Objective The standard approach to brain stimulation in stroke is based on the premise that ipsilesional M1 (iM1) is important for motor function of the paretic upper limb, while contralesional cortices compete with iM1. Therefore, the approach typically advocates facilitating iM1 and/or inhibiting contralesional M1 (cM1). But, this approach fails to elicit much improvement in severely affected patients, who on account of extensive damage to ipsilesional pathways, cannot rely on iM1. These patients are believed to instead rely on the undamaged cortices, especially the contralesional dorsal premotor cortex (cPMd), for support of function of the paretic limb. Here, we tested for the first time whether facilitation of cPMd could improve paretic limb function in severely affected patients, and if a cut-off could be identified to separate responders to cPMd from responders to the standard approach to stimulation. Methods In a randomized, sham-controlled crossover study, fifteen patients received the standard approach of stimulation involving inhibition of cM1 and a new approach involving facilitation of cPMd using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Patients also received rTMS to control areas. At baseline, impairment [Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFMPROXIMAL, max =36)] and damage to pathways [fractional anisotropy (FA)] was measured. We measured changes in time to perform proximal paretic limb reaching, and neurophysiology using TMS. Results Facilitation of cPMd generated more improvement in severely affected patients, who had experienced greater damage and impairment than a cut-off value of FA (0.5) and UEFMPROXIMAL (26–28). The standard approach instead generated more improvement in mildly affected patients. Responders to cPMd showed alleviation of interhemispheric competition imposed on iM1, while responders to the standard approach showed gains in ipsilesional excitability in association with improvement. Conclusions A preliminary cut-off level of severity separated responders for standard approach vs. facilitation of cPMd. Significance Cut-offs identified here could help select candidates for tailored stimulation in future studies so patients in all ranges of severity could potentially achieve maximum benefit in function of the paretic upper limb.

Purpose To demonstrate, in a proof-of-concept study, whether potentiating ipsilesional higher motor areas (premotor cortex and supplementary motor area) augments and accelerates recovery associated with constraint induced movement. Methods In a randomized, double-blinded pilot clinical study, 12 patients with chronic stroke were assigned to receive anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (n = 6) or sham (n = 6) to the ipsilesional higher motor areas during constraint-induced movement therapy. We assessed functional and neurophysiologic outcomes before and after 5 weeks of therapy. Results Only patients receiving tDCS demonstrated gains in function and dexterity. Gains were accompanied by an increase in excitability of the contralesional rather than the ipsilesional hemisphere. Conclusions Our proof-of-concept study provides early evidence that stimulating higher motor areas can help recruit the contralesional hemisphere in an adaptive role in cases of greater ipsilesional injury. Whether this early evidence of promise translates to remarkable gains in functional recovery compared to existing approaches of stimulation remains to be confirmed in large-scale clinical studies that can reasonably dissociate stimulation of higher motor areas from that of the traditional primary motor cortices.

Background: Recruitment curves (RCs) acquired using transcranial magnetic stimulation are commonly used in stroke to study physiologic functioning of corticospinal tracts (CST) from M1. However, it is unclear whether CSTs from higher motor cortices contribute as well.Objective: To explore whether integrity of CST from higher motor areas, besides M1, relates to CST functioning captured using RCs.Methods: RCs were acquired for a paretic hand muscle in patients with chronic stroke. Metrics describing gain and overall output of CST were collected. CST integrity was defined by diffusion tensor imaging. For CST emerging from M1 and higher motor areas, integrity (fractional anisotropy) was evaluated in the region of the posterior limb of the internal capsule, the length of CST and in the region of the stroke lesion.Results: We found that output and gain of RC was related to integrity along the length of CST emerging from higher motor cortices but not the M1.Conclusions: Our results suggest that RC parameters in chronic stroke infer function primarily of CST descending from the higher motor areas but not M1. RCs may thus serve as a simple, in-expensive means to assess re-mapping of alternate areas that is generally studied with resource-intensive neuroimaging in stroke.

The pain matrix is comprised of an extensive network of brain structures involved in sensory and/or affective information processing. The thalamus is a key structure constituting the pain matrix. The thalamus serves as a relay center receiving information from multiple ascending pathways and relating information to and from multiple cortical areas. However, it is unknown how thalamocortical networks specific to sensory-affective information processing are functionally integrated. Here, in a proof-of-concept study in healthy humans, we aimed to understand this connectivity using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) targeting primary motor (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortices (DLPFC). We compared changes in functional connectivity (FC) with DLPFC tDCS to changes in FC with M1 tDCS. FC changes were also compared to further investigate its relation with individual's baseline experience of pain. We hypothesized that resting-state FC would change based on tDCS location and would represent known thalamocortical networks. Ten right-handed individuals received a single application of anodal tDCS (1 mA, 20 min) to right M1 and DLPFC in a single-blind, shamcontrolled crossover study. FC changes were studied between ventroposterolateral (VPL), the sensory nucleus of thalamus, and cortical areas involved in sensory information processing and between medial dorsal (MD), the affective nucleus, and cortical areas involved in affective information processing. Individual's perception of pain at baseline was assessed using cutaneous heat pain stimuli. We found that anodal M1 tDCS and anodal DLPFC tDCS both increased FC between VPL and sensorimotor cortices, although FC effects were greater with M1 tDCS. Similarly, anodal M1 tDCS and anodal DLPFC tDCS both increased FC between MD and motor cortices, but only DLPFC tDCS modulated FC between MD and affective cortices, like DLPFC. Our findings suggest that M1 stimulation primarily modulates FC of sensory networks, whereas DLPFC stimulation modulates FC of both sensory and affective networks. Our findings when replicated in a larger group of individuals could provide useful evidence that may inform future studies on pain to differentiate between effects of M1 and DLPFC stimulation. Notably, our finding that individuals with high baseline pain thresholds experience greater FC changes with DLPFC tDCS implies the role of DLPFC in pain modulation, particularly pain tolerance.

A great challenge facing stroke rehabilitation is the lack of information on how to derive targeted therapies. As such, techniques once considered promising, such as brain stimulation, have demonstrated mixed efficacy across heterogeneous samples in clinical studies. Here, we explain reasons, citing its one-type-suits-all approach as the primary cause of variable efficacy. We present evidence supporting the role of alternate substrates, which can be targeted instead in patients with greater damage and deficit. Building on this groundwork, this review will also discuss different frameworks on how to tailor brain stimulation therapies. To the best of our knowledge, our report is the first instance that enumerates and compares across theoretical models from upper limb recovery and conditions like aphasia and depression. Here, we explain how different models capture heterogeneity across patients and how they can be used to predict which patients would best respond to what treatments to develop targeted, individualized brain stimulation therapies. Our intent is to weigh pros and cons of testing each type of model so brain stimulation is successfully tailored to maximize upper limb recovery in stroke.