2004
DOI: 10.1177/0888439004265113
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Changes in Serial Optical Topography and TMS during Task Performance after Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy in Stroke: A Case Study

Abstract: The authors examined serial changes in optical topography in a stroke patient performing a functional task, as well as clinical and physiologic measures while undergoing constraint-induced

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
26
0
2

Year Published

2006
2006
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
(91 reference statements)
2
26
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…An increase in M1 excitability at posttraining measures has been shown also and consistently in TMS studies using much shorter training periods (one training session lasting several minutes up to 1 h) (Garry et al 2004;Hayashi et al 2002;Muellbacher et al 2001). Recent studies have been carried out to evaluate diverse motor trainings (mainly constraint-induced-therapy approaches) in stroke patients by means of TMS, and Wrst results also suggest increased TMS motor map areas in the contralateral motor cortex following treatment, indicating increased excitability Park et al 2004). We assume that the increased corticospinal excitability which accompanied motor training in the present study is a necessary prerequisite for inducing plastic changes within the motor cortex-a condition that is present beyond the actual motor performance.…”
Section: Training-related Increase Of Corticospinal Excitabilitymentioning
confidence: 70%
“…An increase in M1 excitability at posttraining measures has been shown also and consistently in TMS studies using much shorter training periods (one training session lasting several minutes up to 1 h) (Garry et al 2004;Hayashi et al 2002;Muellbacher et al 2001). Recent studies have been carried out to evaluate diverse motor trainings (mainly constraint-induced-therapy approaches) in stroke patients by means of TMS, and Wrst results also suggest increased TMS motor map areas in the contralateral motor cortex following treatment, indicating increased excitability Park et al 2004). We assume that the increased corticospinal excitability which accompanied motor training in the present study is a necessary prerequisite for inducing plastic changes within the motor cortex-a condition that is present beyond the actual motor performance.…”
Section: Training-related Increase Of Corticospinal Excitabilitymentioning
confidence: 70%
“…Our literature search identified 28 relevant training studies that quantified neural plasticity changes for further analysis to determine if inclusion in this meta-analysis was appropriate (Brouwer & Ambury, 1994;Carey et al, 2002;Cramer, 2004;Cramer et al, 1999;Cramer et al, 1997;Foltys et al, 2003;Jang et al, 2003;Jang et al, 2005;Könönen et al, 2005;Koski et al, 2004;Levy et al, 2001;Liepert, Bauder et al, 2000;Liepert, Graef et al, 2000;Liepert et al, 2001;Lindberg et al, 2004;Luft et al, 2004;Muellbacher et al, 2002;Nelles, 2004;Nelles et al, 2001;Newton et al, 2002;Park et al, 2004;Platz et al, 2005;Schaechter et al, 2002;Seitz et al, 2004;Sonde et al, 2001;Stinear & Byblow, 2004;Wittenberg et al, 2003). For meta-analysis inclusion, each article was originally examined for changes in neural representation measured in four areas of interest: (1) primary motor cortex (M1), (2) supplementary motor area, (3) dorsal premotor area, and (4) cingulate area.…”
Section: Subjects: Study Selection and Inclusion/exclusion Criteriamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the above stated criteria and consistent with meta-analysis techniques, 15 studies (Brouwer & Ambury, 1994;Cramer, 2004;Cramer et al, 1999;Cramer et al, 1997;Foltys et al, 2003;Levy et al, 2001;Liepert, Graef et al, 2000;Lindberg et al, 2004;Nelles, 2004;Newton et al, 2002;Park et al, 2004;Seitz et al, 2004;Sonde et al, 2001;Wittenberg et al, 2003) were excluded from the initial list of articles because 10 were not designed as rehabilitation studies (Brouwer & Ambury, 1994;Cramer, 2004;Cramer et al, 1999;Cramer et al, 1997;Foltys et al, 2003;Liepert, Graef et al, 2000;Nelles, 2004;Newton et al, 2002;Seitz et al, 2004;Sonde et al, 2001), four articles used unique analyses and data displays that made it impossible to calculate standardized effect sizes Levy et al, 2001;Lindberg et al, 2004;Wittenberg et al, 2003), and one was a case study (Park et al, 2004). The 13 remaining studies (Carey et al, 2002;Jang et al, 2003;Jang et al, 2005;Könönen et al, 2005;Koski et al, 2004;Liepert, Bauder et al, 2000;Liepert et al, 2001;Luft et al, 2004;Muellbacher et al, 2002;Nelles et al, 2001;…”
Section: Subjects: Study Selection and Inclusion/exclusion Criteriamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has gained considerable acceptance as a method to non-invasively study adaptive changes in motor cortex as a consequence of repeated practice or learning in able-bodied individuals (e.g., Tinazzi and Zanette 1998) and as a consequence of injury in individuals who have suffered strokes, limb amputation and spinal cord injury (e.g., Turton et al 1996;Liepert et al 1998;Capaday et al 2000;Park et al 2004). For example, effects of some rehabilitation techniques following brain injury have been evaluated by estimating the motor cortical area that is responsive to suprathreshold stimulation of a muscle of interest (e.g., Liepert et al 1998).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%