David J Lin1, Kimberly S Erler2, Samuel B Snider2, Anna K Bonkhoff2, Julie A DiCarlo2, Nicole Lam2, Jessica Ranford2, Kristin Parlman2, Audrey Cohen2, Jennifer Freeburn2, Seth P Finklestein2, Lee H Schwamm2, Leigh R Hochberg2, Steven C Cramer2. 1. From the Center for Neurotechnology and Neurorecovery (D.J.L., J.A.D., N.L., J.R., K.P., A.C., J.F., L.R.H.), Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; Division of Neurocritical Care (D.J.L., L.R.H.), Department of Neurology, Stroke Service (D.J.L., S.P.F., L.H.S., L.R.H.), Department of Neurology, J. Philip Kistler Stroke Research Center (A.K.B.), Department of Neurology, Department of Occupational Therapy (J.R.), Department of Physical Therapy (K.P.), and Department of Speech, Language, and Swallowing Disorders (A.C., J.F.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; VA RR&D Center for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology (D.J.L., L.R.H.), Rehabilitation R&D Service, Department of VA Medical Center, Providence, RI; Department of Occupational Therapy (K.S.E., N.L.), MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA; Division of Neurocritical Care (S.B.S.), Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; School of Engineering (L.R.H.), Brown University, Providence, RI; Department of Neurology (S.C.C.), University of California, Los Angeles; and California Rehabilitation Hospital (S.C.C.), Los Angeles. dlin7@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. From the Center for Neurotechnology and Neurorecovery (D.J.L., J.A.D., N.L., J.R., K.P., A.C., J.F., L.R.H.), Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; Division of Neurocritical Care (D.J.L., L.R.H.), Department of Neurology, Stroke Service (D.J.L., S.P.F., L.H.S., L.R.H.), Department of Neurology, J. Philip Kistler Stroke Research Center (A.K.B.), Department of Neurology, Department of Occupational Therapy (J.R.), Department of Physical Therapy (K.P.), and Department of Speech, Language, and Swallowing Disorders (A.C., J.F.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; VA RR&D Center for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology (D.J.L., L.R.H.), Rehabilitation R&D Service, Department of VA Medical Center, Providence, RI; Department of Occupational Therapy (K.S.E., N.L.), MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA; Division of Neurocritical Care (S.B.S.), Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; School of Engineering (L.R.H.), Brown University, Providence, RI; Department of Neurology (S.C.C.), University of California, Los Angeles; and California Rehabilitation Hospital (S.C.C.), Los Angeles.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that cognitive demands influence motor performance during recovery from acute stroke, we tested patients with acute stroke on 2 motor tasks with different cognitive demands and related task performance to cognitive impairment and neuroanatomic injury. METHODS: We assessed the contralesional and ipsilesional upper extremities of a cohort of 50 patients with weakness after unilateral acute ischemic stroke at 3 time points with 2 tasks: the Box & Blocks Test, a task with greater cognitive demand, and Grip Strength, a simple and ballistic motor task. We compared performance on the 2 tasks, related motor performance to cognitive dysfunction, and used voxel-based lesion symptom mapping to determine neuroanatomic sites associated with motor performance. RESULTS: Consistent across contralesional and ipsilesional upper extremities and most pronounced immediately after stroke, Box & Blocks scores were significantly more impaired than Grip Strength scores. The presence of cognitive dysfunction significantly explained up to 33% of variance in Box & Blocks performance but was not associated with Grip Strength performance. While Grip Strength performance was associated with injury largely restricted to sensorimotor regions, Box & Blocks performance was associated with broad injury outside sensorimotor structures, particularly the dorsal anterior insula, a region known to be important for complex cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: Together, these results suggest that cognitive demands influence upper extremity motor performance during recovery from acute stroke. Our findings emphasize the integrated nature of motor and cognitive systems and suggest that it is critical to consider cognitive demands during motor testing and neurorehabilitation after stroke.
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that cognitive demands influence motor performance during recovery from acute stroke, we tested patients with acute stroke on 2 motor tasks with different cognitive demands and related task performance to cognitive impairment and neuroanatomic injury. METHODS: We assessed the contralesional and ipsilesional upper extremities of a cohort of 50 patients with weakness after unilateral acute ischemic stroke at 3 time points with 2 tasks: the Box & Blocks Test, a task with greater cognitive demand, and Grip Strength, a simple and ballistic motor task. We compared performance on the 2 tasks, related motor performance to cognitive dysfunction, and used voxel-based lesion symptom mapping to determine neuroanatomic sites associated with motor performance. RESULTS: Consistent across contralesional and ipsilesional upper extremities and most pronounced immediately after stroke, Box & Blocks scores were significantly more impaired than Grip Strength scores. The presence of cognitive dysfunction significantly explained up to 33% of variance in Box & Blocks performance but was not associated with Grip Strength performance. While Grip Strength performance was associated with injury largely restricted to sensorimotor regions, Box & Blocks performance was associated with broad injury outside sensorimotor structures, particularly the dorsal anterior insula, a region known to be important for complex cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: Together, these results suggest that cognitive demands influence upper extremity motor performance during recovery from acute stroke. Our findings emphasize the integrated nature of motor and cognitive systems and suggest that it is critical to consider cognitive demands during motor testing and neurorehabilitation after stroke.
Authors: Nico U F Dosenbach; Damien A Fair; Francis M Miezin; Alexander L Cohen; Kristin K Wenger; Ronny A T Dosenbach; Michael D Fox; Abraham Z Snyder; Justin L Vincent; Marcus E Raichle; Bradley L Schlaggar; Steven E Petersen Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-06-18 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Paul Muntner; Alvaro Alonso; Marcio S Bittencourt; Clifton W Callaway; April P Carson; Alanna M Chamberlain; Alexander R Chang; Susan Cheng; Sandeep R Das; Francesca N Delling; Luc Djousse; Mitchell S V Elkind; Jane F Ferguson; Myriam Fornage; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Sadiya S Khan; Brett M Kissela; Kristen L Knutson; Tak W Kwan; Daniel T Lackland; Tené T Lewis; Judith H Lichtman; Chris T Longenecker; Matthew Shane Loop; Pamela L Lutsey; Seth S Martin; Kunihiro Matsushita; Andrew E Moran; Michael E Mussolino; Martin O'Flaherty; Ambarish Pandey; Amanda M Perak; Wayne D Rosamond; Gregory A Roth; Uchechukwu K A Sampson; Gary M Satou; Emily B Schroeder; Svati H Shah; Nicole L Spartano; Andrew Stokes; David L Tirschwell; Connie W Tsao; Mintu P Turakhia; Lisa B VanWagner; John T Wilkins; Sally S Wong; Salim S Virani Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kathleen Y Haaland; Pratik K Mutha; Jenny K Rinehart; Melissa Daniels; Brad Cushnyr; John C Adair Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: G M S Nys; M J E van Zandvoort; P L M de Kort; H B van der Worp; B P W Jansen; A Algra; E H F de Haan; L J Kappelle Journal: Neurology Date: 2005-03-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Saandeep Mani; Pratik K Mutha; Andrzej Przybyla; Kathleen Y Haaland; David C Good; Robert L Sainburg Journal: Brain Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 13.501