The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 155–178 | Cite as

The behavior-analytic origins of constraint-induced movement therapy: An example of behavioral neurorehabilitation

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Constraint-induced (CI) therapy is a term given to a family of efficacious neurorehabilitation treatments including to date: upper extremity CI movement therapy, lower extremity CI movement therapy, pediatric CI therapy, and CI aphasia therapy. The purpose of this article is to outline the behavior analysis origins of CI therapy and the ways in which its procedures incorporate behavior analysis methods and principles. The intervention is founded on the concept of learned nonuse, a mechanism now empirically demonstrated to exist, which occurs after many different types of damage to the central nervous system (CNS). It results from the dramatic alteration of the contingencies of reinforcement that results from substantial CNS damage and leads to a greater deficit than is warranted by the actual damage sustained. CI therapy produces a countervailing alteration in the contingencies of reinforcement. The intervention has been used successfully to substantially improve motor deficits after stroke, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, with cerebral palsy in a pediatric population, and for language impairment in poststroke aphasia. The protocol of CI therapy consists primarily of standard behavior-analytic methods. It produces a marked plastic brain change that is correlated with its therapeutic effect, and therefore provides an example of the way in which behavior change can contribute to a profound remodeling of the brain. CI therapy may be viewed as an example of behavioral neurorehabilitation.

Key words

CI therapy CI movement therapy CI aphasia therapy stroke central nervous system injury neurorehabilitation behavior analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Azrin, N. H., & Holz, W. C. (1966). Punishment. In W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application (pp. 380–447). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  2. Bauder, H., Sommer, M., Taub, E., & Miltner, W. H. R. (1999). Effect of CI therapy on movement-related brain potentials [Abstract]. Psychophysiology, 36 (Suppl. 1), S31.Google Scholar
  3. Bhogal, S. K., Teasell, R., & Speechley, M. (2003). Intensity of aphasia therapy, impact on recovery. Stroke, 34, 987–993.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Candia, V., Elbert, T., Altenmüller, E., Rau, H., Schäfer, T., & Taub, E. (1999). Constraint-induced movement therapy for focal hand dystonia in musicians. Lancet, 353, 42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Candia, V., Schafer, T., Taub, E., Rau, H., Altenmüller, E., Rockstroh, B., et al. (2002). Sensory motor retuning: A behavioral treatment for focal hand dystonia of pianists and guitarists. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 1342–1348.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Catania, A. C. (1998). Learning (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. DeBow, S. B., Davies, M. L. A., Clarke, H. L., & Colbourne, F. (2003). Constraint-induced movement therapy and rehabilitation exercises lessen motor deficits and volume of brain injury after striatal hemorrhagic stroke in rats. Stroke, 34, 1021–1026.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dettmers, C., Teske, U., Hamzei, F., Uswatte, G., Taub, E., & Weiller, C. (2005). Distributed form of constraint-induced movement therapy improves functional outcome and quality of life after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86, 204–209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Draganski, B., Gaser, C., Busch, V., Schuierer, G., Bogdahn, U., & May, A. (2004). Changes in grey matter induced by training. Nature, 427, 311–312.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Draganski, B., Moser, T., Lummel, N., Gänssbauer, S., Bogdahn, U., Haas, F., et al. (2006). Decrease of thalamic gray matter following limb amputation. Neuroimage, 31, 951–957.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Elbert, T., Pantev, C., Wienbruch, C., Rockstroh, B., & Taub, E. (1995). Increased cortical representation of the fingers of the left hand in string players. Science, 270, 305–307.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Estes, W. K. (1944). An experimental study of punishment. Psychological Monographs, 57 (Serial No. 263).Google Scholar
