BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Residual motor deficits frequently linger after stroke. Search for newer effective strategies to promote functional recovery is ongoing. Brain stimulation, as a means of directing adaptive plasticity, is appealing. Animal studies and Phase I and II trials in humans have indicated safety, feasibility, and efficacy of combining rehabilitation and concurrent invasive cortical stimulation. However, a recent Phase III trial showed no advantage of the combination. We critically review results of various trials and discuss the factors that contributed to the distinctive result. SUMMARY OF REVIEW: Regarding cortical stimulation, it is important to determine the (1) location of peri-infarct representations by integrating multiple neuroanatomical and physiological techniques; (2) role of other mechanisms of stroke recovery; (3) viability of peri-infarct tissue and descending pathways; (4) lesion geometry to ensure no alteration/displacement of current density; and (5) applicability of lessons generated from noninvasive brain stimulation studies in humans. In terms of combining stimulation with rehabilitation, we should understand (1) the principle of homeostatic plasticity; (2) the effect of ongoing cortical activity and phases of learning; and (3) that subject-specific intervention may be necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Future cortical stimulation trials should consider the factors that may have contributed to the peculiar results of the Phase III trial and address those in future study designs.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Residual motor deficits frequently linger after stroke. Search for newer effective strategies to promote functional recovery is ongoing. Brain stimulation, as a means of directing adaptive plasticity, is appealing. Animal studies and Phase I and II trials in humans have indicated safety, feasibility, and efficacy of combining rehabilitation and concurrent invasive cortical stimulation. However, a recent Phase III trial showed no advantage of the combination. We critically review results of various trials and discuss the factors that contributed to the distinctive result. SUMMARY OF REVIEW: Regarding cortical stimulation, it is important to determine the (1) location of peri-infarct representations by integrating multiple neuroanatomical and physiological techniques; (2) role of other mechanisms of stroke recovery; (3) viability of peri-infarct tissue and descending pathways; (4) lesion geometry to ensure no alteration/displacement of current density; and (5) applicability of lessons generated from noninvasive brain stimulation studies in humans. In terms of combining stimulation with rehabilitation, we should understand (1) the principle of homeostatic plasticity; (2) the effect of ongoing cortical activity and phases of learning; and (3) that subject-specific intervention may be necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Future cortical stimulation trials should consider the factors that may have contributed to the peculiar results of the Phase III trial and address those in future study designs.
Authors: Christian Gerloff; Khalaf Bushara; Alexandra Sailer; Eric M Wassermann; Robert Chen; Takahiro Matsuoka; Daniel Waldvogel; George F Wittenberg; Kenji Ishii; Leonardo G Cohen; Mark Hallett Journal: Brain Date: 2005-12-19 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Jeffrey A Kleim; Sheila Chan; Erin Pringle; Kellan Schallert; Vincent Procaccio; Richard Jimenez; Steven C Cramer Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2006-05-07 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Tim Wagner; Felipe Fregni; Uri Eden; Ciro Ramos-Estebanez; Alan Grodzinsky; Markus Zahn; Alvaro Pascual-Leone Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-02-13 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Sung Ho Jang; Sung H You; Yong-Hyun Kwon; Mark Hallett; Mi Young Lee; Sang Ho Ahn Journal: Restor Neurol Neurosci Date: 2005 Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: Nick S Ward; Jennifer M Newton; Orlando B C Swayne; Lucy Lee; Alan J Thompson; Richard J Greenwood; John C Rothwell; Richard S J Frackowiak Journal: Brain Date: 2006-01-18 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Yin-Liang Lin; Kelsey A Potter-Baker; David A Cunningham; Manshi Li; Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; John Lee; Stephen Jones; Ken Sakaie; Xiaofeng Wang; Andre G Machado; Ela B Plow Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Jessica Cooperrider; Havan Furmaga; Ela Plow; Hyun-Joo Park; Zhihong Chen; Grahame Kidd; Kenneth B Baker; John T Gale; Andre G Machado Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: David A Cunningham; Nicole Varnerin; Andre Machado; Corin Bonnett; Daniel Janini; Sarah Roelle; Kelsey Potter-Baker; Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; Xiaofeng Wang; Guang Yue; Ela B Plow Journal: Restor Neurol Neurosci Date: 2015 Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: David J Guggenmos; Meysam Azin; Scott Barbay; Jonathan D Mahnken; Caleb Dunham; Pedram Mohseni; Randolph J Nudo Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Wei Wang; Jennifer L Collinger; Monica A Perez; Elizabeth C Tyler-Kabara; Leonardo G Cohen; Niels Birbaumer; Steven W Brose; Andrew B Schwartz; Michael L Boninger; Douglas J Weber Journal: Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 1.784