Understanding of interhemispheric interactions in stroke patients during motor control is an important clinical neuroscience quest that may provide important clues for neurorehabilitation. In stroke patients, bilateral overactivation in both hemispheres has been interpreted as a poor prognostic indicator of functional recovery. In contrast, ipsilesional patterns have been linked with better motor outcomes.
Aim
We investigated the pathophysiology of hemispheric interactions during limb movement without and with contralateral restraint, to mimic the effects of constraint-induced movement therapy. We used neuroimaging to probe brain activity with such a movement-dependent interhemispheric modulation paradigm.
Methods
We used an fMRI block design during which the plegic/paretic upper limb was recruited/mobilized to perform unilateral arm elevation, as a function of presence versus absence of contralateral limb restriction (n = 20, with balanced left/right lesion sites).
Results
Analysis of 10 right-hemispheric stroke participants yielded bilateral sensorimotor cortex activation in all movement phases in contrast with the unilateral dominance seen in the 10 left-hemispheric stroke participants. Superimposition of contralateral restriction led to a prominent shift from activation to deactivation response patterns, in particular in cortical and basal ganglia motor areas in right-hemispheric stroke. Left-hemispheric stroke was in general characterized by reduced activation patterns, even in the absence of restriction, which induced additional cortical silencing.
Conclusion
The observed hemispheric-dependent activation/deactivation shifts are novel and these pathophysiological observations suggest short-term neuroplasticity that may be useful for hemisphere-tailored neurorehabilitation.
DuncanPWZorowitzRBatesBChoiJYGlasbergJJGrahamGD. Management of adult stroke rehabilitation care: a clinical practice guideline. Stroke2005; 36: e100–e143.
2.
KwakkelGKollenBJvan der GrondJPrevoAJ. Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke2003; 34: 2181–2186.
3.
FeiginVLForouzanfarMHKrishnamurthiRMensahGAConnorMBennettDA. Global and regional burden of stroke during 1990–2010: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet2014; 383: 245–254.
4.
GoASMozaffarianDRogerVLBenjaminEJBerryJDBlahaMJ. Executive summary: heart disease and stroke statistics—2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation2014; 129: 399–410.
5.
LacklandDTRoccellaEJDeutschAFFornageMGeorgeMGHowardG. Factors influencing the decline in stroke mortality: a statement from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke2014; 45: 315–353.
6.
GomesARinehartNGreenhamMAndersonV. A critical review of psychosocial outcomes following childhood stroke (1995–2012). Dev Neuropsychol2014; 39: 9–24.
7.
CraigLEWuOBernhardtJLanghorneP. Approaches to economic evaluations of stroke rehabilitation. Int J Stroke2014; 9: 88–100.
8.
MaVYChanLCarruthersKJ. The incidence, prevalence, costs and impact on disability of common conditions requiring rehabilitation in the US: stroke, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, limb loss, and back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2014; 95: 986–995.
9.
Pascual-LeoneAAmediAFregniFMerabetLB. The plastic human brain cortex. Annu Rev Neurosci2005; 28: 377–401.
10.
TakeuchiNIzumiS. Maladaptive plasticity for motor recovery after stroke: mechanisms and approaches. Neural Plast2012; 2012: 359728.
11.
FavreIZeffiroTADetanteOKrainikAHommelMJaillardA. Upper limb recovery after stroke is associated with ipsilesional primary motor cortical activity: a meta-analysis. Stroke2014; 45: 1077–1083.
12.
RehmeAKGrefkesC. Cerebral network disorders after stroke: evidence from imaging-based connectivity analyses of active and resting brain states in humans. J Physiol2013; 591(Pt 1): 17–31.
13.
GrefkesCFinkGR. Connectivity-based approaches in stroke and recovery of function. Lancet Neurol2014; 13: 206–216.
14.
MichaelsenSMDannenbaumRLevinMF. Task-specific training with trunk restraint on arm recovery in stroke: randomized control trial. Stroke2006; 37: 186–192.
VeerbeekJMvan WegenEvan PeppenRvan der WeesPJHendriksERietbergM. What is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One2014; 9: e87987.
17.
MurayamaTNumataKKawakamiTTosakaTOgaMOkaN. Changes in the brain activation balance in motor-related areas after constraint-induced movement therapy; a longitudinal fMRI study. Brain Inj2011; 25: 1047–1057.
18.
WittenbergGFSchaechterJD. The neural basis of constraint-induced movement therapy. Curr Opin Neurol2009; 22: 582–588.
