue of heterogeneity poststroke is also addressed by Lefebvre and Liew in “Anatomical Parameters of tDCS to modulate the motor system after stroke: A review.” These authors discuss the variability in research using tDCS for the poststroke population. According to the authors, the most likely sources of variability include the heterogeneity of poststroke populations and the experimental paradigms. Individually based variability of results could be related to various factors including: (1) molecular factors such as baseline measures of GABA, levels of dopamine receptor activity, and propensity of brain-derived neurotropic factor expression; (2) time poststroke, (3) lesion location; (4) type of stroke; and (5) level of poststroke motor impairment. Variability related to experimental paradigms include the timing of the stimulation (pre- or post-training), the experimental task, and whether the protocol emphasizes motor performance (a temporary change in motor ability) or motor learning based (more permanent change in motor ability). Finally, the numerous possibilities of electrode placement, neural targets, and the different setups (monocephalic versus bi-hemispheric) add further complexity. For future work with the poststroke population, the authors suggest that tDCS experimental paradigms explore individualized neural targets determined by neuronavigation.
In another exciting study in this issue, Estes et al. tackle the timely topic of spinal reflex excitability modulated by motor priming in individuals with spinal cord injury. The authors choose to test four non-pharmacological interventions: stretching, continuous passive motion, transcranial direct current stimulation, and transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation to reduce spasticity. Three out of four techniques were associated with reduction in spasticity immediately after treatment, to an extent comparable to pharmacological approaches. These priming approaches provide a low-cost and low-risk alternative to anti-spasticity medications.
In another clinical study in individuals with spinal cord injury, Gomes-Osman et al. examined effects of two different approaches to priming. Participants were randomized to either peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) plus functional task practice, PNS alone, or conventional exercise therapy. The findings were unexpected. There was no change in somatosensory function or power grip strength in any of the groups. Interestingly, all of the interventions produced changes in precision grip of the weaker hand following training. However, only PNS plus functional task practice improved precision grip in both hands. The authors found that baseline corticospinal excitability were significantly correlated to changes in precision grip strength of the weaker hand. The lack of change in grip strength in any of the groups was surprising. Previous evidence suggests, however, that the corticomotor system is more strongly activated during precision grip as compared to power grip, and the authors suggest that interventions targeting the corticomotor system (i.e., various priming methods) may more strongly effect precision grip.
Overall, this special issue brings together an array of original research articles and reviews that further enhance our understanding of motor priming for motor recovery with an emphasis on neural mechanisms and clinical implementation. We hope that the studies presented encourage future studies on motor priming paradigms to optimize the potential for functional recovery in the neurologically disadvantaged population, and further our understanding of neuroplasticity after injury.
SM and MS have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
SM is supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health (R01HD075777).
The brain consists of two hemispheres each responsible for controlling the opposite side of the body. Normally, each hemisphere inhibits the opposite side to avoid mirror movements (both sides performing same movement simultaneously).
After a stroke, the two hemispheres experience an unbalancing of both sides with the unaffected hemisphere receiving more signals than the affected hemisphere. This imbalance leads to increased excitability and decreased inhibition to the healthy side.
Priming is a technique used to enhance the brain’s ability to re-balance the two hemispheres following a stroke. Priming interventions include invasive and non-invasive techniques and can be administered prior to or during recovery.
Source: What is Cortical Priming?
Priming is a type of implicit learning wherein a stimulus prompts a change in behavior. Priming has been long studied in the field of psychology. More recently, rehabilitation researchers have studied motor priming as a possible way to facilitate motor learning. For example, priming of the motor cortex is associated with changes in neuroplasticity that are associated with improvements in motor performance.
Of the numerous motor priming paradigms under investigation, only a few are practical for the current clinical environment, and the optimal priming modalities for specific clinical presentations are not known. Accordingly, developing an understanding of the various types of motor priming paradigms and their underlying neural mechanisms is an important step for therapists in neurorehabilitation. Most importantly, an understanding of the methods and their underlying mechanisms is essential for optimizing rehabilitation outcomes.
The future of neurorehabilitation is likely to include these priming methods, which are delivered prior to or in conjunction with primary neurorehabilitation therapies. In this Special Interest article, we discuss those priming paradigms that are supported by the greatest amount of evidence, including
- (i) stimulation-based priming,
- (ii) motor imagery and action observation,
- (iii) sensory priming,
- (iv) movement-based priming, and
- (v) pharmacological priming.