Download PDF
Semin Neurol 2021; 41(02): 167-176
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1725138
Review Article

Motor Recovery: How Rehabilitation Techniques and Technologies Can Enhance Recovery and Neuroplasticity

Robynne G. Braun 
1   Department of Neurology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, University of Maryland Rehabilitation & Orthopaedic Institute, Baltimore, Maryland
,
George F. Wittenberg 
2   Department of Neurology, Rehab Neural Engineering Labs, Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
3   Human Engineering Research Laboratory, Geriatrics Research Education and Clinical Center, VA Pittsburgh HealthCare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was supported by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research (HD086844 and HD092481) and Office of Research and Development, Rehabilitation Research and Development Service.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

There are now a large number of technological and methodological approaches to the rehabilitation of motor function after stroke. It is important to employ these approaches in a manner that is tailored to specific patient impairments and desired functional outcomes, while avoiding the hype of overly broad or unsubstantiated claims for efficacy. Here we review the evidence for poststroke plasticity, including therapy-related plasticity and functional imaging data. Early demonstrations of remapping in somatomotor and somatosensory representations have been succeeded by findings of white matter plasticity and a focus on activity-dependent changes in neuronal properties and connections. The methods employed in neurorehabilitation have their roots in early understanding of neuronal circuitry and plasticity, and therapies involving large numbers of repetitions, such as robotic therapy and constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT), change measurable nervous systems properties. Other methods that involve stimulation of brain and peripheral excitable structures have the potential to harness neuroplastic mechanisms, but remain experimental. Gaps in our understanding of the neural substrates targeted by neurorehabilitation technology and techniques remain, preventing their prescriptive application in individual patients as well as their general refinement. However, with ongoing research—facilitated in part by technologies that can capture quantitative information about motor performance—this gap is narrowing. These research approaches can improve efforts to attain the shared goal of better functional recovery after stroke.

