| Literature DB >> 28197747 |
Silvia Erika Kober1,2, Daniela Schweiger3, Johanna Louise Reichert3, Christa Neuper3,4,5, Guilherme Wood3,4.
Abstract
In the present study, we investigated the effects of upper alpha based neurofeedback (NF) training on electrical brain activity and cognitive functions in stroke survivors. Therefore, two single chronic stroke patients with memory deficits (subject A with a bilateral subarachnoid hemorrhage; subject B with an ischemic stroke in the left arteria cerebri media) and a healthy elderly control group (N = 24) received up to ten NF training sessions. To evaluate NF training effects, all participants performed multichannel electroencephalogram (EEG) resting measurements and a neuropsychological test battery assessing different cognitive functions before and after NF training. Stroke patients showed improvements in memory functions after successful NF training compared to the pre-assessment. Subject B had a pathological delta (0.5-4 Hz) and upper alpha (10-12 Hz) power maximum over the unaffected hemisphere before NF training. After NF training, he showed a more bilateral and "normalized" topographical distribution of these EEG frequencies. Healthy participants as well as subject A did not show any abnormalities in EEG topography before the start of NF training. Consequently, no changes in the topographical distribution of EEG activity were observed in these participants when comparing the pre- and post-assessment. Hence, our results show that upper alpha based NF training had on the one hand positive effects on memory functions, and on the other hand led to cortical "normalization" in a stroke patient with pathological brain activation patterns, which underlines the potential usefulness of NF as neurological rehabilitation tool.Entities:
Keywords: Cortical reorganization; Memory; Neurofeedback; Stroke recovery
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28197747 PMCID: PMC5344963 DOI: 10.1007/s10484-017-9353-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback ISSN: 1090-0586
Fig. 1Test performance is expressed in T-scores with population mean M = 50 and standard deviation SD = 10. Single subject test scores and confidence intervals for measurements of attention, executive functions, short- and long-term memory, and working memory (WM) performed during the pre- and post-assessment are depicted separately for stroke patient A and B. Significant differences between pre- and post-test (critical difference analysis on the group level, Huber 1973) are marked with asterisks (*significant, +marginally significant). CBTT corsi block tapping test, VVM visual and verbal memory test
Fig. 2Topographical maps of delta power during the eyes-open (upper two rows) and eyes-closed (lower two rows) conditions assessed during the pre- and post-test, presented separately for the two single stroke patients and the healthy CG
Fig. 3Topographical maps of upper alpha power during the eyes-open (upper two rows) and eyes-closed (lower two rows) conditions assessed during the pre- and post-test, presented separately for the two single stroke patients and the healthy CG. Note the different scaling of EEG upper alpha power between subjects in the eyes-closed condition
Laterality values in delta power between the right and left hemisphere (difference value: C6-C5), presented separately for the two single stroke patients and the CG
| Difference in delta power between right and left hemisphere (C6-C5) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| CG (Mean and | Subject A | Subject B | |
| Pre assessment—eyes-open condition | 0.17 (0.13) | 0.85 | 2.21* |
| Post assessment—eyes-open condition | 0.15 (0.12) | 0.37 | 0.06 |
| Pre assessment—eyes-closed condition | 0.12 (0.16) | 0.86 | 2.43* |
| Post assessment—eyes-closed condition | 0.35 (0.12) | 0.19 | 0.23 |
Significant differences between the CG and single subjects (single-case analysis, Crawford and Garthwaite 2002) are marked with asterisks (*p < 0.05)
Difference values in upper alpha power during the eyes-open condition between the post- and pre-assessment for parietal and parieto–occipital electrode positions, presented separately for the two single stroke patients and the CG
| Difference in upper alpha power between post- and pre-assessment | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| CG (Mean and | Subject A | Subject B | |
| P3 | 1.92 (0.43) | 0.21 | 4.22 |
| Pz | 2.67 (0.30) | 0.23 | 4.64 |
| P4 | 1.98 (0.43) | 0.06 | 5.24 |
| PO3 | 2.16 (0.64) | 0.10 | 8.19+ |
| POz | 1.95 (0.49) | 0.10 | 7.78* |
| PO4 | 2.37 (0.67) | 0.02 | 8.30+ |
Significant differences between the CG and single subjects (single-case analysis, Crawford and Garthwaite 2002) are marked with asterisks (*p < 0.05; + p < 0.10)
Laterality values in upper alpha power between right and left hemisphere (difference values: CP4−CP3, P4−P3, PO4−PO3), presented separately for the two single stroke patients and the CG
| CG (Mean and | Subject A | Subject B | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Difference in upper alpha power between right and left hemisphere (CP4-CP3) | |||
| Pre assessment—eyes-closed condition | −0.41 (0.49) | 0.76 | 6.66* |
| Post assessment—eyes-closed condition | −0.03 (0.57) | 0.44 | 4.31 |
| Difference in upper alpha power between right and left hemisphere (P4-P3) | |||
| Pre assessment—eyes-closed condition | 0.24 (0.59) | 0.66 | 12.93* |
| Post assessment—eyes-closed condition | 1.22 (0.78) | 0.37 | 6.87 |
| Difference in upper alpha power between right and left hemisphere (PO4-PO3) | |||
| Pre assessment—eyes-closed condition | 0.38 (0.71) | 0.40 | 14.96* |
| Post assessment—eyes-closed condition | 0.95 (0.78) | 0.31 | 7.64 |
Significant differences between the CG and single subjects (single-case analysis, Crawford and Garthwaite 2002) are marked with asterisks (*p < 0.05)