Mirror feedback assisted recovery from hemiparesis following stroke. In Reply to Morkisch et al.: How to perform mirror therapy after stroke? Evidence from a meta-analysis.

1 out of 6 people worldwide will have suffered a stroke in their lifetime, 1/3rd of whom will die. Of the 2/3rd who survive, half will be permanently disabled (World Stroke Organization). Given these alarming statistics, it's not surprising that tremendous of amounts of time, resources and funding have been devoted towards research into stroke rehab. In view of this, simple, easy-to-implement procedures are highly sought after. One such procedure is the use of visual feedback conveyed by a mirror, which seems to reactivate some dormant pathways in patients who have suffered a recent stroke (Altschuler et al., 1999; Ramachandran & Altschuler, 2009). This procedure has been validated in several dozen clinical trials, of which a substantial number were conducted rigorously. Morkisch et al. (2019) now present a systematic review and meta-analysis of this dense literature pertaining to this topic. They conclude that "there is a high level evidence for mirror therapy's effectiveness in treating post-stroke hemiparesis". A novel conclusion that emerged from this meta-analysis was that the larger the mirror the more effective the treatment is. Additionally, if an object is manipulated by the normal hand and its reflection viewed in the mirror, the procedure is not as effective, possibly because the discrepancy of signals between the visual feedback (reflection of the object) and the lack of confirmatory somatosensory input from the affected limb leads to inhibition rather than synergy. Lastly, for reasons yet unclear, sending movement commands to the unaffected hand alone (unilateral) is more effective than sending bilateral commands, contrary to the original protocol.Taken collectively, research in this field has two implications - First, the immediate practical utility in the clinic by optimizing mirror therapy's efficacy for hemiparesis after stroke. Second, it leads to a rejection of the model of the brain as made up of isolated, autonomous modules, towards a more dynamic picture, in which the brain is composed of a fluctuating mosaic of neural activity as it adapts to changing sensory inputs. Therefore, dysfunction results not from 'punch out a module - lose a function', but by shifts in equilibria, which can be corrected, perhaps, by hitting a reset button. Even if this turns out to be true for a minority of syndromes, it will be well worth the effort.