Keywords

neuroplasticity - stimulation - motor - stroke - outcomes


Publication History

Article published online:
04 March 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 AbilityLab SR. . Published 2019. Updated 7/11/19. Accessed August 27, 2020 at: https://www.sralab.org/rehabilitation-measures/database?population=4636
    PubMed
  • 2 Allred RP, Jones TA. Maladaptive effects of learning with the less-affected forelimb after focal cortical infarcts in rats. Exp Neurol 2008; 210 (01) 172-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Braun RG, Andrews EM, Kartje GL. Kinematic analysis of motor recovery with human adult bone marrow-derived somatic cell therapy in a rat model of stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2012; 26 (07) 898-906
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cirstea MC, Levin MF. Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain 2000; 123 (Pt 5): 940-953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Latash ML, Anson JG. What are “normal movements” in atypical populations?. Behav Brain Sci 1996; 19 (01) 55-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Levin MF, Desrosiers J, Beauchemin D, Bergeron N, Rochette A. Development and validation of a scale for rating motor compensations used for reaching in patients with hemiparesis: the reaching performance scale. Phys Ther 2004; 84 (01) 8-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bennett EL, Diamond MC, Krech D, Rosenzweig MR. Chemical and anatomical plasticity brain. Science 1964; 146 (3644): 610-619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lee RG, van Donkelaar P. Mechanisms underlying functional recovery following stroke. Can J Neurol Sci 1995; 22 (04) 257-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tesio L. From neuroplastic potential to actual recovery after stroke: a call for cooperation between drugs and exercise. Aging (Milano) 1991; 3 (01) 97-98
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Collaboration FT. FOCUS Trial Collaboration. Effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke (FOCUS): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 2019; 393 (10168): 265-274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Biernaskie J, Corbett D. Enriched rehabilitative training promotes improved forelimb motor function and enhanced dendritic growth after focal ischemic injury. J Neurosci 2001; 21 (14) 5272-5280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Frost SB, Barbay S, Friel KM, Plautz EJ, Nudo RJ. Reorganization of remote cortical regions after ischemic brain injury: a potential substrate for stroke recovery. J Neurophysiol 2003; 89 (06) 3205-3214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Weiller C, Chollet F, Friston KJ, Wise RJ, Frackowiak RSJ. Functional reorganization of the brain in recovery from striatocapsular infarction in man. Ann Neurol 1992; 31 (05) 463-472
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Stinear CM, Byblow WD, Ackerley SJ, Barber PA, Smith MC. Predicting recovery potential for individual stroke patients increases rehabilitation efficiency. Stroke 2017; 48 (04) 1011-1019
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hallett M. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and the human brain. Nature 2000; 406 (6792): 147-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Brouwer BJ, Schryburt-Brown K. Hand function and motor cortical output poststroke: are they related?. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87 (05) 627-634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Wittenberg GF, Bastings EP, Fowlkes AM, Morgan TM, Good DC, Pons TP. Dynamic course of intracortical TMS paired-pulse responses during recovery of motor function after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007; 21 (06) 568-573
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Palmer JA, Wolf SL, Borich MR. Paired associative stimulation modulates corticomotor excitability in chronic stroke: a preliminary investigation. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2018; 36 (02) 183-194
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Madhavan S, Stinear JW, Kanekar N. Effects of a single session of high intensity interval treadmill training on corticomotor excitability following stroke: implications for therapy. Neural Plast 2016; 2016: 1686414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Edwards DJ, Krebs HI, Rykman A. et al. Raised corticomotor excitability of M1 forearm area following anodal tDCS is sustained during robotic wrist therapy in chronic stroke. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2009; 27 (03) 199-207
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Edwards DJ, Cortes M, Rykman-Peltz A. et al. Clinical improvement with intensive robot-assisted arm training in chronic stroke is unchanged by supplementary tDCS. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2019; 37 (02) 167-180
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Blakeslee S, Blakeslee M. The Body Has a Mind of Its Own: How Body Maps in Your Brain Help You Do (Almost) Everything Better. 1st ed.. New York, NY: Random House; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Merzenich MM, Kaas JH, Wall J, Nelson RJ, Sur M, Felleman D. Topographic reorganization of somatosensory cortical areas 3b and 1 in adult monkeys following restricted deafferentation. Neuroscience 1983; 8 (01) 33-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Nudo RJ, Friel KM. Cortical plasticity after stroke: implications for rehabilitation. Rev Neurol (Paris) 1999; 155 (09) 713-717
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Dancause N, Nudo RJ. Shaping plasticity to enhance recovery after injury. Prog Brain Res 2011; 192: 273-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Schirrmacher R, Dea M, Heiss WD. et al. Which aspects of stroke do animal models capture? A multitracer micro-PET study of focal ischemia with endothelin-1. Cerebrovasc Dis 2016; 41 (3-4): 139-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Guggisberg AG, Koch PJ, Hummel FC, Buetefisch CM. Brain networks and their relevance for stroke rehabilitation. Clin Neurophysiol 2019; 130 (07) 1098-1124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Xia Y, Pu H, Leak RK. et al. Tissue plasminogen activator promotes white matter integrity and functional recovery in a murine model of traumatic brain injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2018; 115 (39) E9230-E9238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Pu H, Shi Y, Zhang L. et al. Protease-independent action of tissue plasminogen activator in brain plasticity and neurological recovery after ischemic stroke. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2019; 116 (18) 9115-9124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Scholz J, Klein MC, Behrens TE, Johansen-Berg H. Training induces changes in white-matter architecture. Nat Neurosci 2009; 12 (11) 1370-1371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Zheng X, Schlaug G. Structural white matter changes in descending motor tracts correlate with improvements in motor impairment after undergoing a treatment course of tDCS and physical therapy. Front Hum Neurosci 2015; 9: 229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kissela B, Lindsell CJ, Kleindorfer D. et al. Clinical prediction of functional outcome after ischemic stroke: the surprising importance of periventricular white matter disease and race. Stroke 2009; 40 (02) 530-536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lagace DC. Does the endogenous neurogenic response alter behavioral recovery following stroke?. Behav Brain Res 2012; 227 (02) 426-432