19.
HindleKBWhitcombTJBriggsWOHongJ. Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF): its mechanisms and effects on range of motion and muscular function. J Hum Kinet2012; 31: 105–113.
20.
LevinMFPanturinE. Sensorimotor integration for functional recovery and the Bobath approach. Motor Control2011; 15: 285–301.
21.
StefanovicBWarnkingJMPikeGB. Hemodynamic and metabolic responses to neuronal inhibition. Neuroimage2004; 22: 771–778.
22.
NirkkoACOzdobaCRedmondSMBurkiMSchrothGHessCW. Different ipsilateral representations for distal and proximal movements in the sensorimotor cortex: activation and deactivation patterns. Neuroimage2001; 13: 825–835.
23.
HayesDJHuxtableAG. Interpreting deactivations in neuroimaging. Front Psychol2012; 3: 27.
24.
AllisonJDMeadorKJLoringDWFigueroaREWrightJC. Functional MRI cerebral activation and deactivation during finger movement. Neurology2000; 54: 135–142.
25.
GrefkesCEickhoffSBNowakDADafotakisMFinkGR. Dynamic intra- and interhemispheric interactions during unilateral and bilateral hand movements assessed with fMRI and DCM. Neuroimage2008; 41: 1382–1394.
26.
Vidal AC, Banca P, Pascoal AG, Cordeiro G, Sargento-Freitas J and Castelo-Branco M. Modulation of cortical interhemispheric interactions by motor facilitation or restraint. Neural Plast 2014; 2014.
27.
OldfieldRC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia1971; 9: 97–113.
28.
SimsJRGharaiLRSchaeferPWVangelMRosenthalESLevMH. ABC/2 for rapid clinical estimate of infarct, perfusion, and mismatch volumes. Neurology2009; 72: 2104–2110.
29.
KunstMMSchaeferPW. Ischemic stroke. Radiol Clin North Am2011; 49: 1–26.
30.
BrooksDJ. The role of the basal ganglia in motor control: contributions from PET. J Neurol Sci1995; 128: 1–13.
31.
ManiSMuthaPKPrzybylaAHaalandKYGoodDCSainburgRL. Contralesional motor deficits after unilateral stroke reflect hemisphere-specific control mechanisms. Brain2013; 136: 1288–1303.
32.
NowakDAGrefkesCAmeliMFinkGR. Interhemispheric competition after stroke: brain stimulation to enhance recovery of function of the affected hand. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2009; 23: 641–656.
33.
NudoRJ. Plasticity. NeuroRx2006; 3: 420–427.
34.
NudoRJPlautzEJFrostSB. Role of adaptive plasticity in recovery of function after damage to motor cortex. Muscle Nerve2001; 24: 1000–1019.
35.
AllredRPCappelliniCHJonesTA. The “good” limb makes the “bad” limb worse: experience-dependent interhemispheric disruption of functional outcome after cortical infarcts in rats. Behav Neurosci2010; 124: 124–132.
36.
TakeuchiNOouchidaYIzumiS. Motor control and neural plasticity through interhemispheric interactions. Neural Plast2012; 2012: 823285.
37.
FregniFBoggioPSMansurCGWagnerTFerreiraMJLimaMC. Transcranial direct current stimulation of the unaffected hemisphere in stroke patients. Neuroreport2005; 16: 1551–1555.
38.
RieckerAGroschelKAckermannHSchnaudigelSKassubekJKastrupA. The role of the unaffected hemisphere in motor recovery after stroke. Hum Brain Mapp2010; 31: 1017–1029.
39.
RehmeAKFinkGRvon CramonDYGrefkesC. The role of the contralesional motor cortex for motor recovery in the early days after stroke assessed with longitudinal FMRI. Cereb Cortex2011; 21: 756–768.
40.
CirsteaMCLevinMF. Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain2000; 123: 940–953.
41.
TakeuchiNIzumiS. Rehabilitation with poststroke motor recovery: a review with a focus on neural plasticity. Stroke Res Treat2013; 2013: 128641.
42.
KerrALWolkeMLBellJAJonesTA. Post-stroke protection from maladaptive effects of learning with the non-paretic forelimb by bimanual home cage experience in C57BL/6 mice. Behav Brain Res2013; 252: 180–187.
43.
KapurN. Paradoxical functional facilitation in brain-behaviour research. A critical review. Brain1996; 119: 1775–1790.
