Literature DB >> 22139791

Contralesional hemisphere control of the proximal paretic upper limb following stroke.

Lynley V Bradnam1, Cathy M Stinear, P Alan Barber, Winston D Byblow.   

Abstract

Cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (c-tDCS) can reduce excitability of neurons in primary motor cortex (M1) and may facilitate motor recovery after stroke. However, little is known about the neurophysiological effects of tDCS on proximal upper limb function. We hypothesized that suppression of contralesional M1 (cM1) excitability would produce neurophysiological effects that depended on the severity of upper limb impairment. Twelve patients with varying upper limb impairment after subcortical stroke were assessed on clinical scales of upper limb spasticity, impairment, and function. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to determine lesion size and fractional anisotropy (FA) within the posterior limbs of the internal capsules indicative of corticospinal tract integrity. Excitability within paretic M1 biceps brachii representation was determined from motor-evoked potentials during selective isometric tasks, after cM1 sham stimulation and after c-tDCS. These neurophysiological data indicate that c-tDCS improved selective proximal upper limb control for mildly impaired patients and worsened it for moderate to severely impaired patients. The direction of the neurophysiological after effects of c-tDCS was strongly related to upper limb spasticity, impairment, function, and FA asymmetry between the posterior limbs of the internal capsules. These results indicate systematic variation of cM1 for proximal upper limb control after stroke and that suppression of cM1 excitability is not a "one size fits all" approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22139791      PMCID: PMC4705341          DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhr344

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cereb Cortex        ISSN: 1047-3211            Impact factor:   5.357


  81 in total

1.  Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images.

Authors:  Mark Jenkinson; Peter Bannister; Michael Brady; Stephen Smith
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation or transcranial direct current stimulation?

Authors:  Alberto Priori; Mark Hallett; John C Rothwell
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2009-04-03       Impact factor: 8.955

3.  rTMS combined with motor learning training in healthy subjects.

Authors:  James R Carey; Felipe Fregni; Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.406

4.  Involvement of the ipsilateral motor cortex in finger movements of different complexities.

Authors:  R Chen; C Gerloff; M Hallett; L G Cohen
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 10.422

5.  A functional MRI study of subjects recovered from hemiparetic stroke.

Authors:  S C Cramer; G Nelles; R R Benson; J D Kaplan; R A Parker; K K Kwong; D N Kennedy; S P Finklestein; B R Rosen
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 7.914

Review 6.  Controversy: Noninvasive and invasive cortical stimulation show efficacy in treating stroke patients.

Authors:  Friedhelm C Hummel; Pablo Celnik; Alvero Pascual-Leone; Felipe Fregni; Winston D Byblow; Cathrin M Buetefisch; John Rothwell; Leonardo G Cohen; Christian Gerloff
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2008-10-09       Impact factor: 8.955

7.  Modulating cortical connectivity in stroke patients by rTMS assessed with fMRI and dynamic causal modeling.

Authors:  Christian Grefkes; Dennis A Nowak; Ling E Wang; Manuel Dafotakis; Simon B Eickhoff; Gereon R Fink
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2009-12-18       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  Microstructural status of ipsilesional and contralesional corticospinal tract correlates with motor skill in chronic stroke patients.

Authors:  Judith D Schaechter; Zachary P Fricker; Katherine L Perdue; Karl G Helmer; Mark G Vangel; Douglas N Greve; Nikos Makris
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 5.038

9.  Intracortical circuits modulate transcallosal inhibition in humans.

Authors:  L Avanzino; J T H Teo; J C Rothwell
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2007-06-07       Impact factor: 5.182

Review 10.  Using non-invasive brain stimulation to augment motor training-induced plasticity.

Authors:  Nadia Bolognini; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Felipe Fregni
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 4.262

View more
  83 in total

1.  Stratifying chronic stroke patients based on the influence of contralesional motor cortices: An inter-hemispheric inhibition study.

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

2.  Inhibition versus facilitation of contralesional motor cortices in stroke: Deriving a model to tailor brain stimulation.

Authors:  Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; Andre G Machado; Adriana B Conforto; Kelsey A Potter-Baker; David A Cunningham; Nicole M Varnerin; Xiaofeng Wang; Ken Sakaie; Ela B Plow
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 3.708

3.  Electrical stimulation of motor cortex in the uninjured hemisphere after chronic unilateral injury promotes recovery of skilled locomotion through ipsilateral control.

Authors:  Jason B Carmel; Hiroki Kimura; John H Martin
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Serial treatments of primed low-frequency rTMS in stroke: characteristics of responders vs. nonresponders.

Authors:  James R Carey; Huiqiong Deng; Bernadette T Gillick; Jessica M Cassidy; David C Anderson; Lei Zhang; William Thomas
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.406

Review 5.  Motor compensation and its effects on neural reorganization after stroke.

Authors:  Theresa A Jones
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 34.870

6.  Stroke subtype and motor impairment influence contralesional excitability.

Authors:  Gary W Thickbroom; Mar Cortes; Avrielle Rykman; Bruce T Volpe; Felipe Fregni; H Igo Krebs; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Dylan J Edwards
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 9.910

Review 7.  Biomarkers and predictors of restorative therapy effects after stroke.

Authors:  Erin Burke; Steven C Cramer
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 5.081

8.  Focal hand dystonia: individualized intervention with repeated application of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Teresa Jacobson Kimberley; Michael R Borich; Rebekah L Schmidt; James R Carey; Bernadette Gillick
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2014-09-23       Impact factor: 3.966

Review 9.  Cerebral network disorders after stroke: evidence from imaging-based connectivity analyses of active and resting brain states in humans.

Authors:  Anne K Rehme; Christian Grefkes
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 5.182

10.  Neural substrates underlying stimulation-enhanced motor skill learning after stroke.

Authors:  Stéphanie Lefebvre; Laurence Dricot; Patrice Laloux; Wojciech Gradkowski; Philippe Desfontaines; Frédéric Evrard; André Peeters; Jacques Jamart; Yves Vandermeeren
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2014-12-08       Impact factor: 13.501

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.