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kannangara TS, Carter A, Xue Y, Dhaliwal JS, Béïque JC, Lagace DC. Excitable adult-generated GABAergic neurons acquire functional innervation in the cortex after stroke. Stem Cell Reports 2018; 11 (06) 1327-1336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Cohen S, Levi-Montalcini R, Hamburger V. A nerve growth-stimulating factor isolated from sarcom as 37 and 180. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1954; 40 (10) 1014-1018
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Iversen LL. Rita Levi-Montalcini: neuroscientist par excellence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013; 110 (13) 4862-4863
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Barde YA, Davies AM, Johnson JE, Lindsay RM, Thoenen H. Brain derived neurotrophic factor. Prog Brain Res 1987; 71: 185-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Mang CS, Campbell KL, Ross CJ, Boyd LA. Promoting neuroplasticity for motor rehabilitation after stroke: considering the effects of aerobic exercise and genetic variation on brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Phys Ther 2013; 93 (12) 1707-1716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Rutherford LC, Nelson SB, Turrigiano GG. BDNF has opposite effects on the quantal amplitude of pyramidal neuron and interneuron excitatory synapses. Neuron 1998; 21 (03) 521-530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Kleim JA, Chan S, Pringle E. et al. BDNF val66met polymorphism is associated with modified experience-dependent plasticity in human motor cortex. Nat Neurosci 2006; 9 (06) 735-737
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Balkaya M, Cho S. Genetics of stroke recovery: BDNF val66met polymorphism in stroke recovery and its interaction with aging. Neurobiol Dis 2019; 126: 36-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 French MA, Morton SM, Pohlig RT, Reisman DS. The relationship between BDNF Val66Met polymorphism and functional mobility in chronic stroke survivors. Top Stroke Rehabil 2018; 25 (04) 276-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 de Boer RGA, Spielmann K, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, van der Vliet R, Ribbers GM, van de Sandt-Koenderman WME. The role of the BDNF Val66Met polymorphism in recovery of aphasia after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2017; 31 (09) 851-857
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Stent GS. A physiological mechanism for Hebb's postulate of learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1973; 70 (04) 997-1001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Bliss TV, Lomo T. Long-lasting potentiation of synaptic transmission in the dentate area of the anaesthetized rabbit following stimulation of the perforant path. J Physiol 1973; 232 (02) 331-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Massie CL, Kantak SS, Narayanan P, Wittenberg GF. Timing of motor cortical stimulation during planar robotic training differentially impacts neuroplasticity in older adults. Clin Neurophysiol 2015; 126 (05) 1024-1032
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Raymond CR. LTP forms 1, 2 and 3: different mechanisms for the “long” in long-term potentiation. Trends Neurosci 2007; 30 (04) 167-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Cirillo J, Lavender AP, Ridding MC, Semmler JG. Motor cortex plasticity induced by paired associative stimulation is enhanced in physically active individuals. J Physiol 2009; 587 (Pt 24): 5831-5842
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Conde V, Vollmann H, Taubert M. et al. Reversed timing-dependent associative plasticity in the human brain through interhemispheric interactions. J Neurophysiol 2013; 109 (09) 2260-2271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Naro A, Russo M, AbdelKader M. et al. A local signature of LTP-like plasticity induced by repetitive paired associative stimulation. Brain Topogr 2015; 28 (02) 238-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Levine DN. Sherrington's “The Integrative action of the nervous system”: a centennial appraisal. J Neurol Sci 2007; 253 (1–2): 1-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 York GK, Steinberg DA. Hughlings Jackson's theory of recovery. Neurology 1995; 45 (04) 834-838
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Gordon J. Assumptions underlying physical therapy intervention: theoretical and historical perspectives. In: Carr J, Sheppard R. eds. Movement Science: Foundations for Physical Therapy in Rehabilitation. Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers; 1987: 1-30
    Google Scholar
  • 54 Horak FB. Assumptions underlying motor control for neurologic rehabilitation. In: Lister MJ. ed. Contemporary Management of Motor Control Problems: Proceedings of the II STEP Conference. Alexandria, VA: Foundation for Physical Therapy; 1991: 11-27
    Google Scholar
  • 55 Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, Wagenaar RC. Therapy impact on functional recovery in stroke rehabilitation: a critical review of the literature. Physiotherapy 1999; 85 (07) 377-391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Liberson WT, Holmquest HJ, Scot D, Dow M. Functional electrotherapy: stimulation of the peroneal nerve synchronized with the swing phase of the gait of hemiplegic patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1961; 42: 101-105
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Sheffler LR, Chae J. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation in neurorehabilitation. Muscle Nerve 2007; 35 (05) 562-590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Winstein CJ, Stein J, Arena R. et al; American Heart Association Stroke Council, Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research. Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2016; 47 (06) e98-e169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Moe JH, Post HW. Functional electrical stimulation for ambulation in hemiplegia. J Lancet 1962; 82: 285-288
