BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Motor recovery after stroke can be characterized into two different patterns. A majority of patients recover about 70% of initial impairment, whereas some patients with severe initial deficits show little or no improvement. Here, we investigated whether recovery from visuospatial neglect and aphasia is also separated into two different groups and whether similar proportions of recovery can be expected for the two cognitive functions. METHODS: We assessed 35 patients with neglect and 14 patients with aphasia at 3 weeks and 3 months after stroke using standardized tests. Recovery patterns were classified with hierarchical clustering and the proportion of recovery was estimated from initial impairment using a linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Patients were reliably clustered into two different groups. For patients in the first cluster (n = 40), recovery followed a linear model where improvement was proportional to initial impairment and achieved 71% of maximal possible recovery for both cognitive deficits. Patients in the second cluster (n = 9) exhibited poor recovery (<25% of initial impairment). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that improvement from neglect or aphasia after stroke shows the same dichotomy and proportionality as observed in motor recovery. This is suggestive of common underlying principles of plasticity, which apply to motor and cognitive functions.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Motor recovery after stroke can be characterized into two different patterns. A majority of patients recover about 70% of initial impairment, whereas some patients with severe initial deficits show little or no improvement. Here, we investigated whether recovery from visuospatial neglect and aphasia is also separated into two different groups and whether similar proportions of recovery can be expected for the two cognitive functions. METHODS: We assessed 35 patients with neglect and 14 patients with aphasia at 3 weeks and 3 months after stroke using standardized tests. Recovery patterns were classified with hierarchical clustering and the proportion of recovery was estimated from initial impairment using a linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Patients were reliably clustered into two different groups. For patients in the first cluster (n = 40), recovery followed a linear model where improvement was proportional to initial impairment and achieved 71% of maximal possible recovery for both cognitive deficits. Patients in the second cluster (n = 9) exhibited poor recovery (<25% of initial impairment). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that improvement from neglect or aphasia after stroke shows the same dichotomy and proportionality as observed in motor recovery. This is suggestive of common underlying principles of plasticity, which apply to motor and cognitive functions.
Authors: Allen J Chang; Janina Wilmskoetter; Julius Fridriksson; Emilie T McKinnon; Lorelei P Johnson; Alexandra Basilakos; Jens H Jensen; Chris Rorden; Leonardo Bonilha Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 4.511
Authors: Lisa Fleury; Philipp J Koch; Maximilian J Wessel; Christophe Bonvin; Diego San Millan; Christophe Constantin; Philippe Vuadens; Jan Adolphsen; Andéol Cadic Melchior; Julia Brügger; Elena Beanato; Martino Ceroni; Pauline Menoud; Diego De Leon Rodriguez; Valérie Zufferey; Nathalie H Meyer; Philip Egger; Sylvain Harquel; Traian Popa; Estelle Raffin; Gabriel Girard; Jean-Philippe Thiran; Claude Vaney; Vincent Alvarez; Jean-Luc Turlan; Andreas Mühl; Bertrand Léger; Takuya Morishita; Silvestro Micera; Olaf Blanke; Dimitri Van De Ville; Friedhelm C Hummel Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-09-26 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Adrian G Guggisberg; Pierre Nicolo; Leonardo G Cohen; Armin Schnider; Ethan R Buch Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2017-11-12 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Sarah B Zandvliet; Gert Kwakkel; Rinske H M Nijland; Erwin E H van Wegen; Carel G M Meskers Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 3.919