  14. Flor, H., Elbert, T., Knecht, S., Wienbruch, C., Pantev, C., Birbaumer, N., et al. (1995). Phantom limb pain as a perceptual correlate of massive reorganization in upper limb amputees. Nature, 375, 482–484.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gauthier, L. V., Taub, E., Perkins, C., Ortmann, M., Mark, V. W., & Uswatte, G. (2008). Remodeling the brain: Plastic structural brain changes produced by different motor therapies after stroke. Stroke, 39, 1520–1525.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Jenkins, W. M., Merzenich, M. M., Ochs, M. T., Allard, T., & Guic-Robles, E. (1990). Functional reorganization of primary somatosensory cortex in adult owl monkeys after behaviorally controlled tactile stimulation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 63, 82–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kirmess, M., & Maher, L. (2010). Constraint Induced language therapy in early aphasia rehabilitation. Aphasiology, 24, 725–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knapp, H. D., Taub, E., & Berman, A. J. (1959). Conditioned response following deafferentation in the monkey. Transactions of the American Neurological Association, 84, 185–187.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Knapp, H. D., Taub, E., & Berman, A. J. (1963). Movements in monkeys with deafferented limbs. Experimental Neurology, 7, 305–315.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kopp, B., Kunkel, A., Mühlnickel, W., Villringer, K., Taub, E., & Flor, H. (1999). Plasticity in the motor ststem related to therapy-induced improvement of movement after stroke. NeuroReport, 10, 807–810.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kunkel, A., Kopp, B., Muller, G., Villringer, K., Villringer, A., Taub, E., et al. (1999). Constraint-induced movement therapy for motor recovery in stroke patients. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80, 624–628.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lassek, A. M. (1953). Inactivation of voluntary motor function following rhizotomy. Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology, 3, 83–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liepert, J., Bauder, H., Miltner, W. H. R., Taub, E., & Weiller, C. (2000). Treatment-induced cortical reorganization after stroke in humans. Stroke, 31, 1210–1216.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Maguire, E. A., Gadian, D. G., Johnsrude, I. S., Good, C. D., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. S. J., et al. (2000). Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 97, 4398–4403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maher, L. M., Kendall, D., Swearengin, J. A., Rodriguez, A., Leon, S. A., Pingel, K., et al. (2006). A pilot study of use-dependent learning in the context of constraint induced language therapy. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 12, 843–852.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Mark, V., Taub, E., Bashir, K., Uswatte, G., Delgado, A., Bowman, M., et al. (2008). Constraint-induced movement therapy can improve hemiparetic progressive multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis, 14(7), 992–994.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Mark, V., Taub, E., Bashir, K., Uswatte, G., Delgado, A., Bowman, M., et al. (2008). Constraint-induced movement therapy can improve hemiparetic progressive multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis, 14(7), 992–994.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Mark, V. W., Taub, E., Uswatte, G., Bashir, K., Bryson, C., Bowman, M., et al. (2008). Impaired gait in progressive multiple sclerosis improves with constraint-induced movement therapy [Abstract]. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89(10), E5.Google Scholar
  29. Meinzer, M., Elbert, T., Barthel, G., Djundja, D., Taub, E., & Rockstroh, B. (2007). Extending the constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) approach to cognitive functions: Constraint-induced aphasia therapy (CIAT) of chronic aphasia. Neuro-Rehabilitation, 22, 311–318.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Meinzer, M., Elbert, T., Wienburch, C., Djundja, D., Barthel, G., & Rockstroh, B. (2004). Intensive language training enhances brain plasticity in chronic aphasia. BMC Biology, 2, 20–29.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Merzenich, M. M., Kaas, J. H., Wall, J., Nelson, R. J., Sur, M., & Felleman, D. (1983). Topographic reorganization of somatosensory cortical areas 3b and 1 in adult monkeys following restricted deafferentation. Neuroscience, 8, 33–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Miltner, W. H. R., Bauder, H., Sommer, M., Dettmers, C., & Taub, E. (1999). Effects of constraint-induced movement therapy on chronic stroke patients: A replication. Stroke, 30, 586–592.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Morgan, W. G. (1974). The shaping game: A teaching technique. Behavior Therapy, 5, 271–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mott, F. W., & Sherrington, C. S. (1895). Experiments upon the influence of sensory nerves upon movement and nutrition of the limbs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 57, 481–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nudo, R. J., Wise, B. M., SiFuentes, F., & Milliken, G. W. (1996). Neural substrates for the effects of rehabilitative training on motor recovery after ischemic infarct. Science, 272, 1791–1794.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Panyan, M. V. (1980). How to use shaping. Lawrence, KS: H & H Enterprises.Google Scholar
  37. Pulvermüller, F. (1990). Aphasische kommunikation. Grundfragen ihrer analyse und therapie [Communication in aphasics. Basic questions and therapeutic approaches]. Tue-bingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
  38. Pulvermüller, F., Neininger, B., Elbert, T., Mohr, B., Rockstroh, B., Köbbel, P., et al. (2001). Constraint-Induced therapy of chronic aphasia following stroke. Stroke, 32, 1621–1626.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Pulvermüller, F., & Schonle, P. (1993). Behavioral and neuronal changes during treatment of mixed transcortical aphasia. Cognition, 48, 139–161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Raymer, A., Beeson, P., Holland, A., Kendall, D., Maher, L., Martin, N., et al. (2008). Translational research in aphasia: From neuroscience to neurorehabilitation. Journal of Speech, Hearing, & Language Research, 5(1), S259–S275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shaw, S. E., Morris, D. M., Uswatte, G., McKay, S. B., & Taub, E. (2003). Adherence to constraint induced movement therapy procedures and outcome for persons with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, 27(4), 180.Google Scholar
  42. Sherrington, C. S. (1910). Remarks on the reflex mechanism of the step. Brain, 33, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  44. Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  45. Sterr, A., Elbert, T., Berthold, I., Kölbel, S., Rockstroh, B., & Taub, E. (2002). Longer versus shorter daily constraint-induced movement therapy of chronic hemiparesis: An exploratory study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 1374–1377.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Taub, E. (1977). Movement in nonhuman primates deprived of somatosensory feedback. Exercise and sports science reviews (Vol. 4, pp. 335–374). Santa Barbara, CA: Journal Publishing Affiliates.Google Scholar
  47. Taub, E. (1980). Somatosensory deafferentation research with monkeys: Implications for rehabilitation medicine. In L. P. Ince (Ed.), Behavioral psychology in rehabilitation medicine: Clinical applications (pp. 371–401). New York, NY: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  48. Taub, E. (2002). CI therapy: A new rehabilitation technique for aphasia and motor disability after neurological injury. Klinik und Forschung, 8, 48–49.Google Scholar
  49. Taub, E., & Berman, A. J. (1963). Avoidance conditioning in the absence of relevant proprioceptive and exteroceptive feedback. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 56, 1012–1016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Taub, E., & Berman, A. J. (1968). Movement and learning in the absence of sensory feedback. In S. J. Freedman (Ed.), The neuropsychology of spatially oriented behavior (pp. 173–192). Homewood, IL: Dorsey.Google Scholar
  51. Taub, E., Crago, J. E., Burgio, L. D., Groomes, T. E., Cook, E. W., DeLuca, S. C., et al. (1994). An operant approach to rehabilitation medicine: Overcoming learned nonuse by shaping. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 281–293.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Taub, E., Ellman, S. J., & Berman, A. J. (1966). Deafferentation in monkeys: Effect on conditioned grasp response. Science, 151, 593–594.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Taub, E., Goldberg, I. A., & Taub, P. B. (1975). Deafferentation in monkeys: Pointing at a target without visual feedback. Experimental Neurology, 46, 178–186.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Taub, E., Griffin, A., Gammons, K., Nick, J., Uswatte, G., & Law, C. R. (2006). CI therapy for young children with congenital hemiparesis. Atlanta, GA: Society for Neuroscience.Google Scholar
  55. Taub, E., Griffin, A., Nick, J., Gammons, K., Uswatte, G., & Law, C. R. (2007). Pediatric CI therapy for stroke-induced hemiparesis in young children. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 10, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Taub, E., Griffin, A., Uswatte, G., Gammons, K., Nick, J., & Law, C. R. (2011). Treatment of congenital hemiparesis with pediatric constraint-induced movement therapy Journal of Child Neurology, 26, 1163–1173.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Taub, E., Heitman, R., & Barro, G. (1977). Alertness and level of activity and purposive movement following deafferentation in the adult and developing monkey. In H. P. Zeigler & B. M. Wenzel (Eds.), Tonic functions of sensory systems (Vol. 290, pp. 348–365). Ann, NY: Academic Sciences.Google Scholar
  58. Taub, E., Miller, N. E., Novack, T., Cook, E. W., III., Fleming, W. C., Nepomuceno, C. S., et al. (1993). Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 347–354.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Taub, E., Perrella, P. N., & Barro, G. (1973). Behavioral development following forelimb deafferentation on day of birth in monkeys with and without blinding. Science, 181, 959–960.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Taub, E., Perrella, P. N., Miller, D., & Barro, G. (1975). Diminution of early environmental control through perinatal and prenatal somatosensory deafferentation. Biological Psychiatry, 10, 609–626.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Taub, E., Ramey, S. L., DeLuca, S., & Echols, E. (2004). Efficacy of constraint-induced (CI) movement therapy for children with cerebral palsy with asymmetric motor impairment. Pediatrics, 113, 305–312.