Neuropsychological rehabilitation, neuroimaging and neuroplasticity: A clinical commentary

Abstract

Initial brain imaging studies on recovery of motor functioning after stroke suggested their potential prognostic value in neurorehabilitation. However, the value of brain imaging in documenting brain changes associated with cognitive and behavioral treatment effects seem less likely. Also, neuroimaging studies at that time seem to have little, if any, value for treatment planning. Advances in neuroimaging technology are beginning to challenge these initial impressions. In this clinical commentary, we propose that advances in the field of neuroimaging have relevance for the future development of neuropsychological rehabilitation. Neuropsychological rehabilitation is entering a new era which involves collaboration with neuroimaging and associated studies on neuroplasticity. We recognize that this may seem “aspirational” rather than practical in most rehabilitation settings. However, we provide examples of how this can be achieved as illustrated by collaborative efforts of clinicians and scientists in the SARAH Network of Rehabilitation Hospitals in Brazil. We also review selective papers on neuroplasticity, spontaneous recovery and diaschisis that have relevance for research which will expand and further develop the field of neuropsychological rehabilitation.

Effects of Rehabilitation Robot Training on Physical Function, Functional Recovery, and Daily Living Activities in Patients with Sub-Acute Stroke

“…It aims to promote patient independence and restore functional impairments [8]. Neuroplasticity is defined as the ability of the nervous system to reorganize its structure, function, and connections in response to internal and external stimuli [9]. The rehabilitation of stroke patients aims to promote neuroplasticity through exercise-based therapies such as constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) [10] and task-oriented exercises [10], as well as robot-assisted rehabilitation [11], functional electrical stimulation [12], core stabilization exercises [13], MOTOmed training [14], task-specific circuit training [15], and cognitive and motor dual-task gait training [16].…”

Bridging the Gap between Basic Research and Clinical Practice: The Growing Role of Translational Neurorehabilitation

“…In this vein, the lessons learned from basic research allowed a great enrichment for neurorehabilitation practice, especially through the implementation of technological tools and systems, such as robotics and virtual reality, which are nowadays known to boost neuroplasticity [ 7 , 8 ]. Neuroplastic phenomena can be monitored through advanced neuroimaging techniques, such as non-invasive diagnostic procedures, during the neurorehabilitation path, since they are not only instruments to “describe” brain damage [ 9 ]. The combination of clinical markers and the application of multimodal neuroimaging techniques are paving the way to a new frontier in the therapeutic approach for neurological patients, also using nano agents as nanoprobes [ 10 , 11 , 12 ].…”

Psychological Care of Persons with Parkinson’s disease: Neuropsychological and Jungian Perspectives

“…Neuropsychological rehabilitation includes a broad array of interventions aimed at recovery and/or compensation of the disturbances in higher integrative brain functions that are directly or indirectly associated with underlying brain dysfunction (Prigatano, 2002). While the field of neuropsychological rehabilitation is entering a new era in which objective evidence of changes in brain structure or functioning can be documented and correlated with changes in higher integrative neuropsychological functions (Prigatano, Braga, Johnson, & Souza, 2021), efforts at helping the person psychologically adjust to their limitations have remained a key feature of this form of care (Prigatano, 1999;Ben-Yishay & Diller, 2011). The psychological adjustment process often includes helping the person re-establish a meaningful life from their perspective.…”