Advertisement

Journal of Neurology

, Volume 252, Issue 11, pp 1363–1371 | Cite as

Impairment–oriented training and adaptive motor cortex reorganisation after stroke: a fTMS study

  • T. Platz
  • S. van Kaick
  • L. Möller
  • S. Freund
  • T. Winter
  • I.–H. Kim
ORIGINAL COMMUNICATION

Abstract

In a sample of 28 subacute anterior circulation ischemic stroke patients with severe arm paresis, reduced motor cortex excitability (increased motor thresholds, reduced MEP amplitudes, reduced number of active points) and a reduced conduction velocity in the corticospinal system were found in the affected hemisphere. At the same time motor cortex topology for the abductor pollicis brevis (APB) representation was comparable for the affected and non–affected hemisphere. Considerable arm motor recovery (Fugl–Meyer test) was observed when assessed four weeks later after a period of rehabilitation intervention. Motor cortex excitability and conduction velocity in the corticospinal system improved in the affected hemisphere. In addition, APB representation showed a medial shift in patients with such a representation at pre test (n = 14). Multiple stepwise regression indicated that of all transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) parameters only the medial shift of the motor cortex map predicted motor recovery. Assessing the effect of training time (nonintensified vs. intensified therapy) and type of arm training (Bobath approach vs. Arm BASIS training) with a randomised controlled design revealed that the impairment–oriented Arm BASIS training improved motor control more than the control conditions. In addition, patients of the group receiving the Arm BASIS training with an APB representation at pre test showed a medial shift of the motor cortex map and improved conduction times. In conclusion, changes in motor cortex topology were likely to be relevant for motor recovery and might have been induced by the impairment–oriented training.

