Background and Purpose— Injury to the corticospinal tract (CST) has been shown to have a major effect on upper extremity motor recovery after stroke. This study aimed to examine how well CST injury, measured from neuroimaging acquired during the acute stroke workup, predicts upper extremity motor recovery. Methods— Patients with upper extremity weakness after ischemic stroke were assessed using the upper extremity Fugl-Meyer during the acute stroke hospitalization and again at 3-month follow-up. CST injury was quantified and compared, using 4 different methods, from images obtained as part of the stroke standard-of-care workup. Logistic and linear regression were performed using CST injury to predict ΔFugl-Meyer. Injury to primary motor and premotor cortices were included as potential modifiers of the effect of CST injury on recovery. Results— N=48 patients were enrolled 4.2±2.7 days poststroke and completed 3-month follow-up (median 90-day modified Rankin Scale score, 3; interquartile range, 1.5). CST injury distinguished patients who reached their recovery potential (as predicted from initial impairment) from those who did not, with area under the curve values ranging from 0.70 to 0.8. In addition, CST injury explained ≈20% of the variance in the magnitude of upper extremity recovery, even after controlling for the severity of initial impairment. Results were consistent when comparing 4 different methods of measuring CST injury. Extent of injury to primary motor and premotor cortices did not significantly influence the predictive value that CST injury had for recovery. Conclusions— Structural injury to the CST, as estimated from standard-of-care imaging available during the acute stroke hospitalization, is a robust way to distinguish patients who achieve their predicted recovery potential and explains a significant amount of the variance in poststroke upper extremity motor recovery.

BackgroundPeople with functional neurological disorder (FND) are commonly seen by occupational therapists; however, there are limited descriptions in the literature about the type of interventions that are likely to be helpful. This document aims to address this issue by providing consensus recommendations for occupational therapy assessment and intervention.MethodsThe recommendations were developed in four stages. Stage 1: an invitation was sent to occupational therapists with expertise in FND in different countries to complete two surveys exploring their opinions regarding best practice for assessment and interventions for FND. Stage 2: a face-to-face meeting of multidisciplinary clinical experts in FND discussed and debated the data from stage 1, aiming to achieve consensus on each issue. Stage 3: recommendations based on the meeting were drafted. Stage 4: successive drafts of recommendations were circulated among the multidisciplinary group until consensus was achieved.ResultsWe recommend that occupational therapy treatment for FND is based on a biopsychosocial aetiological framework. Education, rehabilitation within functional activity and the use of taught self-management strategies are central to occupational therapy intervention for FND. Several aspects of occupational therapy for FND are distinct from therapy for other neurological conditions. Examples to illustrate the recommendations are included within this document.ConclusionsOccupational therapists have an integral role in the multidisciplinary management of people with FND. This document forms a starting point for research aiming to develop evidence-based occupational therapy interventions for people with FND.

No abstract

Objective:To test the hypothesis that cognitive demands influence motor performance during recovery from acute stroke, we tested acute stroke patients on two motor tasks with different cognitive demands and related task performance to cognitive impairment and neuroanatomic injury.Methods:We assessed the contralesional and ipsilesional upper extremities of a cohort of 50 patients with weakness after unilateral acute ischemic stroke at three timepoints with two tasks: the Box & Blocks Test, a task with greater cognitive demand, and Grip Strength, a simple and ballistic motor task. We compared performance on the two tasks, related motor performance to cognitive dysfunction, and used voxel-based lesion symptom mapping to determine neuroanatomical sites associated with motor performance.Results:Consistent across contralesional and ipsilesional upper extremities and most pronounced immediately post-stroke, Box & Blocks scores were significantly more impaired than Grip Strength scores. The presence of cognitive dysfunction significantly explained up to 33% of variance in Box & Blocks performance but was not associated with Grip Strength performance. While Grip Strength performance was associated with injury largely restricted to sensorimotor regions, Box & Blocks performance was associated with broad injury outside sensorimotor structures, particularly the dorsal anterior insula, a region known to be important for complex cognitive function.Conclusions:Altogether, these results suggest that cognitive demands influence upper extremity motor performance during recovery from acute stroke. Our findings emphasize the integrated nature of motor and cognitive systems and suggest that it is critical to consider cognitive demands during motor testing and neurorehabilitation after stroke.