Mariko Nishibe1, Edward T R Urban2, Scott Barbay2, Randolph J Nudo3. 1. Osaka University, Osaka, Japan. 2. University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA. 3. University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA rnudo@kumc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In preclinical stroke models, improvement in motor performance is associated with reorganization of cortical motor maps. However, the temporal relationship between performance gains and map plasticity is not clear. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to assess the effects of rehabilitative training on the temporal dynamics of behavioral and neurophysiological endpoints in a rat model of focal cortical infarct. METHODS: Eight days after an ischemic infarct in primary motor cortex, adult rats received either rehabilitative training or were allowed to recover spontaneously. Motor performance and movement quality of the paretic forelimb was assessed on a skilled reach task. Intracortical microstimulation mapping procedures were conducted to assess the topography of spared forelimb representations either at the end of training (post-lesion day 18) or at the end of a 3-week follow-up period (post-lesion day 38). RESULTS: Rats receiving rehabilitative training demonstrated more rapid improvement in motor performance and movement quality during the training period that persisted through the follow-up period. Motor maps in both groups were unusually small on post-lesion day 18. On post-lesion day 38, forelimb motor maps in the rehabilitative training group were significantly enlarged compared with the no-rehab group, and within the range of normal maps. CONCLUSIONS: Postinfarct rehabilitative training rapidly improves motor performance and movement quality after an ischemic infarct in motor cortex. However, training-induced motor improvements are not reflected in spared motor maps until substantially later, suggesting that early motor training after stroke can help shape the evolving poststroke neural network.
BACKGROUND: In preclinical stroke models, improvement in motor performance is associated with reorganization of cortical motor maps. However, the temporal relationship between performance gains and map plasticity is not clear. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to assess the effects of rehabilitative training on the temporal dynamics of behavioral and neurophysiological endpoints in a rat model of focal cortical infarct. METHODS: Eight days after an ischemic infarct in primary motor cortex, adult rats received either rehabilitative training or were allowed to recover spontaneously. Motor performance and movement quality of the paretic forelimb was assessed on a skilled reach task. Intracortical microstimulation mapping procedures were conducted to assess the topography of spared forelimb representations either at the end of training (post-lesion day 18) or at the end of a 3-week follow-up period (post-lesion day 38). RESULTS:Rats receiving rehabilitative training demonstrated more rapid improvement in motor performance and movement quality during the training period that persisted through the follow-up period. Motor maps in both groups were unusually small on post-lesion day 18. On post-lesion day 38, forelimb motor maps in the rehabilitative training group were significantly enlarged compared with the no-rehab group, and within the range of normal maps. CONCLUSIONS: Postinfarct rehabilitative training rapidly improves motor performance and movement quality after an ischemic infarct in motor cortex. However, training-induced motor improvements are not reflected in spared motor maps until substantially later, suggesting that early motor training after stroke can help shape the evolving poststroke neural network.
Authors: Numa Dancause; Scott Barbay; Shawn B Frost; Elena V Zoubina; Erik J Plautz; Jonathan D Mahnken; Randolph J Nudo Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2006-09-20 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Numa Dancause; Scott Barbay; Shawn B Frost; Erik J Plautz; Daofen Chen; Elena V Zoubina; Ann M Stowe; Randolph J Nudo Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2005-11-02 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Lynne V Gauthier; Edward Taub; Christi Perkins; Magdalene Ortmann; Victor W Mark; Gitendra Uswatte Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-03-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: David W McNeal; Warren G Darling; Jizhi Ge; Kimberly S Stilwell-Morecraft; Kathryn M Solon; Stephanie M Hynes; Marc A Pizzimenti; Diane L Rotella; Tyler Vanadurongvan; Robert J Morecraft Journal: J Comp Neurol Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 3.215
Authors: Holly M Stradecki-Cohan; Mehdi Youbi; Charles H Cohan; Isa Saul; Alexandra A Garvin; Edwin Perez; Kunjan R Dave; Clinton B Wright; Ralph L Sacco; Miguel A Perez-Pinzon Journal: Stroke Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Tara L Moore; Monica A Pessina; Seth P Finklestein; Ronald J Killiany; Bethany Bowley; Larry Benowitz; Douglas L Rosene Journal: Restor Neurol Neurosci Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: Kathleen M Friel; Hsing-Ching Kuo; Jason Fuller; Claudio L Ferre; Marina Brandão; Jason B Carmel; Yannick Bleyenheuft; Jaimie L Gowatsky; Arielle D Stanford; Stefan B Rowny; Bruce Luber; Bruce Bassi; David L K Murphy; Sarah H Lisanby; Andrew M Gordon Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: DeAnna L Adkins; Lindsay Ferguson; Steven Lance; Aleksandr Pevtsov; Kevin McDonough; Justin Stamschror; Theresa A Jones; Dorothy A Kozlowski Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 3.919