Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 149, Issue 2, pp 131–140 | Cite as

Hemiparetic stroke impairs anticipatory control of arm movement

Research Article


Internal models are sensory motor mappings used by the nervous system to anticipate the force requirements of movement tasks. The ability to use internal models likely underlies the development of skillful control of the arm throughout life. It is currently unknown to what extent individuals with hemiparetic stroke can form and implement such internal models. To examine this issue, we measured whether such individuals could learn to anticipate forces applied to their arms by a lightweight robotic device as they practiced reaching to a target. Thirteen subjects with post-stroke hemiparesis were tested. Forces were applied to the arm, which curved the hand path in either the medial or lateral direction, as the subjects reached repeatedly towards a target located in front of them at their workspace boundary. The subjects exhibited a decreased ability to adapt to the perturbing forces with their hemiparetic arms. That is, they did not straighten their reaching path as well, compared to their ipsilesional arms, and they exhibited smaller aftereffects when the perturbing force was unexpectedly removed. The ability to adapt to the force improved significantly with decreasing impairment severity, as quantified using both clinical scales and quantitative strength measurements. Some subjects with strength reductions as severe as 60% were able to adapt to the fields, generating significant aftereffects. We conclude that hemiparetic stroke impairs the ability to implement internal models used for anticipatory control of arm movement, although even some severely weakened subjects retain at least a partial ability to form and use internal models. Finding ways to fully restore this adaptive ability, or to make use of what adaptive ability remains during rehabilitation, is an important goal for improving functional motor recovery.


Hemiparesis Motor skills Biomechanics Neurological model 


  1. Beer RF, Given JD, Dewald JP (1999) Task-dependent weakness at the elbow in patients with hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 80:766–772PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Brashers-Krug T, Shadmehr R, Bizzi E (1996) Consolidation in human motor memory. Nature 382:252–255PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brunnstrom S (1970) Movement therapy in hemiplegia. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Canning CG, Ada L, O'Dwyer N (1999) Slowness to develop force contributes to weakness after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 80:66–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Conditt MA, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1999) Central representation of time during motor learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:11625–11630Google Scholar
  6. Dewald JP, Beer RF (2001) Abnormal joint torque patterns in the paretic upper limb of subjects with hemiparesis. Muscle Nerve 24:273–283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dewald JP, Pope PS, Given JD, Buchanan TS, Rymer WZ (1995) Abnormal muscle coactivation patterns during isometric torque generation at the elbow and shoulder in hemiparetic subjects. Brain 118:495–510PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Francisco G, Chae J, Chawla H, Kirshblum S, Zorowitz R, Lewis G, Pang S (1998) Electromyogram-triggered neuromuscular stimulation for improving the arm function of acute stroke survivors: a randomized pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 79:570–575PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S (1975) The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med 7:13–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ghez C, Sainburg R (1995) Proprioceptive control of interjoint coordination. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 73:273–284PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodbody SJ, Wolpert DM (1998) Temporal and amplitude generalization in motor learning. J Neurophysiol 79:1825–1838PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodbody SJ, Wolpert DM (1999) The effect of visuomotor displacements on arm movement paths. Exp Brain Res 127:213–223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gowland C, Stratford P, Ward M, Moreland J, Torresin W, Van Hullenaar S, Sanford J, Barreca S, Vanspall B, Plews N (1993) Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster stroke assessment. Stroke 24:58–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gowland C, VanHullenaar S, Torresin W, Moreland J, Vanspall B, Barrecca S, Ward M, Huijbregts M, Stratford P, Barclay-Goddard R (1995) Chedoke-McMaster stroke assessment: development, validation and administration manual. Chedoke-McMaster Hospitals and McMaster University, Hamilton, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  15. Gresham GE, Phillips TF, Wolf PA, McNamara PM, Kannel WB, Dawber TR (1979) Epidemiologic profile of long-term stroke disability: the Framingham study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 60:487–491PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ingram HA, van Donkelaar P, Cole J, Vercher JL, Gauthier GM, Miall RC (2000) The role of proprioception and attention in a visuomotor adaptation task. Exp Brain Res 132:114–126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Jansen-Osmann P, Richter S, Konczak J, Kalveram KT (2002) Force adaptation transfers to untrained workspace regions in children: evidence for developing inverse dynamic motor models. Exp Brain Res 143:212–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kamper DG, McKenna AN, Kahn LE, Reinkensmeyer DJ (2002) Alterations in reaching after stroke and their relation to movement direction and impairment severity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83:702–707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Krebs HI, Brashers-Krug T, Rauch SL, Savage CR, Hogan N, Rubin RH, Fischman AJ, Alpert NM (1998) Robot-aided functional imaging: application to a motor learning study. Hum Brain Mapp 6:59–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Patton JL, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2002) Linear combinations of nonlinear models for predicting human-machine interface forces. Biol Cybern 86:73–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Patton JL, Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Rymer WZ (2001) Robotic-induced improvement of movement in hemiparetics via implicit learning. Soc Neurosci Abstr 27:832.816Google Scholar
  22. Raasch CC, Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Rymer WZ (1997) Motor learning in reaching movements by hemiparetic subjects. Soc Neurosci Abstr 23:2374Google Scholar
  23. Reinkensmeyer DJ, Dewald JPA, Rymer WZ (1999) Guidance-based quantification of arm impairment following brain injury: a pilot study. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 7:1–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Reinkensmeyer DJ, McKenna Cole A, Kahn LE, Kamper DG (2002) Directional control of reaching is preserved following mild/moderate stroke and stochastically constrained following severe stroke. Exp Brain Res 143:525–530CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Scheidt RA (1998) Effects of mechanical and visual constraints on motor adaptation during voluntary movement of the arm. PhD Dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, ILGoogle Scholar
  26. Scheidt RA, Dingwell JB, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2001) Learning to move amid uncertainty. J Neurophysiol 86:971–985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Shadmehr R, Holcomb HH (1997) Neural correlates of motor memory consolidation. Science 277:821–825PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1994) Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J Neurosci 14:3208–3224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Sunderland A, Bowers MP, Sluman SM, Wilcock DJ, Ardron ME (1999) Impaired dexterity of the ipsilateral hand after stroke and the relationship to cognitive deficit. Stroke 30:949–955PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Takahashi CD, Scheidt RA, Reinkensmeyer DJ (2001) Impedance control and internal model formation when reaching in a randomly varying dynamical environment. J Neurophysiol 86:1047–1051PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Takahashi CD, Nemet D, Rose-Gottron C, Larson JK, Cooper DM, Reinkensmeyer DJ (2002) Computational motor adaptation — a kindergarten skill. In: Proceedings of 2nd Joint EMBS-BMES Conference, Houston, October 2002, pp 2418–2419Google Scholar
  32. Thoroughman KA, Shadmehr R (2000) Learning of action through adaptive combination of motor primitives. Nature 407:742–747PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Volpe BT, Krebs HI, Hogan N (2001) Is robot-aided sensorimotor training in stroke rehabilitation a realistic option? Curr Opin Neurol 14:745–752CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Center for Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations