Pierce Boyne1, Sarah Doren2, Victoria Scholl2, Emily Staggs2, Dustyn Whitesel2, Thomas Maloney3, Oluwole Awosika4, Brett Kissela4, Kari Dunning2, Jennifer Vannest5. 1. Department of Rehabilitation, Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, College of Allied Health Sciences, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA. Electronic address: Pierce.Boyne@uc.edu. 2. Department of Rehabilitation, Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, College of Allied Health Sciences, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 3. Pediatric Neuroimaging Research Consortium, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 4. Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, OH, USA. 5. Pediatric Neuroimaging Research Consortium, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA; Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, College of Allied Health Sciences, University of Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Imagined walking has yielded insights into normal locomotor control and could improve understanding of neurologic gait dysfunction. This study evaluated brain activation during imagined walking in chronic stroke. METHODS: Ten persons with stroke and 10 matched controls completed a walking test battery and a magnetic resonance imaging session including imagined walking and knee extension tasks. Brain activations were compared between tasks and groups. Associations between activations and composite gait score were also calculated, while controlling for lesion load. RESULTS: Stroke and worse gait score were each associated with lesser overall brain activation during knee extension but greater overall activation during imagined walking. During imagined walking, the stroke group significantly activated the primary motor cortex lower limb region and cerebellar locomotor region. Better walking function was associated with less activation of these regions and greater activation of medial superior frontal gyrus area 9. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with knee extension, imagined walking was less sensitive to stroke-related deficits in brain activation but better at revealing compensatory changes, some of which could be maladaptive. SIGNIFICANCE: The identified associations for imagined walking suggest potential neural mechanisms of locomotor adaptation after stroke, which could be useful for future intervention development and prognostication.
OBJECTIVE: Imagined walking has yielded insights into normal locomotor control and could improve understanding of neurologic gait dysfunction. This study evaluated brain activation during imagined walking in chronic stroke. METHODS: Ten persons with stroke and 10 matched controls completed a walking test battery and a magnetic resonance imaging session including imagined walking and knee extension tasks. Brain activations were compared between tasks and groups. Associations between activations and composite gait score were also calculated, while controlling for lesion load. RESULTS: Stroke and worse gait score were each associated with lesser overall brain activation during knee extension but greater overall activation during imagined walking. During imagined walking, the stroke group significantly activated the primary motor cortex lower limb region and cerebellar locomotor region. Better walking function was associated with less activation of these regions and greater activation of medial superior frontal gyrus area 9. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with knee extension, imagined walking was less sensitive to stroke-related deficits in brain activation but better at revealing compensatory changes, some of which could be maladaptive. SIGNIFICANCE: The identified associations for imagined walking suggest potential neural mechanisms of locomotor adaptation after stroke, which could be useful for future intervention development and prognostication.
Authors: Klaus Jahn; Angela Deutschländer; Thomas Stephan; Michael Strupp; Martin Wiesmann; Thomas Brandt Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: David C Van Essen; Matthew F Glasser; Donna L Dierker; John Harwell; Timothy Coalson Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Lukas Jaeger; Laura Marchal-Crespo; Peter Wolf; Robert Riener; Lars Michels; Spyros Kollias Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Sook-Lei Liew; Bethany P Lo; Miranda R Donnelly; Artemis Zavaliangos-Petropulu; Jessica N Jeong; Giuseppe Barisano; Alexandre Hutton; Julia P Simon; Julia M Juliano; Anisha Suri; Zhizhuo Wang; Aisha Abdullah; Jun Kim; Tyler Ard; Nerisa Banaj; Michael R Borich; Lara A Boyd; Amy Brodtmann; Cathrin M Buetefisch; Lei Cao; Jessica M Cassidy; Valentina Ciullo; Adriana B Conforto; Steven C Cramer; Rosalia Dacosta-Aguayo; Ezequiel de la Rosa; Martin Domin; Adrienne N Dula; Wuwei Feng; Alexandre R Franco; Fatemeh Geranmayeh; Alexandre Gramfort; Chris M Gregory; Colleen A Hanlon; Brenton G Hordacre; Steven A Kautz; Mohamed Salah Khlif; Hosung Kim; Jan S Kirschke; Jingchun Liu; Martin Lotze; Bradley J MacIntosh; Maria Mataró; Feroze B Mohamed; Jan E Nordvik; Gilsoon Park; Amy Pienta; Fabrizio Piras; Shane M Redman; Kate P Revill; Mauricio Reyes; Andrew D Robertson; Na Jin Seo; Surjo R Soekadar; Gianfranco Spalletta; Alison Sweet; Maria Telenczuk; Gregory Thielman; Lars T Westlye; Carolee J Winstein; George F Wittenberg; Kristin A Wong; Chunshui Yu Journal: Sci Data Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 8.501
Authors: Pierce Boyne; Sarah Doren; Victoria Scholl; Emily Staggs; Dustyn Whitesel; Daniel Carl; Rhonna Shatz; Russell Sawyer; Oluwole O Awosika; Darcy S Reisman; Sandra A Billinger; Brett Kissela; Jennifer Vannest; Kari Dunning Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 4.086