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Taub, E., & Uswatte, G. (2009). Constraint-induced movement therapy: A paradigm for translating advances in behavioral neuroscience into rehabilitation treatments. In G. Berntson & J. Cacioppo (Eds.), Handbook of neuroscience for the behavioral sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 1296–1319). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  63. Taub, E., Uswatte, G., King, D. K., Morris, D., Crago, J., & Chatterjee, A. (2006). A placebo controlled trial of constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremity after stroke. Stroke, 37, 1045–1049.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Taub, E., Uswatte, G., Mark, V., & Morris, D. (2006). The learned nonuse phenomenon: Implications for rehabilitation. Europa Medicophysica, 42(2), 241–255.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Taub, E., Uswatte, G., Mark, V., & Morris, D. (2006). The learned nonuse phenomenon: Implications for rehabilitation. Europa Medicophysica, 42(2), 241–255.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Taub, E., Uswatte, G., & Pidikiti, R. (1999). Constraint-induced movement therapy: A new family of techniques with broad application to physical rehabilitation—a clinical review. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 36, 237–251.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Taub, E., Williams, E., Barro, G., & Steiner, S. S. (1978). Comparison of the performance of deafferented and intact monkeys on continuous and fixed ratio schedules of reinforcement. Experimental Neurology, 58, 1–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Timberlake, W. (1993). Behavior systems and reinforcement: An integrative approach. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 105–128.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Twitchell, T. E. (1954). Sensory factors in purposive movement. Journal of Neurophysiology, 17, 239–254.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Uswatte, G., Miltner, W. H. R., Varma, M., Moran, S., Sharma, V., Foo, B., et al. (1998). Accelerometry: An objective approach to real-world outcome measurement in physical rehabilitation. Paper presented at the inaugural meeting of the Program in Cognitive Rehabilitation of the James S. McDonnell Foundation, St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
  71. Uswatte, G., Miltner, W., Walker, H., Spraggins, S., Moran, S., Calhoun, J., et al. (1997). Accelerometers in rehabilitation: Objective measurement of extremity use at home [Abstract]. Rehabilitation Psychology, 42, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Uswatte, G., Spraggins, S., Walker, H., Calhoun, J., & Taub, E. (1997). Validity and reliability of accelerometry as an objective measure of upper extremity use at home [Abstract]. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 78, 896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Uswatte, G., Taub, E., Morris, D., Barman, J., & Crago, J. (2006). Contribution of the shaping and restraint components of constraint-induced movement therapy to treatment outcome. NeuroRehabilitation, 21(2), 147–156.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Uswatte, G., Taub, E., Morris, D., Barman, J., & Crago, J. (2006). Contribution of the shaping and restraint components of constraint-induced movement therapy to treatment outcome. NeuroRehabilitation, 21(2), 147–156.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Uswatte, G., Taub, E., Morris, D., Light, K., & Thompson, P. (2006). The motor activity Log-28: Assessing daily use of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. Neurology, 67, 1189–1194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Uswatte, G., Taub, E., Morris, D., Vignolo, M., & McCulloch, K. (2005). Reliability and validity of the upper-extremity motor activity Log-14 for measuring real-world arm use. Stroke, 36, 2493–2496.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. van der Lee, J., Beckerman, H., Lankhorst, G., & Bouter, L. (1999). Constraint-induced movement therapy [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80, 1606.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Weiss, T., Miltner, W. H. R., Adler, T., Bruckner, L., & Taub, E. (1999). Decrease in phantom limb pain associated with prosthesis-induced increased use of an amputation stump in humans. Neuroscience Letters, 272, 131–134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Wittenberg, G. F., Chen, R., Ishii, K., Bushara, K. O., Taub, E., Gerber, L. H., et al. (2003). Constraint- induced therapy in stroke: Magnetic-stimulation motor maps and cerebral activation. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 17, 48–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Wolf, S., Winstein, C., Miller, J., Taub, E., Uswatte, G., Morris, D., et al. (2006). Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3–9 months after stroke: The EXCITE randomized clinical trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 296, 2095–2104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations