No evidence for motor-recovery-related cortical connectivity changes after stroke using resting-state fMRI

It has been proposed that a form of cortical reorganization (changes in functional connectivity between brain areas) can be assessed with resting-state (rs) functional MRI (fMRI). Here, we report a longitudinal data set collected from 19 patients with subcortical stroke and 11 controls. Patients were imaged up to five times over 1 year. We found no evidence, using rs-fMRI, for longitudinal poststroke cortical connectivity changes despite substantial behavioral recovery. These results could be construed as questioning the value of resting-state imaging. Here, we argue instead that they are consistent with other emerging reasons to challenge the idea of motor-recovery-related cortical reorganization poststroke when conceived of as changes in connectivity between cortical areas. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We investigated longitudinal changes in functional connectivity after stroke. Despite substantial motor recovery, we found no differences in functional connectivity patterns between patients and controls, nor any changes over time. Assuming that rs-fMRI is an adequate method to capture connectivity changes between cortical regions after brain injury, these results provide reason to doubt that changes in cortico-cortical connectivity are the relevant mechanism for promoting motor recovery

Evidence for a subcortical origin of mirror movements after stroke: A longitudinal study

Following a stroke, mirror movements are unintended movements that appear in the non-paretic hand when the paretic hand voluntarily moves. Mirror movements have previously been linked to overactivation of sensorimotor areas in the non-lesioned hemisphere. In this study, we hypothesized that mirror movements might instead have a subcortical origin, and are the by-product of subcortical motor pathways upregulating their contributions to the paretic hand. To test this idea, we first characterized the time course of mirroring in 53 first-time stroke patients, and compared it to the time course of activities in sensorimotor areas of the lesioned and non-lesioned hemispheres (measured using functional MRI). Mirroring in the non-paretic hand was exaggerated early after stroke (Week 2), but progressively diminished over the year with a time course that parallelled individuation deficits in the paretic hand. We found no evidence of cortical overactivation that could explain the time course changes in behaviour, contrary to the cortical model of mirroring. Consistent with a subcortical origin of mirroring, we predicted that subcortical contributions should broadly recruit fingers in the non-paretic hand, reflecting the limited capacity of subcortical pathways in providing individuated finger control. We therefore characterized finger recruitment patterns in the non-paretic hand during mirroring. During mirroring, non-paretic fingers were broadly recruited, with mirrored forces in homologous fingers being only slightly larger (1.76 times) than those in non-homologous fingers. Throughout recovery, the pattern of finger recruitment during mirroring for patients looked like a scaled version of the corresponding control mirroring pattern, suggesting that the system that is responsible for mirroring in controls is upregulated after stroke. Together, our results suggest that post-stroke mirror movements in the non-paretic hand, like enslaved movements in the paretic hand, are caused by the upregulation of a bilaterally organized subcortical system

Rethinking interhemispheric imbalance as a target for stroke neurorehabilitation

© 2019 American Neurological Association Objective: Patients with chronic stroke have been shown to have failure to release interhemispheric inhibition (IHI) from the intact to the damaged hemisphere before movement execution (premovement IHI). This inhibitory imbalance was found to correlate with poor motor performance in the chronic stage after stroke and has since become a target for therapeutic interventions. The logic of this approach, however, implies that abnormal premovement IHI is causal to poor behavioral outcome and should therefore be present early after stroke when motor impairment is at its worst. To test this idea, in a longitudinal study, we investigated interhemispheric interactions by tracking patients’ premovement IHI for one year following stroke. Methods: We assessed premovement IHI and motor behavior five times over a 1-year period after ischemic stroke in 22 patients and 11 healthy participants. Results: We found that premovement IHI was normal during the acute/subacute period and only became abnormal at the chronic stage; specifically, release of IHI in movement preparation worsened as motor behavior improved. In addition, premovement IHI did not correlate with behavioral measures cross-sectionally, whereas the longitudinal emergence of abnormal premovement IHI from the acute to the chronic stage was inversely correlated with recovery of finger individuation. Interpretation: These results suggest that interhemispheric imbalance is not a cause of poor motor recovery, but instead might be the consequence of underlying recovery processes. These findings call into question the rehabilitation strategy of attempting to rebalance interhemispheric interactions in order to improve motor recovery after stroke. Ann Neurol 2019;85:502–513

Comparing a Novel Neuroanimation Experience to Conventional Therapy for High-Dose Intensive Upper-Limb Training in Subacute Stroke: The SMARTS2 Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND Evidence from animal studies suggests that greater reductions in poststroke motor impairment can be attained with significantly higher doses and intensities of therapy focused on movement quality. These studies also indicate a dose-timing interaction, with more pronounced effects if high-intensity therapy is delivered in the acute/subacute, rather than chronic, poststroke period. OBJECTIVE To compare 2 approaches of delivering high-intensity, high-dose upper-limb therapy in patients with subacute stroke: a novel exploratory neuroanimation therapy (NAT) and modified conventional occupational therapy (COT). METHODS A total of 24 patients were randomized to NAT or COT and underwent 30 sessions of 60 minutes time-on-task in addition to standard care. The primary outcome was the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity motor score (FM-UE). Secondary outcomes included Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), grip strength, Stroke Impact Scale hand domain, and upper-limb kinematics. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, and days 3, 90, and 180 posttraining. Both groups were compared to a matched historical cohort (HC), which received only 30 minutes of upper-limb therapy per day. RESULTS There were no significant between-group differences in FM-UE change or any of the secondary outcomes at any timepoint. Both high-dose groups showed greater recovery on the ARAT (7.3 ± 2.9 points; P = .011) but not the FM-UE (1.4 ± 2.6 points; P = .564) when compared with the HC. CONCLUSIONS Neuroanimation may offer a new, enjoyable, efficient, and scalable way to deliver high-dose and intensive upper-limb therapy

Changes in corticospinal excitability during reach adaptation in force fields

Both abrupt and gradually imposed perturbations produce adaptive changes in motor output, but the neural basis of adaptation may be distinct. Here, we measured the state of the primary motor cortex (M1) and the corticospinal network during adaptation by measuring motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) before reach onset using transcranial magnetic stimulation of M1. Subjects reached in a force field in a schedule in which the field was introduced either abruptly or gradually over many trials. In both groups, by end of the training, muscles that countered the perturbation in a given direction increased their activity during the reach (labeled as the on direction for each muscle). In the abrupt group, in the period before the reach toward the on direction, MEPs in these muscles also increased, suggesting a direction-specific increase in the excitability of the corticospinal network. However, in the gradual group, these MEP changes were missing. After training, there was a period of washout. The MEPs did not return to baseline. Rather, in the abrupt group, off direction MEPs increased to match on direction MEPs. Therefore, we observed changes in corticospinal excitability in the abrupt but not gradual condition. Abrupt training includes the repetition of motor commands, and repetition may be the key factor that produces this plasticity. Furthermore, washout did not return MEPs to baseline, suggesting that washout engaged a new network that masked but did not erase the effects of previous adaptation. Abrupt but not gradual training appears to induce changes in M1 and/or corticospinal networks.status: publishe

Changes in corticospinal excitability during reach adaptation in force fields

Both abrupt and gradually imposed perturbations produce adaptive changes in motor output, but the neural basis of adaptation may be distinct. Here, we measured the state of the motor cortex (M1) and the corticospinal network during adaptation by measuring motor evoked potentials(MEPs) before reach onset using transcranial magnetic stimulation of M1. Subjects reached in a force field in a schedule in which the field was introduced either abruptly or gradually over many trials. In both groups by end of training muscles that countered the perturbation in a given direction increased their activity during the reach (labeled as on-direction for each muscle). In the abrupt group, in the period before the reach toward the on-direction, MEPs in these muscles also increased, suggesting a direction-specific increase in the excitability of corticospinal network. However, in the gradual group these MEP changes were missing. Following training there was a period of washout. The MEPs did not return to baseline. Rather, in the abrupt group the off-direction MEPs increased to match the on-direction MEPs. Therefore, we observed changes in corticospinal excitability in the abrupt but not gradual condition. Abrupt training includes repetition of motor commands, and repetition may be the key factor that produces this plasticity. Furthermore, washout did not return MEPs to baseline, suggesting that washout engaged a new network that masked but did not erase the effects of previous adaptation. Abrupt but not gradual training appears to induce changes in M1 and/or corticospinal networks