Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2010
  • Online publication date: November 2010

21 - Cognitive approaches to stroke recovery

from Section III. - Treatment Strategies

References

1. KleindorferD, BroderickJ, KhouryJ, et al. The unchanging incidence and case-fatality of stroke in the 1990s: A population-based study. Stroke. 2006;37:2473–8.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Traumatic brain injury in the United States: A report to Congress. Atlanta: CDC; 1999.
3. American Heart Association. Stroke Statistics. [On-line]. Available from: http://www.americanheart.org/Heart_and_Stroke_A_Z_Guide/strokes.html; 2000.
4. CarrJ, ShepherdR. Neurological rehabilitation: Optimizing motor performance. Oxford: Butterworth-Heineman; 1998.
5. OttenbacherK. Cerebral vascular accident: Some characteristics of occupational therapy evaluation forms. Am J Occ Ther. 1980;34:268–71.
6. WallenMA, MackayS, DuffSM, et al. Upper-limb function in Australian children with traumatic brain injury: A controlled, prospective study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:642–9.
7. DuncanPW. Synthesis of intervention trails to improve motor recovery following stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 1997;3:1–20.
8. NewellA., RosenbloomPS. Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In AndersonJR, editor. Cognitive skills and their acquisition. Hilisdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1981:1–55.
9. KeithRA, CowellKS. Time use of stroke patients in three rehabilitation hospitals. Soc Sci Med. 1987;24:524–33.
10. LincolnNB, WillisD, PhillipsSA, et al. Comparison of rehabilitation practice on hospital wards for stroke patients. Stroke 1996;27:18–23.
11. MackayF, AdaL, HeardR, et al. Stroke rehabilitation: Are highly structured units more conducive to physical activity than less structured units? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77:1066–70.
12. BernhardtJ, DeweyH, ThriftA, et al. Inactive and alone: Physical activity within the first 14 days of acute stroke unit care. Stroke. 2004;35:1005–09.
13. WolfSL. Approaches to facilitating movement control. Top Stroke Rehabil. 1997;3:v–vi.
14. BroderickJP. WilliamM. Feinberg lecture: Stroke therapy in the year 2025: Burden, breakthroughs, and barriers to progress. Stroke. 2004;35:205–11.
15. NudoR, MillikenGW. Reorganization of movement representations in primary cortex following focal ischemic infarcts in adult squirrel monkeys. J Neurophysiol. 1996;75:2144–9.
16. ElbertT, FlorH, BirbaumerN, et al. Extensive reorganization of the somatosensory cortex in adult humans after nervous system injury. Neuroreport. 1994;5:2593–7.
17. NudoRJ, WiseBM, SiFuentesF, et al. Neural substrates for the effects of rehabilitative training on motor recovery following ischemic infarct. Science. 1996;272:1791–4.
18. ButefischC, HummeisheimH, DenzlerP, et al. Repetitive training of isolated movements improves the outcome of motor rehabilitation of the centrally paretic hand. J Neurol Sci. 1995;130:59–68.
19. JenkinsWM, MerzenichMM, OchsMT, et al. Functional reorganization of primary somatosensory cortex in adult owl squirrel monkeys after behaviorally controlled tactile stimulation. J Physiol. 1990;63:82–104.
20. KarniA, MeyerG, JezzardP, et al. Functional MRI evidence for adult motor cortex plasticity during motor skill learning. Nature. 1995;377:155–8.
21. ClassenJ, LiepertJ, WiseSP, et al. Rapid plasticity of human cortical movement representation induced by practice. J Neurophysiol. 1998;79:1117–23.
22. LiepertJ, TerborgC, WeillerC. Motor plasticity induced by synchronized thumb and foot movements. Exp Brain Res. 1999;125:435–9.
23. ElbertT, PantevC, WienbruchC, et al. Increased cortical representation of the fingers of the left hand in string players. Science. 1995;270:305–07.
24. SterrA, MüllerMM, ElbertT, et al. Changed perceptions in Braille readers. Nature. 1998;391:134–5.
25. DeanCM, ShepherdRB. Task-related training improves performance of seated reaching tasks after stroke. A randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 1997;28:722–8.
26. GaleaMP, MillerKJ, KilbreathSL. Early task-related training enhances upper limb function following stroke. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Neural Control of Movement, Sevilla, Spain; 2001.
27. SmithGV, SilverKH, GoldbergAP, et al. “Task-oriented” exercise improves hamstring strength and spastic reflexes in chronic stroke patients. Stroke. 1999;30:2112–8.
28. TaubE, MillerNE, NovackTA, et al. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:347–54.
29. MiltnerW, BauderH, SommerM, et al. Effects of constraint-induced movement therapy on patients with chronic motor deficits after stroke: A replication. Stroke. 1999;30:586–92.
30. van der LeeJH, WagenaarRC, LankhorstGJ, et al. Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients: Results from a single-blind randomized clinical trial. Stroke. 1999; 30:2369–75.
31. TaubE. Movement in nonhuman primates deprived of somatosensory feedback. In Exercise and sports science reviews. Santa Barbara, CA: Journal Publishing Affiliates; 1977: pp. 335–74.
32. WolfSL, WinsteinCJ, MillerJP, et al. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2006;296:2095–104.
33. SiegertRJ, LordS, PorterK. Constraint-induced movement therapy: Time for a little restraint? Clin Rehabil. 2004;18:110–4.
34. SterrA, ElbertT, BertholdI, et al. Longer versus shorter daily constraint-induced movement therapy of chronic hemiparesis: An exploratory study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:1374–7.
35. PierceSR, GallagherKG, SchaumburgSW, et al. Home forced use in an outpatient rehabilitation program for adults with hemiplegia: A pilot study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2003;17:214–9.
36. PageSJ, SistoS, LevineP, et al. Efficacy of modified constraint-induced therapy in chronic stroke: A single blinded randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:14–8.
37. VolpeBT, FerraroM, LynchD, et al. Robotics and other devices in the treatment of patients recovering from stroke. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2005;5:465–70.
38. WhitallJ, McCombe WallerS, SilverKH, et al. Repetitive bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing improves motor function in chronic hemiparetic stroke. Stroke. 2000;31:2390–5.
39. MeriansAS, PoiznerH, BoianR, et al. Sensorimotor training in a virtual reality environment: Does it improve functional recovery poststroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2006;20:252–67.
40. TaubE, LumPS, HardinP, et al. AutoCITE: Automated delivery of CI therapy with reduced effort by therapists. Stroke. 2005;36:1301–04. Epub 2005 May 5.
41. Northstar Neuroscience, Inc. Safety and effectiveness of cortical stimulation in hemiparetic stroke patients. Northstar study code “Everest”; study # VO267.
42. BakerLL, EberlyV, RakoskiD, et al. CSM 2007 Poster Presentations: Preliminary experience with implanted microstimulators for management of post-stroke impairments. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2006;30:209–22.
43. ChaeJ, HartR. Intramuscular hand neuroprosthesis for chronic stroke survivors. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2003;17:109–17.
44. BakkesES, GroenewaldSJ, HughesJR. The use of functional activities in therapy. SA J Physiotherapy 1996;52(2):33–36.
45. MagillRA. Motor learning and control. Concept and applications. 8th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2007.
46. DobkinBH. Strategies for stroke rehabilitation. Laucet Neurol. 2004;3:528–36.
47. DancauseN, PtitoA, LevinMF. Error correction strategies for motor behaviour after unilateral brain damage: Short-term motor learning processes. Neuropsychologia. 2002;40:1313–23.
48. HochstenbachJ, MulderT. Neuropsychology and the relearning of motor skills following stroke. Int J Rehab Res. 1999;22:11–9.
49. CirsteaVM, PtitoA, LevinMF. Feedback and cognition in arm motor skill reacquisition after stroke. Stroke. 2006;37:1237–42.
50. MulderT. A process-orientated model of human behaviour: Toward a theory-based rehabilitation approach. Phys Ther. 1991:71:157–64.
51. MullerR-A, KleinhansN, PierceK, et al. Functional MRI of motor sequence acquisition: Effects of learning stage and performance. Cogn Brain Res. 2002;14:277–93.
52. LehericyS, BenaliH, Van de MoorteleP-F, et al. Distinct basal ganglia territories are engaged in early and advanced motor sequence learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:12 566–71.
53. RoseM, HaiderH, WeillerC, et al. The role of medial temporal lobe structures in implicit learning: An event-related fMRI study. Neuron. 2002;36:1221–31.
54. VakilE, KahanS, HubermanM, et al. Motor and non-motor sequence learning in patients with basal ganglia lesions: The case of serial reaction time (SRT). Neuropsychologia. 2000;38:1–10.
55. WeeksDL, AubinMP, FeldmanAG, et al. One-trial adaptation of movement to changes in load. J Neurophysiol. 1996;75:60–74.
56. PohlPS, McDowdJM, FilionDL, et al. Implicit learning of a perceptual-motor skill after stroke. Phys Ther. 2001;81:1780–90.
57. BoydLA, WinsteinCJ. Implicit motor-sequence learning in humans following unilateral stroke: The impact of practice and explicit knowledge. Neurosci Lett. 2001;298:65–9.
58. BoydLA, WinsteinCJ. Providing explicit information disrupts implicit motor learning after basal ganglia stroke. Learning Memory. 2004;11:388–96.
59. BoydLA, WinsteinCJ. Impact of explicit information on implicit motor-sequence learning following middle cerebral artery stroke. Phys Ther. 2003;83:976–89.
60. BoydLA, WinsteinCJ. Cerebellar stroke impairs temporal but not spatial accuracy during implicit motor learning. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2004;18:134–43.
61. PlatzT, DenzlerP, KadenB, et al. Motor learning after recovery from hemipareis. Neuro Neuropsychologia. 1994;32:1209–23.
62. GilmorePE, SpauldingSJ. Motor control and motor learning: Implications for treatment of individuals post stroke. Phys Occup Ther Geriatrics. 2001;20:1–15.
63. CherneyLR, PattersonJP, RaymerA, et al. Evidence-based systematic review: Effects of intensity of treatment and constraint-induced language therapy for individuals with stroke-induced aphasia. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008;51:1282–99.
64. SchauerM, MauritzK-H. Musical motor feedback (MMF) in walking hemiparetic stroke patients: Randomised trials of gait improvement. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17:713–22.
65. ThautMH, LeinsAK, RiceRR, et al. Rhythmic auditory stimulation improves gait more than NDT/Bobath training in near ambulatory patients early poststroke: A single-blind, randomized trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21:455–9.
66. ThautMH, KenyonGP, HurtCP, et al. Kinematic optimization of spatiotemporal patterns in paretic arm training with stroke patients. Neuropsychologia. 2002;40:1073–81.
67. HanlonRE. Motor learning following unilateral stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77:811–5.
68. PomeroyVM, ClarkCA, MillerJSG, et al. The potential for utilising the “mirror neurone system” to enhance recovery of the severely affected upper limb early after stroke. A review and hypothesis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2005;19;4–13.
69. HeyesCM, FosterCL. Motor learning by observation: Evidence from a serial reaction task. Q J Exp Psychol. 2002;55A:593–607.
70. GalleseV. The roots of empathy: The shared manifold hypothesis and the neural basis of intersubjectivity. Psychopathology. 2003;36:171–80.
71. MattarAAG, GribblePL. Motor learning by observing. Neuron. 2005;46:153–60.
72. OsmanM, BirdG, HeyesC. Action observation supports effector-dependent learning of finger movement sequences. Exp Brain Res. 2005;165:19–27.
73. StefanK, CohenLG, DuqueJ, et al. Formation of a motor memory by action observation. J Neurosci. 2005;25:9339–46.
74. VinterA, PerruchetP. Implicit motor learning through observational training in adults and children. Memory Cognition. 2002;30:256–61.