Key words

stroke arm hemiparesis training plasticity 

Abbreviations

IOT

Impairment-oriented training

MEP

motor evoked potential

TMS

transcranial magnetic stimulation

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adams RJ, Mador K Sethi KD, Grotta JC, Thompson DS (1987) Graded neurological scale for use in acute hemispheric stroke treatment protocols. Stroke 18:665–669PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashworth B (1964) Preliminary trial of carisoprodol in multiple sclerosis. Practioner 192:540–542Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bamford J, Sandercock P, Dennis M, Burn J, Warlow C (1991) Classification and natural history of clinically identifiable subtypes of cerebral infarction. Lancet 337:1521–1526CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brion J–P, Demeurisse G, Capon A (1989) Evidence of cortical reorganization in hemiparetic patients. Stroke 20:1079–1084PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Byrnes ML, Thickbroom, GW, Phillips BA, Mastaglia FL (2001) Long–term changes in motor cortical organisation after recovery from subcortical stroke. Brain Res 889:278–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cao Y, D'Olhaberriague L, Vikingstad EM, Levine SR, Welch KMA (1998) Pilot study of functional MRI to assess cerebral activation of motor function after poststroke hemiparesis. Stroke 29:112–122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carey JR, Kimberley TJ, Lewis SM, et al. (2002) Analysis of fMRI and finger tracking training in subjects with chronic stroke. Brain 125:773–788CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chollet F, DiPiero V, Wise RJS, Brooks DJ, Dolan RJ, Frackowiak RSJ (1991) The functional anatomy of motor recovery after stroke in humans: a study with positron emission tomography. Ann Neurol 29:63–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cramer SC, Nelles G, Benson RR, Kaplan JD, Parker RA, Kwong KK, Kennedy DN, Finklestein SP, Rosen BR (1997) A functional MRI study of subjects recovered from hemiparetic stroke. Stroke 28:2518–2527PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cramer S, Mark A, Barquist K, Nhan, H, Stegbauer KC, Price R, Bell K, Odderson IB, Esselman P, Maravilla K (2002) Motor cortex activation is preserved in patients with chronic hemiplegic stroke. Ann Neurol 52:607–616CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Weerdt WJG, Harrison MA (1985) Measuring recovery of arm–handfunction in stroke patients: a comparison of the Brunnstrom–Fugl–Meyer test and Action Research Arm test. Physiother Can 37:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eickhof C (2001) Wiederherstellung der Innervationsfähigkeit für Zielmotorik durch ein systematisches repetitives Basistraining. In: Eickhof C (ed) Grundlagen der Therapie bei erworbenen Lähmungen. Pflaum, München, pp 160–213Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Filiatrault J, Arsenault AB, Dutil E, Bourbonnais D (1991) Motor function and activities of daily living assessments: a study of three tests for persons with hemiplegia. Am J Occupat Ther 45:806–810Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fugl–Meyer AR, Jääskö L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S (1975) The poststroke hemiplegic patient. Scand J Rehab Med 7:13–31Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hendricks HT, Pasman JW, Merx JL, van Limbeek J, Zwarts MJ (2003) Analysis of recovery processes after stroke by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation. J Clin Neurophysiol 20:188–195PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jang SH, Kim Y–H, Cho S–H, Lee J–H, Park J–W, Kwon Y–H (2003) Cortical reorganization induced by task–oriented training in chronic hemiplegic stroke patients. NeuroReport 14:137–141PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jasper H (1958) Report of committee on methods of clinical exam in EEG. Electroencephal Clin Neurophysiol 10:370–375Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johansen–Berg H, Dawes H, Guy C, Smith SM, Wade DT, Matthews PM (2002) Correlation between motor improvements and altered fMRI activity after rehabilitative therapy. Brain 125:2731–2742PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johansson BB, Belichenko PV (2002) Neuronal plasticity and dendritic spines: effect of environmental enrichment on intact and postischemic rat brain. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 22:89–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kobayashi M, Pascual–Leone A (2003) Transcranial magnetic stimulation in neurology. Lancet Neurol 2:145–156PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kwakkel G, Wagenaar RC, Koelman TW, Lankhorst GJ, Koetsier JC (1997) Effects of intensity of rehabilitation after stroke. A research synthesis. Stroke 28:1550–1556PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van der Lee JH, Snels IAK, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Wagenaar RC, Bouter LM (2001) Exercise therapy for arm function in stroke patients: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Clin Rehabil 15:20–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liepert J, Bauder H, Miltner WHR, Taub E, Weiller C (2000) Treatmentinduced cortical reorganization after stroke in humans. Stroke 31:1210–1216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu Y, Rouiller EM (1999) Mechanisms of recovery of dexterity following unilateral lesion of the sensorimotor cortex in adult monkeys. Exp Brain Res 128:149–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nakayama H, Jorgensen HS, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS (1994) Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: The Copenhagen Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75:394–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nelles G, Jentzen W, Jueptner M, Müller S, Diener HC (2001) Arm training induced brain plasticity in stroke studied with serial Positron Emission Tomography. NeuroImage 13:1146–1154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Passingham R (1997) Functional organisation of the motor system. In: Frackowiak RSJ, Friston KJ, Frith CD, Dolan RJ, Mazziotta JC (eds) Human Brain Function. Academic Press, San Diego London, pp 243–274Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Platz T, Denzler P, Kaden B, Mauritz KH (1994) Motor learning after recovery from hemiparesis. Neuropsychologia 32:1209–1223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Platz T, Mauritz KH (1995) Human motor planning, motor programming, and use of new task–relevant information with different apraxic syndromes. Eur J Neurosci 7:1536–1547PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Platz T, Denzler P, Kaden B, Mauritz KH (1994) Motor learning after recovery from hemiparesis. Neuropsychologia 32:1209–1223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Platz T, Prass K, Denzler P, Bock S, Mauritz KH (1999) Testing a motor performance series and a kinematic motion analysis as measures of performance in high functioning stroke patients: reliability, validity, and responsiveness to therapeutic intervention. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 80:270–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Platz T, Bock S, Prass K (2001) Reduced skilfulness of arm motor behaviour among motor stroke patients with good clinical recovery: Does it indicate reduced automaticity? Can it be improved by unilateral or bilateral training? A kinematic motion analysis study. Neuropsychologia 39:687–698CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Platz T, Winter T, Müller N, Pinkowski C, Eickhof C, Mauritz KH (2001) Arm Ability Training for Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injury Patients with mild arm paresis. A Single–Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial. Arch Physical Med Rehabil 82:961–968Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Platz T (2004) Impairment–oriented Training (IOT) – scientific concept and evidence–based treatment strategies. Restor Neurol Neurosci 22:301–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Platz T, Eickhof C, van Kaick S, Engel U, Pinkowski C, Kalok S, Pause M (2004) Impairment–oriented training for arm paresis after stroke: a single blind, randomised, controlled multicentre trial. Evidence–based Neurorehabilitation (Abstract). Regional European WFNR congress 30. 9. –2. 10. 04 Zürich. Neurol Rehabil, Suppl. 1:9–10 Paper in press: Platz T, Eickhof C, van Kaick S, Engel U, Pinkowski C, Kalok S, Pause M Impairment– oriented training or Bobath therapy for arm paresis after stroke: a single blind, multi–centre randomized controlled trial. Clin RehabilGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Platz T, Pinkowski C, van Wijck F, Kim I–H, di Bella P, Johnson G (2005) Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardised guidelines for the Fugl–Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multi–centre study. Clinical Rehabil 19:404–411Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Reddy H, Narayanan S, Woolrich M, Mitsumori T, Lapierre Y, Arnold DL, Matthews PM (2002) Functional brain reorganization for hand movement in patients with multiple sclerosis: defining distinct effects of injury and disability, Brain 125:2646–2657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sanford J, Moreland J, Swanson LR, Stratford PW, Gowland C (1993) Reliability of the Fugl–Meyer assessment for testing motor performance in patients following stroke. Phys Ther 73:447–454PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Seitz RJ, Roland PE (1992) Learning of sequential finger movements in man: a combined kinematic and positron emission tomography (PET) study. Eur J Neurosci 4:154–165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Seitz RJ, Azari NP, Knorr U, Binkofski F, Herzog H, Freund HJ (1999) The role of diaschisis in stroke recovery. Stroke 30:1844–1850PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Traversa R, Cicinelli P, Bassi A, Rossini PM, Bernardi G (1997) Mapping of motor cortical reorganization after stroke. A brain stimulation study with focal magnetic pulses. Stroke 28:110–117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Turton A, Wroe S, Trepte N, Fraser C, Lemon RN (1996) Contralateral and ipsilateral EMG responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation during recovery of arm and hand function after stroke. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 101:316–328PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wade DT, Langton–Hewer R, Wood VA, Skilbeck CE, Ismail HM (1983) The hemiplegic arm after stroke: measurement and recovery. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 46:521–524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ward NS, Brown MM, Thompson AJ, Frackowiak RSJ (2003) Neural correlates of motor recovery after stroke: a longitudinal fMRI study. Brain 126:2476–2496 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wehrhahn KJ, Conforto AB, Kadom N, Hallett M, Cohen LG (2003) Contribution of the ipsilateral motor cortex to recovery after chronic stroke. Ann Neurol 54:464–472Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Weiller C, Chollet F, Friston KJ, Wise RJS, Frackowiak RSJ (1992) Functional reorganization of the brain in recovery from striatocapsular infarction in man. Ann Neurol 31:463–472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zemke A, Heagerty P, Lee C, Cramer S (2003) Motor cortex organization after stroke is related to side of stroke and level of recovery. Stroke 34:e23–e28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Steinkopff-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Platz
    • 1
  • S. van Kaick
    • 1
  • L. Möller
    • 1
  • S. Freund
    • 1
  • T. Winter
    • 1
  • I.–H. Kim
    • 1
  1. 1.Klinik BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations