Motor learning: Its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation

Current Opinion in Neurology

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 84-90

  Krakauer, John W ^a,b  

^a College of Physicians and Surgeons ^*  (United States)

^b NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Hemiparesis; Motor control; Motor learning; Reaching; Rehabilitation; Stroke recovery

Indexed keywords

ARM MOVEMENT; CONSTRAINT INDUCED THERAPY; DISEASE SEVERITY; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; HEMIPARESIS; HUMAN; MOTOR CONTROL; MOTOR DYSFUNCTION; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; NEUROMUSCULAR SYSTEM; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; ROBOTICS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STIMULATION; STROKE; THEORETICAL STUDY; TRAINING; VIRTUAL REALITY;

EID: 31644436786     PISSN: 13507540     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.wco.0000200544.29915.cc     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Carr JH, Shepherd RB, editors. Movement Science: Foundations for Physical Therapy in Rehabilitation. Rockville, MD: Aspen; 1987.
2. O'Dwyer NJ, Ada L, Neilson PD. Spasticity and muscle contracture following stroke. Brain 1996; 119:1737-1749.
3. Shadmehr R, Wise SP. The computational neurobiology of reaching and pointing: a foundation for motor learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2005. This is an outstanding detailed overview of the behavioral, physiological and computational foundations of motor learning. This book is strongly recommended to anyone who wishes to possess a more rigorous foundation for their work on rehabilitation.
4. Morasso P. Spatial control of arm movements. Exp. Brain Res 1981; 42:223-227.
5. Mussa-Ivaldi FA. Modular features of motor control and learning. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1999; 9:713-717.
6. Krakauer JW, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C. Independent learning of internal models for kinematic and dynamic control of reaching. Nat Neurosci 1999; 2:1026-1031.
7. Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA. Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J Neurosci 1994; 14 (5 Pt 2):3208-3224.
8. Conditt MA, Gandolfo F, Mussa-Ivaldi FA. The motor system does not learn the dynamics of the arm by rote memorization of past experience. J Neurophysiol 1997 Jul; 78:554-560.
9. Schmidt RA, Lee TD. Motor control and learning. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers; 1999.
10. Winstein C, Wing AM, Whitall J. Motor control and learning principles for rehabilitation of upper limb movements after brain injury. In: Grafman J, Robertson IH, editors. Handbook of neuropsychology, 2nd ed 2003.
11. Shea CH, Kohl RM. Composition of practice: Influence on the retention of motor skills. Res Q Exerc Sport 1991; 62:187-195.
12. Shea JB, Morgan JB. Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. J Exp Psychol: Hum Learn Mem 1979; 5:179-187.
13. Hanlon RE. Motor learning following unilateral stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77:811-815.
14. Page SJ, Gater DR, Bach YRP. Reconsidering the motor recovery plateau in stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85:1377-1381. This is a provocative and well argued commentary exhorting practitioners to reconsider the idea of the motor recovery plateau after stroke. The authors point out that there is substantial evidence that chronic (> 1 year) stroke patients can show considerable motor improvement after participation in novel rehabilitation techniques. They therefore suggest that the plateau may represent behavioral and neuromuscular adaptation and not a true limit of motor improvement. Varied exercise regimens based on motor learning principles might overcome this apparent plateau.
15. Carr JH, Shepherd RB. A motor learning model for rehabilitation. In: Carr JH, Shepherd RB, editors. Movement science: foundations for physical therapy in rehabilitation. Rockville, MD: Aspen; 1987. pp. 31-91.
16. Nudo RJ, Plautz EJ, Frost SB. Role of adaptive plasticity in recovery of function after damage to motor cortex. Muscle Nerve 2001; 24:1000-1019.
17. Winstein CJ, Merians AS, Sullivan KJ. Motor learning after unilateral brain damage. Neuropsychologia 1999; 37:975-987.
18. Takahashi CD, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Hemiparetic stroke impairs anticipatory control of arm movement. Exp Brain Res 2003; 149:131-140.
19. Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Lindeman E. Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: facts and theories. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2004; 22:281-299.
20. Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, van der Grond J, Prevo AJ. Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke 2003; 34:2181-2186.
21. Cramer SC, Chopp M. Recovery recapitulates ontogeny. Trends Neurosci 2000; 23:265-271.
22. Carmichael ST. Plasticity of cortical projections after stroke. Neuroscientist 2003; 9:64-75.
23. Kleim JA, Hogg TM, VandenBerg PM, et al. Cortical synaptogenesis and motor map reorganization occur during late, but not early, phase of motor skill learning. J Neurosci 2004; 24:628-633.
24. Plautz EJ, Milliken GW, Nudo RJ. Effects of repetitive motor training on movement representations in adult squirrel monkeys: role of use versus learning. Neurobiol Learn Mem 2000; 74:27-55.
25. Biernaskie J, Chernenko G, Corbett D. Efficacy of rehabilitative experience declines with time after focal ischemic brain injury. J Neurosci 2004; 24: 1245-1254.
26. Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, Wagenaar RC. Long term effects of intensity of upper and lower limb training after stroke: a randomised trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002; 72:473-479.
27. Jacobs KM, Donoghue JP. Reshaping the cortical motor map by unmasking latent intracortical connections. Science 1991; 251:944-950.
28. Nudo PJ, Milliken GW. Reorganization of movement representations in primary motor cortex following focal ischemic infarcts in adult squirrel monkeys. J Neurophysiol 1996; 75:2144-2149.
29. Nudo RJ, Wise BM, SiFuentes F, Milliken GW. Neural substrates for the effects of rehabilitative training on motor recovery after ischemic infarct. Science 1996; 272:1791-1794.
30. Metz GA, Antonow-Schlorke I, Otto WW. Motor improvements after focal cortical ischemia in adult rats are mediated by compensatory mechanisms. Behav. Brain Res 2005; 162:71-82. This paper is important for three reasons. First, the authors explicitly addressed the distinction between compensation and recovery. Second, they emphasized detailed behavioral analysis of impairment. Third, the reported results suggest that improvement after stroke is mediated by compensatory mechanisms that depend on the plastic properties of remaining intact tissue.
31. Biernaskie J, Szymanska A, Windle V, Corbett D. Bi-hemispheric contribution to functional motor recovery of the affected forelimb following focal ischemic brain injury in rats. Eur J Neurosci 2005; 21:989-999.
32. Duncan PW, Lai SM, Keighley J. Defining post-stroke recovery: implications for design and interpretation of drug trials. Neuropharmacology 2000; 39: 835-841.
33. Roby-Brami A, Feydy A, Combeaud M, et al. Motor compensation and recovery for reaching in stroke patients. Acta Neurol Scand 2003; 107:369-381.
34. Platz T, Winter T, Muller N, et al. Arm ability training for stroke and traumatic brain injury patients with mild arm paresis: a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82:961-968.
35. Platz T, Prass K, Denzler P, et al. Testing a motor performance series and a kinematic motion analysis as measures of performance in high-functioning stroke patients: reliability, validity, and responsiveness to therapeutic intervention. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80:270-277.
36. Mark VW, Taub E. Constraint-induced movement therapy for chronic stroke hemiparesis and other disabilities. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2004; 22:317-336.
37. Taub E, Miller NE, Novack TA, et al. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993; 74:347-354.
38. van der Lee JH, Wagenaar RC, Lankhorst GJ, et al. Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients: results from a single-blind randomized clinical trial. Stroke 1999; 30:2369-2375.
39. Dromerick AW, Edwards DF, Hahn M. Does the application of constraint-induced movement therapy during acute rehabilitation reduce arm impairment after ischemic stroke? Stroke 2000; 31:2984-2988.
40. van der Lee JH. Constraint-induced movement therapy: some thoughts about theories and evidence. J Rehabil Med 2003 (41 Suppl):41-45.
41. van der Lee JH. Constraint-induced therapy for stroke: more of the same or something completely different? Curr Opin Neurol 2001; 14: 741-744.
42. Sterr A, Freivogel S. Motor-improvement following intensive training in low-functioning chronic hemiparesis. Neurology 2003; 61:842-844.
43. Lindemann PG, Wright CE. Skill acquisition and plans for actions: Learning to write with your other hand. In: Sternberg S, Scarborough D, editors. Invitation to cognitive science: Methods, models, and conceptual issues. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1998. pp. 523-584.
44. Cauraugh J, Light K, Kim S, et al. Chronic motor dysfunction after stroke: recovering wrist and finger extension by electromyography-triggered neuromuscular stimulation. Stroke 2000; 31:1360-1364.
45. Pavlides C, Miyashita E, Asanuma H. Projection from the sensory to the motor cortex is important in learning motor skills in the monkey. J Neurophysiol 1993; 70:733-741.
46. Bolton DA, Cauraugh JH, Hausenblas HA. Electromyogram-triggered neuro-muscular stimulation and stroke motor recovery of arm/hand functions: a meta-analysis. J Neural Sci 2004; 223:121-127.
47. Hummelsheim H, Maier-Loth ML, Eickhof C. The functional value of electrical muscle stimulation for the rehabilitation of the hand in stroke patients. Scand J Rehabil Med 1997; 29:3-10.
48. Cauraugh JH, Kim SB. Stroke motor recovery: active neuromuscular stimulation and repetitive practice schedules. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003; 74:1562-1566.
49. Cauraugh JH. Coupled rehabilitation protocols and neural plasticity: upper extremity improvements in chronic hemiparesis. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2004; 22:337-347.
50. Krebs HI, Hogan N, Aisen ML, Volpe BT. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 1998; 6:75-87.
51. Volpe BT, Krebs HI, Hogan N, et al. A novel approach to stroke rehabilitation: robot-aided sensorimotor stimulation. Neurology 2000; 54:1938-1944.
52. Fasoli SE, Krebs HI, Stein J, et al. Effects of robotic therapy on motor impairment and recovery in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84:477-482.
53. Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC, et al. 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.
54. Patton JL, Mussa-Ivaldi FA. Robot-assisted adaptive training: custom force fields for teaching movement patterns. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2004; 51: 636-646.
55. Deutsch JE, Merians AS, Adamovich S, et al. Development and application of virtual reality technology to improve hand use and gait of individuals post-stroke. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2004; 22:371-386. An interesting review of VR as applied to stroke rehabilitation.
56. Holden MK. Virtual environments for motor rehabilitation: review. Cyberpsychol Behav 2005; 8:187-211; discussion 212-9. This is an excellent and thorough review of the motor learning principles underlying virtual reality and a summary of studies applying VR to rehabilitation of neurological disease.
57. Holden MK, Todorov E, Callahan J. Virtual environment training improves motor performance in two patients with stroke: case report. Neurology Report 1999; 23:57-67.
58. Adamovich SV, Merians AS, Boian R, et al. A virtual reality-based exercise system for hand rehabilitation post-stroke. 2nd International Workshop on Virtual Rehabilitation; September 2003; Piscataway, NJ.