75. CelnikP, StefanK, HummelF, et al. Encoding a motor memory in the older adult by action observation. NeuroImage. 2006;29:677–84.
76. WeeksDL, AndersonLP. The interaction of observational learning with overt practice: Effects on motor skill learning, Acta Psychol. 2000;104:259–71.
77. IshikuraT, InomataK. Effects of angle of model-demonstration on learning of motor skill. Percept Motor Skills. 1995;80:651–8.
78. JarvelainenJ, SchurmannM, AvikainenS, et al. Stronger reactivity of the human primary motor cortex during observation of live rather than video motor acts. NeuroReport. 2001;12:3493–5.
79. JacksonPL, MeltzoffAN, DecetyJ. Neural circuits involved in imitation and perspective-taking. NeuroImage. 2006;31:429–39.
80. PressC, BirdG, FlachR, et al. Robotic movement elicits automatic imitation. Cogn Brain Res. 2005;25:632–40.
81. KilnerJM, PaulignanY, BlakemoreSJ. An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Curr. Biol. 2003;13:522–5.
82. ErteltD, SmallS, SolodkinA, et al. Action observation has a positive impact on rehabilitation of motor deficits after stroke. Neuroimage. 2007;36:T164–73.
83. CelnikP, WebsterB, GlasserDM, et al. Effects of action observation on physical training after stroke. Stroke. 2008;39:1814–20.
84. DecetyJ. The neurophysiological basis of motor imagery. Behav Brain Res. 1996;77:45–52.
85. JacksonPL, LafleurMF, MalouinF, et al. Functional cerebral reorganization following motor sequence learning through mental practice with motor imagery. NeuroImage. 2003;20:1171–80.
86. De VriesS, MulderT. Motor imagery and stroke rehabilitation: A critical discussion. J Rehabil Med. 2007;39:5–13.
87. SharmaN, JonesPS, CarpenterTA, et al. Mapping the involvement of BA 4a and 4p during motor imagery. NeuroImage. 2008;41:92–9.
88. HudaS, RodriguezR, LastraL, et al. Cortical activation during foot movements: II effect of movement rate and side. NeuroReport. 2008;19:1573–7.
89. StinearCM, FlemingMK, BarberPA, et al. Lateralization of motor imagery following stroke. Clin Neurophysiol. 2007;118:1794–801.
90. SiriguA, DuhamelJR, CohenL, et al. The mental representation of hand movements after parietal cortex damage. Science. 1996;273:1564–8.
91. JeannerodM. Mental imagery in the motor context. Neuropsychologia. 1995;33:1419–32.
92. SharmaN, PomeroyVM, BaronJ-C. Motor imagery. A backdoor to the motor system after stroke? Stroke. 2006;37:1941–52.
93. PageSJ. Imagery improves motor function in chronic stroke patients with hemiplegia: A pilot study. Occup Ther J Res. 2000;20:200–15.
94. JacksonPL, DoyonJ, RichardsCL, et al. The efficacy of combined physical and mental practice in the learning of a foot-sequence task after stroke: A case report. Neurorehabil Neural Rep. 2004;18:106–11.
95. HewittTE, FordK, LevineP, et al. Reaching kinematics to measure motor changes after motor imagery in stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2007;14:23–9.
96. PageSJ, LevineP, LeonardA. Motor imagery in chronic stroke: Results of a randomized, placebo controlled trial. Stroke. 2007;38:1293–7.
97. CrosbieJH, McDonoughSM, GilmoreDH, et al. The adjunctive role of mental practice in the rehabilitation of the upper limb after hemiplegic stroke: A pilot study. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18:60–8.
98. DijkermanHC, LetswaartM, JohnstonM, et al. Does motor imagery training improve hand function in chronic stroke patients? A pilot study. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18:538–49.
99. LordSE, McPhersonK, McNaughtonHK, et al. Community ambulation after stroke: How important and obtainable is it and what measures appear predictive? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:234–9.
100. DunskyA, DicksteinR, AriavC, et al. Motor imagery practice in gait rehabilitation of chronic post-stroke hemiparesis: Four case studies. Int J Rehabil Res. 2006;29:351–6.
101. DicksteinR, DunskyA, MarcovitzE. Motor imagery for gait rehabilitation in post-stroke hemiparesis. Phys Ther. 2004;84:1167–77.
102. YooEY, ChungBI. The effect of visual feedback plus mental practice on symmetrical weight-bearing training in people with hemiparesis. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20:388–97.
103. HaleBD. The effects of internal and external imagery on muscular and ocular concomitants. J Sport Psychol. 1982;4:379–87.
104. JacobsenE. Electrical measurement of neuromuscular states during mental activities: A note on mental activities concerning an amputated limb. Am J Physiol. 1931;43:122–5.
105. BakkerFC, BoscherM, ChungJ. Changes in muscular activity while imagining weight lifting using stimulus response propositions. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1996;18:313–24.
106. LivesayJR, SamrasMR. Covert neuromuscular activity of the dominant forearm during visualization of a motor task. Percept Motor Skills. 1998;86:371–4.
107. DecetyJ, JeannerodM, GermainM, et al. Vegetative response during imagined movement is proportional to mental effort. Behav Brain Res. 1991;42:1–5.
108. IzumiS, FindleyT, IkaiT, et al. Facilitatory effect of thinking about movement on motor evoked potentials to transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;74:207–13.
109. SalfordE, RydingE, RosenI, et al. Motor performance and motor ideation of arm movements after stroke: A SPECT rCBF study. In: Proceedings of the World Confederation of Physical Therapy Congress: Washington, DC; 1995: 793.
110. MulderTH, HochstenbachJBH, van HeuvelenMJG, et al. Motor imagery: The relation between age and imagery capacity. Human Movt Sci. 2007;26:203–11.
111. SimmonsL, SharmaN, BaronJ-C, et al. Motor imagery to enhance recovery after subcortical stroke: Who might benefit, daily dose and potential effects. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22:458–67.
112. MalouinF, RichardsCL, DurandA, et al. Clinical assessment of motor imagery ability after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22:330–40.
113. PapaxanthisC, SchieppatiM, GentiliR, et al. Imagined and actual arm movements have similar durations when performed under different conditions of direction and mass. Exp Brain Res. 2002;143:447–52.
114. GentiliR, CahouetV, BallayY. Inertial properties of the arm are accurately predicted during motor imagery. Behav Brain Res. 2004;155:231–9.
115. MalouinF, RichardsCL, DurandA, et al. Reliability of mental chronometry for assessing motor imagery ability after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:311–9.
116. GaggioliA, MeneghiniA, MorgantiF, et al. A strategy for computer-assisted mental practice in stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2006;20:503–07.
117. GlanzM, KlawanskyS, ChalmersT. Biofeedback therapy in stroke rehabilitation: A review. J R Soc Med. 1997;90:33–9.
118. Van DijkH, JanninkMJA, HermensHJ. Effect of augmented feedback on motor function of the affected upper extremity in rehabilitation patients: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37:202–11.
119. WoodfordH, PriceC. EMG biofeedback for the recovery of motor function after stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007. Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004585. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004585.pub2.
120. van VlietPM, WulfG. Extrinsic feedback for motor learning after stroke: What is the evidence? Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28:831–40.
121. HuangH, WolfSL, HeJ. Recent developments in biofeedback for neuromotor rehabilitation. J NeuroEngng Rehabil. 2006:3:11.
122. CirsteaMC, LevinMF. Improvement of arm movement patterns and endpoint control depends on type of feedback during practice in stroke survivors. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21:398–411.
123. Barclay-GoddardR, StevensonT, PoluhaW, et al. Force platform feedback for standing balance training after stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD004129. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004129.pub2.
124. Van PeppenRPS, KortsmitM, LindemanE, et al. Effects of visual feedback therapy on postural control in bilateral standing after stroke: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2006;38:3–9.