BACKGROUND: Motor rehabilitative training improves behavioral functionality and promotes beneficial neural reorganization following stroke but is often insufficient to normalize function. Rodent studies have relied on skilled reaching tasks to model motor rehabilitation and explore factors contributing to its efficacy. It has been found that greater training intensity (sessions/day) and duration (training days) facilitates motor skill learning in intact animals. Whether rehabilitative training efficacy varies with intensity following stroke is unclear. METHODS: Mice were trained preoperatively on a skilled reaching task. Following focal ischemic lesions, mice received rehabilitative training either twice daily (high intensity [HI]), once daily (low intensity [LI]), or not at all (control) to determine the effects of rehabilitative training intensity on skilled motor performance. RESULTS: Within 7 days, the HI-trained mice achieved preischemic levels of performance. Mice receiving LI training eventually reached similar performance levels but required a greater quantity of training. Training intensity did not consistently affect the maintenance of performance gains, which were partially lost over time in both groups. DISCUSSION: These data indicate that increased training intensity increases the rate of functional improvements per time and per training session following ischemic insult. Thus, training intensity is an important variable to consider in efforts to optimize rehabilitation efficacy.
BACKGROUND: Motor rehabilitative training improves behavioral functionality and promotes beneficial neural reorganization following stroke but is often insufficient to normalize function. Rodent studies have relied on skilled reaching tasks to model motor rehabilitation and explore factors contributing to its efficacy. It has been found that greater training intensity (sessions/day) and duration (training days) facilitates motor skill learning in intact animals. Whether rehabilitative training efficacy varies with intensity following stroke is unclear. METHODS:Mice were trained preoperatively on a skilled reaching task. Following focal ischemic lesions, mice received rehabilitative training either twice daily (high intensity [HI]), once daily (low intensity [LI]), or not at all (control) to determine the effects of rehabilitative training intensity on skilled motor performance. RESULTS: Within 7 days, the HI-trained mice achieved preischemic levels of performance. Mice receiving LI training eventually reached similar performance levels but required a greater quantity of training. Training intensity did not consistently affect the maintenance of performance gains, which were partially lost over time in both groups. DISCUSSION: These data indicate that increased training intensity increases the rate of functional improvements per time and per training session following ischemic insult. Thus, training intensity is an important variable to consider in efforts to optimize rehabilitation efficacy.
Authors: Kelly A Tennant; DeAnna L Adkins; Matthew D Scalco; Nicole A Donlan; Aaron L Asay; Nagheme Thomas; Jeffrey A Kleim; Theresa A Jones Journal: Neurobiol Learn Mem Date: 2012-09-23 Impact factor: 2.877
Authors: John W Krakauer; S Thomas Carmichael; Dale Corbett; George F Wittenberg Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Kelly A Tennant; Abigail L Kerr; DeAnna L Adkins; Nicole Donlan; Nagheme Thomas; Jeffrey A Kleim; Theresa A Jones Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Kate Pirog Revill; Marc W Haut; Samir R Belagaje; Fadi Nahab; Daniel Drake; Cathrin M Buetefisch Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Catherine E Lang; Michael J Strube; Marghuretta D Bland; Kimberly J Waddell; Kendra M Cherry-Allen; Randolph J Nudo; Alexander W Dromerick; Rebecca L Birkenmeier Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 11.274
Authors: Julie Bernhardt; Leonid Churilov; Fiona Ellery; Janice Collier; Jan Chamberlain; Peter Langhorne; Richard I Lindley; Marj Moodie; Helen Dewey; Amanda G Thrift; Geoff Donnan Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 9.910