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Laufer Y, Hausdorff JM, Ring H. Effects of a foot drop neuroprosthesis on functional abilities, social participation, and gait velocity. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 88 (01) 14-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Ring H, Rosenthal N. Controlled study of neuroprosthetic functional electrical stimulation in sub-acute post-stroke rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med 2005; 37 (01) 32-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Powell J, Pandyan AD, Granat M, Cameron M, Stott DJ. Electrical stimulation of wrist extensors in poststroke hemiplegia. Stroke 1999; 30 (07) 1384-1389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Page SJ, Levin L, Hermann V, Dunning K, Levine P. Longer versus shorter daily durations of electrical stimulation during task-specific practice in moderately impaired stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93 (02) 200-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Sabut SK, Sikdar C, Kumar R, Mahadevappa M. Functional electrical stimulation of dorsiflexor muscle: effects on dorsiflexor strength, plantarflexor spasticity, and motor recovery in stroke patients. NeuroRehabilitation 2011; 29 (04) 393-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Farina D, Lorrain T, Negro F, Jiang N. High-density EMG E-textile systems for the control of active prostheses. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2010; 2010: 3591-3593
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Yang K, Meadmore K, Freeman C. et al. Development of user-friendly wearable electronic textiles for healthcare applications. Sensors (Basel) 2018; 18 (08) E2410
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Melzack R, Wall PD. Pain mechanisms: a new theory. Science 1965; 150 (3699): 971-979
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Miller KJ, Gallina A, Neva JL. et al. Effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with robot-assisted training on wrist muscle activation post-stroke. Clin Neurophysiol 2019; 130 (08) 1271-1279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Mansur CG, Fregni F, Boggio PS. et al. A sham stimulation-controlled trial of rTMS of the unaffected hemisphere in stroke patients. Neurology 2005; 64 (10) 1802-1804
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Dimyan MA, Perez MA, Auh S, Tarula E, Wilson M, Cohen LG. Nonparetic arm force does not overinhibit the paretic arm in chronic poststroke hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2014; 95 (05) 849-856
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Liu A, Vöröslakos M, Kronberg G. et al. Immediate neurophysiological effects of transcranial electrical stimulation. Nat Commun 2018; 9 (01) 5092
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Badger J, Taylor P, Swain I. The safety of electrical stimulation in patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng 2017; 4: 2055668317745498
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Thompson AK, Pomerantz FR, Wolpaw JR. Operant conditioning of a spinal reflex can improve locomotion after spinal cord injury in humans. J Neurosci 2013; 33 (06) 2365-2375
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Li CM, Wang TG, Lee HY. et al. Swallowing training combined with game-based biofeedback in poststroke dysphagia. PM R 2016; 8 (08) 773-779
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Benfield JK, Everton LF, Bath PM, England TJ. Does therapy with biofeedback improve swallowing in adults with dysphagia? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2019; 100 (03) 551-561
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Hogan N, Krebs HI, Sharon A, Charnnarong J. Inventors; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, assignee. Interactive robotic therapist. US patent 5,466,213; November, 1995
    Google Scholar
  • 77 Aisen ML, Krebs HI, Hogan N, McDowell F, Volpe BT. The effect of robot-assisted therapy and rehabilitative training on motor recovery following stroke. Arch Neurol 1997; 54 (04) 443-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Brokaw EB, Holley RJ, Lum PS. Comparison of joint space and end point space robotic training modalities for rehabilitation of interjoint coordination in individuals with moderate to severe impairment from chronic stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2013; 21 (05) 787-795
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Mehrholz J, Pohl M, Platz T, Kugler J, Elsner B. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 9: CD006876
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Mehrholz J, Thomas S, Werner C, Kugler J, Pohl M, Elsner B. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 5: CD006185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Mayr A, Quirbach E, Picelli A, Kofler M, Smania N, Saltuari L. Early robot-assisted gait retraining in non-ambulatory patients with stroke: a single blind randomized controlled trial. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2018; 54 (06) 819-826
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Lo AC, Guarino PD, Richards LG. et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med 2010; 362 (19) 1772-1783
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Kluzik J, Diedrichsen J, Shadmehr R, Bastian AJ. Reach adaptation: what determines whether we learn an internal model of the tool or adapt the model of our arm?. J Neurophysiol 2008; 100 (03) 1455-1464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Conroy SS, Wittenberg GF, Krebs HI, Zhan M, Bever CT, Whitall J. Robot-assisted arm training in chronic stroke: addition of transition-to-task practice. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2019; 33 (09) 751-761
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP. et al; EXCITE Investigators. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2006; 296 (17) 2095-2104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Page SJ, Sisto SA, Levine P, Johnston MV, Hughes M. Modified constraint induced therapy: a randomized feasibility and efficacy study. J Rehabil Res Dev 2001; 38 (05) 583-590
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Page SJ, Sisto S, Levine P, McGrath RE. Efficacy of modified constraint-induced movement therapy in chronic stroke: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85 (01) 14-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar