, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 428–438 | Cite as

Activity-based therapies

  • Alexander W. DromerickEmail author
  • Peter S. Lum
  • Joseph Hidler


Therapeutic activity is a mainstay of clinical neurorehabilitation, but is typically unstructured and directed at compensation rather than restoration of central nervous system function. Newer activity-based therapies (ABTs) are in early stages of development and testing. The ABTs attempt to restore function via standardized therapeutic activity based on principles of experimental psychology, exercise physiology, and neuroscience. Three of the best developed ABTs are constraint-induced therapy, robotic therapy directed at the hemiplegic arm, and treadmill training techniques aimed at improving gait in persons with stroke and spinal cord injury. These treatments appear effective in improving arm function and gait, but they have not yet been clearly demonstrated to be more effective than equal amounts of traditional techniques. Resistance training is clearly demonstrated to improve strength in persons with stroke and brain injury, and most studies show that it does not increase hypertonia. Clinical trials of ABTs face several methodological challenges. These challenges include defining dosage, standardizing treatment parameters across subjects and within treatment sessions, and determining what constitutes clinically significant treatment effects. The long-term goal is to develop prescriptive ABT, where specific activities are proven to treat specific motor system disorders. Activity-based therapies are not a cure, but are likely to play an important role in future treatment cocktails for stroke and spinal cord injury.

Key Words

Rehabilitation cerebrovascular accident spinal cord injuries clinical trials review 


  1. 1.
    The history of physiatry (online). Available at http://www.physiatry. org/field/index.html. Accessed Date: May 1, 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roth EJ. The elderly stroke patient: principles and practices of rehabilitation management. Top Geriatr Rehabil 1988;3: 27–61.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cauraugh JH, Kim SB. Stroke motor recovery: active neuromuscular stimulation and repetitive practice schedules. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003;74: 1562–1566.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thielman GT, Dean CM, Gentile AM. Rehabilitation of reaching after stroke: task-related training versus progressive resistive exercise. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85: 1613–1618.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winstein CJ, Rose DK, Tan SM, Lewthwaite R, Chui HC, Azen SP. A randomized controlled comparison of upper-extremity rehabilitation strategies in acute stroke: a pilot study of immediate and long-term outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85: 620–628.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schieber MH, Poliakov AV. Partial inactivation of the primary motor cortex hand area: effects on individuated finger movements. J Neurosci 1998;18: 9038–9054.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nudo RJ, Wise BM, SiFuentes F, Milliken GW. Neural substracts for the effects of rehabilitative training on motor recovery after ischemic infarct. Science 1996;272: 1791–1794.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nudo RJ, Milliken GW, Jenkins WN, Merzenich MM. Use-dependent alterations of movement representations in primary motor cortex of adult squirrel monkeys. J Neurosci 1996;16: 785–807.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kleim JA, Swain RA, Armstrong KA, Napper RMA, Jones TA, Greenough WT. Selective synaptic plasticity within the cerebellar cortex following complex motor skill learning. Neurobiol Learn Mem 1998;69: 274–289.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Draganski B, Gaser C, Busch V, Schuierer G, Bogdahn U, May A. Neuroplasticity changes in grey matter induced by training. Nature 2004;427: 311–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jorgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Vive-Larsen J, Stoier M, Olsen TS. Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part I: outcome. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995;76: 399–405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kwakkel G, Wagenaar RC, Koelman TW, Lankhorst GJ, Koetsier JC. Effects of intensity of rehabilitation after stroke. Stroke 1997; 28: 1550–1556.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Langhome P, Wagenaar RC, Partridge C. Physiotherapy after stroke: more is better? Physiother Res Int 1996;1: 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kwakkel G, van Peppen R, Wagenaar RC, et al. Effects of augmented exercise therapy time after stroke: a meta-analysis. Stroke 2004;35: 2529–2539.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jette DU, Warren RL, Wirtalla C. The relation between therapy intensity and outcomes of rehabilitation in skilled nursing facilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86: 373–379.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bode RK, Heinemann AW, Semik P, Mallinson T. Relative importance of rehabilitation therapy characteristics on functional outcomes for persons with stroke. Stroke 2004;35: 2537–2542.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen CC, Heinemann AW, Granger CV, Linn RT. Functional gains and therapy intensity during subacute rehabilitation: a study of 20 facilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83: 1514–1523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Humm JL, Kozlowski DA, James DC, Gotts JE, Schallert T. Use-dependent exacerbation of brain damage occurs during an early post-lesion vulnerable period. Brain Res 1998;783: 286–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dromerick AW, Edwards DF, Hahn M. Does the application of constraint-induced movement therapy during acute rehabilitation reduce hemiparesis after ischemic stroke? Stroke 2000;31: 2984–2988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taub E, Pidikiti RD, DeLuca SC, Crago JE, Toole JF, Good DC. Effects of motor restriction of an unimpaired upper extremity and training on improving functional tasks and altering brain behaviors. In: Imaging in neurologic rehabilitation. New York: Demos; 1996: 133–154.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taub E, Miller NE, Novack TA, et al. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74: 347–354.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sterr A. Training-based interventions in motor rehabilitation after stroke: theoretical and clinical considerations. Behav Neurol 2004; 15: 55–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Peppen RPS, Kwakkel G, Wood-Dauphinee S, Hendriks HJM, van der Wees PJ, Dekker J. The impact of physical therapy on functional outcomes after stroke: what’s the evidence? Clin Rehabil 2004;18: 833–862.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Levine P, Page SJ. Modified constraint-induced therapy: a promising restorative outpatient therapy. Top Stroke Rehabil 2004;11: 1–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tarkka IM, Pitkanen K, Sivenius J. Paretic hand rehabilitation with constraint-induced movement therapy after stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84: 501–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dettmers C, Teske U, Hamzei F, Uswatte G, Taub E, Weiller C. Distributed form of constraint-induced movement therapy improves functional outcome and quality of life after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86: 204–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kunkel A, Kopp B, Muller G, et al. Constraint induced movement therapy for motor recovery in chronic stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999;80: 624–628.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miltner WHR, Bauder H, Sommer M, Dettmers C, Taub E. Effects of constraint-induced movement therapy on patients with chronic motor deficits after stroke: a replication. Stroke 1999;30: 586–592.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Taub E, Uswatte G, King DK, Morris D, Crago JE, Chatterjee A. A placebo-controlled trial of constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremity after stroke. Stroke 2006;37: 1045–1049.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van der Lee JH. Constraint-induced movement therapy: some thoughts about theories and evidence. J Rehabil Med 2003:S41–S45.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Siegert RJ, Lord S, Porter K. Constraint-induced movement therapy: time for a little restraint? Clin Rehabil 2004;18: 110–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dromerick AW. Evidence-based rehabilitation. The case for and against constraint-induced movement therapy. J Rehabil Res Dev 2003;40: vii-ix.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    van der Lee JH, Wagenaar RC, Lankhorst GJ, Vogelaar TW, Deville WL, Bouter LM. Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients. Stroke 1999;30: 2369–2375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Page SJ, Sisto S, Levine P, McGrath RE. Efficacy of modified constraint-induced movement therapy in chronic stroke: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85: 14–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Parry RH, Lincoln NB, Vass CD. Effect of severity of arm impairment on response to additional physiotherapy early after stroke. Clin Rehabil 1999; 13: 187–198.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hesse S, Schmidt H, Werner C, Bardeleben A. Upper and lower extremity robotic devices for rehabilitation and for studying motor control. Curr Opin Neurol 2003;16: 705–710.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Krebs HI, Hogan N, Aisen ML, Volpe BT. Robot-aided neurore-habilitation. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 1998;6: 75–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Volpe BT, Ferraro M, Lynch D, et al. Robotics and other devices in the treatment of patients recovering from stroke. Curr Athero-scler Rep 2004;6: 314–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ferraro M, Palazzolo JJ, Krol J, Krebs HI, Hogan N, Volpe BT. Robot-aided sensorimotor arm training improves outcome in patients with chronic stroke. Neurology 2003;61: 1604–1607.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fasoli SE, Krebs HI, Stein J, Frontera WR, Hogan N. Effects of robotic therapy on motor impairment and recovery in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84: 477–482.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Reinkensmeyer DJ, Dewald JP, Rymer WZ. Guidance-based quantification of arm impairment following brain injury: a pilot study. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 1999;7: 1–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kahn LE, Lum PS, Rymer WZ, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Robot-assisted movement training for the stroke-impaired arm: does it matter what the robot does? J Rehabil Res Dev (in press).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC, Majmundar M, Van der Loos M. Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83: 952–959.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC. Evidence for improved muscle activation patterns after retraining of reaching movements with the MIME robotic system in subjects with post-stroke hemiparesis. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2004; 12: 186–194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lindeman E, Spaans F, Reulen J, Leffers P, Drukker J. Progressive resistance training in neuromuscular patients. Effects on force and surface EMG. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 1999;9: 379–384.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    McCartney N, Moroz D, Garner SH, McComas AJ. The effects of strength training in patients with selected neuromuscular disorders. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1988;20: 362–368.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Duchateau J, Enoka RM. Neural adaptations with chronic activity patterns in able-bodied humans. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2002;81: S17-S27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sharp SA, Brouwer BJ. Isokinetic strength training of the hemi-paretic knee: effects on function and spasticity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78: 1231–1236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ouellette MM, LeBrasseur NK, Bean JF, et al. High-intensity resistance training improves muscle strength, self-reported function, and disability in long-term stroke survivors. Stroke 2004;35: 1404–1409.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC. Evidence for strength imbalances as a significant contributor to abnormal synergies in hemiparetic subjects. Muscle Nerve 2003;27: 211–221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Morrissey MC, Harman EA, Johnson MJ. Resistance training modes: specificity and effectiveness. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995: 27: 648–660.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jones DA, Rutherford OM. Human muscle strength training: the effects of three different regimens and the nature of the resultant changes. J Physiol 1987;391: 1–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Barbeau H, Wainberg M, Finch L. Description and application of a system for locomotor rehabilitation. Med Biol Eng Comput 1987; 25: 341–344.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Edgerton VR, de Guzman CP, Gregor RJ, Roy RR, Hodgson JA, Lovely RG. Trainability of the spinal cord to generate hindlimb stepping patterns in adult spinalized cats. In: Shimamura SM, Grillner S, Edgerton VR, eds. Neurobiological basis of human locomotion. Tokyo: Japan Scientific Societies Press; 1991;411–423.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Belanger M, Drew T, Provencher J, Rossignol S. A comparison of treadmill locomotion in adult cats before and after spinal transection. J Neurophysiol 1996;76: 471–491.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Barbeau H, Rossignol S. Recovery of locomotion after chronic spinalization in the adult cat. Brain Res 1987;412: 84–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lovely RG, Gregor RJ, Roy RR, Edgerton VR. Effects of training on the recovery of full-weight-bearing stepping in the adult spinal cat. Exp Neurol 1986;92: 421–435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    de Leon RD, Hodgson JA, Roy RR, Edgerton VR. Locomotor capacity attributable to step training versus spontaneous recovery after spinalization in adult cats. J Neurophysiol 1998;79: 1329–1340.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wolpaw JR, Tennissen AM. Activity-dependent spinal cord plasticity in health and disease. Annu Rev Neurosci 2001;24: 807–843.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    van de Crommert HWAA, Mulder T, Duysens J. Neural control of locomotion: sensory control of the central patter generator and its relation to treadmill training. Gait Posture 1998;7: 251–263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    de Leon RD, Roy RR, Edgerton VR. Is the recovery of stepping following spinal cord injury mediated by modifying existing neural pathways or by generating new pathways? A perspective. Phys Ther 2001;81: 1904–1911.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Behrman AL, Harkema SJ. Locomotor training after human spinal cord injury: a series of case studies. Phys Ther 2000;80: 688–700.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wernig A, Muller S. Laufband locomotion with body weight support improved walking in persons with severe spinal cord injuries. Paraplegia 1992;30: 229–238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wernig A, Nanassy A, Muller S. Laufband (treadmill) therapy in incomplete paraplegia and tetraplegia. J Neurotrauma 1999; 16: 719–726.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Dietz V. Locomotor training in paraplegic patients. Ann Neurol 1995;386: 965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hesse S, Bertelt C, Jahnke MT, et al. Treadmill training with partial body weight support compared with physiotherapy in nonambulatory hemiparetic stroke patients. Stroke 1995;26: 976–981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Mauritz KH, Hesse S, Platz T. Late recovery of motor functions. Adv Neurol 1997;73: 395–408.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Visintin M, Barbeau H, Korner-Bitensky N, Mayo NE. A new approach to retrain gait in stroke patients through body weight support and treadmill stimulation. Stroke 1998;29: 1122–1128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Dobkin BH, Apple D, Barbeau H, et al. Methods for a randomized trial of weight-supported treadmill training versus conventional training for walking during inpatient rehabilitation after incomplete traumatic spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2003;17: 153–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Dobkin B, Apple D, Barbeau H, et al. Weight-supported treadmill vs over-ground training for walking after acute incomplete SCI. Neurology 2006;66: 484–493.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Di Giovanna I, Hayes G. The drug development process. In: Principles of clinical research. Petersfield, United Kingdom: Wrightson Biomedical; 2001: 1–16.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Knapp HD, Taub E, Berman AJ. Movements in monkeys with deafferented forelimbs. Exp Neurol 1963;7: 305–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Schallert T, Leasure JL, Kolb B. Experience-associated structural events, subependymal cellular proliferative activity, and functional recovery after injury to the central nervous system. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2000;20: 1513–1528.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Edgerton VR, Tillakaratne NJK, Bigbee AJ, de Leon RD, Roy RR. Plasticity of the spinal neural circuitry after injury. Annu Rev Neurosci 2004;27: 145–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Richard Green A, Odergren T, Ashwood T. Animal models of stroke: do they have value for discovering neuroprotective agents? Trends Pharmacol Sci 2003;24: 402–408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Dobkin BH, Havton LA. Basic advances and new avenues in therapy of spinal cord injury. Annu Rev Med 2004;55: 255–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Dromerick AW, Morris LB, eds. Acute ischemic stroke lesions in humans: how do they compare to animal models used to study stroke recovery? Washington, DC; Society for Neuroscience 2005; Abstract. 2005.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Page SJ, Levine P, Leonard AC. Modified constraint-induced therapy in acute stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2005;19: 27–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    McDonald JW, Becker D, Sadowsky CL, Jane JA Sr, Conturo TE, Schultz LM. Late recovery following spinal cord injury. Case report and review of the literature. J Neurosurg 2002;97: S252-S265.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ricamato AL, Hidler JM. Quantification of the dynamic properties of EMG patterns during gait. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2005;15: 384–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Gresham GE. Stroke outcome research. Stroke 1986;17: 358–360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Wylie CM. The value of early rehabilitation in stroke. Geriatrics 1970;25: 107–113.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ottenbacher KJ, Janneil S. The results of clinical trials in stroke rehabilitation research. Arch Neurol 1993;50: 37–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Paolucci S, Antonucci G, Grasso MG, et al. Early versus delayed inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a matched comparison conducted in Italy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000;81: 695–700.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Jones TA, Schallert T. Use-dependent growth of pyramidal neurons after neocortical damage. J Neurosci 1994;14: 2140–2152.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Kempermann G, Gage FH. Experience-dependent regulation of adult hippocampal neurogenesis: effects of long-term stimulation and stimulus withdrawal. Hippocampus 1999;9: 321–332.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Biernaskie J, Chernenko G, Corbett D. Efficacy of rehabilitative experience declines with time after focal ischemic brain injury. J Neurosci 2004;24: 1245–1254.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Barbeau H, Visintin M. Optimal outcomes obtained with body-weight support combined with treadmill training in stroke subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84: 1458–1465.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Dodds TA, Martin DP, Stolov WC, and Deyo RA. A validation of the functional independence measure and its performance among rehabilitation in patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74: 531–536.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander W. Dromerick
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Peter S. Lum
    • 2
    • 3
  • Joseph Hidler
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Departments of Rehabilitation Medicine and NeurologyGeorgetown University School of MedicineUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringCatholic UniversityUSA
  3. 3.National Rehabilitation HospitalGeorgetown University School of MedicineWashington, DC

Personalised recommendations