Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Neural Plasticity
Volume 2018 (2018), Article ID 9867196, 8 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9867196
Research Article

Biomarkers of Rehabilitation Therapy Vary according to Stroke Severity

1Department of Anatomy & Neurobiology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
2Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
3Department of Physical Therapy, Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA
4Department of Exercise Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to Steven C. Cramer; ude.icu@remarcs

Received 1 September 2017; Revised 10 January 2018; Accepted 23 January 2018; Published 12 March 2018

Academic Editor: Malgorzata Kossut

Copyright © 2018 Erin Burke Quinlan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. S. C. Cramer, “Repairing the human brain after stroke. II. Restorative therapies,” Annals of Neurology, vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 549–560, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. S. C. Cramer, “Stratifying patients with stroke in trials that target brain repair,” Stroke, vol. 41, 10, Supplement 1, pp. S114–S116, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. S. Hakkennes, K. D. Hill, K. Brock, J. Bernhardt, and L. Churilov, “Selection for inpatient rehabilitation after severe stroke: what factors influence rehabilitation assessor decision-making?” Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 24–31, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. R. Katz, “Biomarkers and surrogate markers: an FDA perspective,” NeuroRx, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 189–195, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. T. Fleming and D. DeMets, “Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled?” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 125, no. 7, pp. 605–613, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  6. J. A. Hosp and A. R. Luft, “Cortical plasticity during motor learning and recovery after ischemic stroke,” Neural Plasticity, vol. 2011, Article ID 871296, 9 pages, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. W. D. Byblow, C. M. Stinear, P. A. Barber, M. A. Petoe, and S. J. Ackerley, “Proportional recovery after stroke depends on corticomotor integrity,” Annals of Neurology, vol. 78, no. 6, pp. 848–859, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. M. H. Milot and S. C. Cramer, “Biomarkers of recovery after stroke,” Current Opinion in Neurology, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 654–659, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. E. Burke and S. C. Cramer, “Biomarkers and predictors of restorative therapy effects after stroke,” Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, vol. 13, no. 2, p. 329, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. L. A. Boyd, K. S. Hayward, N. S. Ward et al., “Biomarkers of stroke recovery: consensus-based core recommendations from the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable,” International Journal of Stroke, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 480–493, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. T. Hodics, L. G. Cohen, and S. C. Cramer, “Functional imaging of intervention effects in stroke motor rehabilitation,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 87, no. 12, pp. 36–42, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. J. Scholz, M. C. Klein, T. E. J. Behrens, and H. Johansen-Berg, “Training induces changes in white-matter architecture,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 1370-1371, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. M. Taubert, B. Draganski, A. Anwander et al., “Dynamic properties of human brain structure: learning-related changes in cortical areas and associated fiber connections,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 30, no. 35, pp. 11670–11677, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. G. Ding, Q. Jiang, L. Li et al., “Longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging of sildenafil treatment of embolic stroke in aged rats,” Stroke, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 3537–3541, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. J. R. Carey, T. J. Kimberley, S. M. Lewis et al., “Analysis of fMRI and finger tracking training in subjects with chronic stroke,” Brain, vol. 125, no. 4, pp. 773–788, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. S. C. Cramer, T. B. Parrish, R. M. Levy et al., “Predicting functional gains in a stroke trial,” Stroke, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 2108–2114, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. B. Várkuti, C. Guan, Y. Pan et al., “Resting state changes in functional connectivity correlate with movement recovery for BCI and robot-assisted upper-extremity training after stroke,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 53–62, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. S. Bajaj, A. J. Butler, D. Drake, and M. Dhamala, “Brain effective connectivity during motor-imagery and execution following stroke and rehabilitation,” NeuroImage: Clinical, vol. 8, pp. 572–582, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. B. M. Young, Z. Nigogosyan, A. Remsik et al., “Changes in functional connectivity correlate with behavioral gains in stroke patients after therapy using a brain-computer interface device,” Frontiers in Neuroengineering, vol. 7, p. 25, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. C. Grefkes and G. R. Fink, “Connectivity-based approaches in stroke and recovery of function,” The Lancet Neurology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 206–216, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. L. V. Bradnam, C. M. Stinear, P. A. Barber, and W. D. Byblow, “Contralesional hemisphere control of the proximal paretic upper limb following stroke,” Cerebral Cortex, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 2662–2671, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. J. See, L. Dodakian, C. Chou et al., “A standardized approach to the Fugl-Meyer assessment and its implications for clinical trials,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 732–741, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. C. D. Takahashi, L. Der-Yeghiaian, V. Le, R. R. Motiwala, and S. C. Cramer, “Robot-based hand motor therapy after stroke,” Brain, vol. 131, no. 2, pp. 425–437, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. N. Yozbatiran, L. Der-Yeghiaian, and S. C. Cramer, “A standardized approach to performing the action research arm test,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 78–90, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. N. S. Ward, M. M. Brown, A. J. Thompson, and R. S. J. Frackowiak, “Neural correlates of outcome after stroke: a cross-sectional fMRI study,” Brain, vol. 126, no. 6, pp. 1430–1448, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. E. Burke Quinlan, L. Dodakian, J. See et al., “Neural function, injury, and stroke subtype predict treatment gains after stroke,” Annals of Neurology, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 132–145, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. E. Burke, L. Dodakian, J. See et al., “A multimodal approach to understanding motor impairment and disability after stroke,” Journal of Neurology, vol. 261, no. 6, pp. 1178–1186, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. J. X. O’Reilly, M. W. Woolrich, T. E. J. Behrens, S. M. Smith, and H. Johansen-Berg, “Tools of the trade: psychophysiological interactions and functional connectivity,” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 604–609, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. S. Saleh, S. V. Adamovich, and E. Tunik, “Resting state functional connectivity and task-related effective connectivity changes after upper extremity rehabilitation: a pilot study,” in 2012 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp. 4559–4562, San Diego, CA, USA, August-September 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. J. Kim and B. Horwitz, “Investigating the neural basis for fMRI-based functional connectivity in a blocked design: application to interregional correlations and psycho-physiological interactions,” Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 583–593, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. J. C. Stewart, X. Tran, and S. C. Cramer, “Age-related variability in performance of a motor action selection task is related to differences in brain function and structure among older adults,” NeuroImage, vol. 86, pp. 326–334, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. M. P. A. van Meer, K. van der Marel, K. Wang et al., “Recovery of sensorimotor function after experimental stroke correlates with restoration of resting-state interhemispheric functional connectivity,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 3964–3972, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. S. C. Cramer, R. Shah, J. Juranek, K. R. Crafton, and V. Le, “Activity in the peri-infarct rim in relation to recovery from stroke,” Stroke, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 111–115, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. E. J. Woytowicz, J. C. Rietschel, R. N. Goodman et al., “Determining levels of upper extremity movement impairment by applying a cluster analysis to the Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity in chronic stroke,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 456–462, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. A. R. Carter, K. R. Patel, S. V. Astafiev et al., “Upstream dysfunction of somatomotor functional connectivity after corticospinal damage in stroke,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 7–19, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. A. R. Carter, G. L. Shulman, and M. Corbetta, “Why use a connectivity-based approach to study stroke and recovery of function?” NeuroImage, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 2271–2280, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. A. R. Carter, S. V. Astafiev, C. E. Lang et al., “Resting interhemispheric functional magnetic resonance imaging connectivity predicts performance after stroke,” Annals of Neurology, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 365–375, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. F. Sergi, H. I. Krebs, B. Groissier et al., “Predicting efficacy of robot-aided rehabilitation in chronic stroke patients using an MRI-compatible robotic device,” in 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 7470–7473, Boston, MA, USA, August-September 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. P. W. Duncan, S. M. Lai, and J. Keighley, “Defining post-stroke recovery: implications for design and interpretation of drug trials,” Neuropharmacology, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 835–841, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. S. Bestmann, O. Swayne, F. Blankenburg et al., “The role of contralesional dorsal premotor cortex after stroke as studied with concurrent TMS-fMRI,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 30, no. 36, pp. 11926–11937, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. H. Johansen-Berg, M. F. S. Rushworth, M. D. Bogdanovic, U. Kischka, S. Wimalaratna, and P. M. Matthews, “The role of ipsilateral premotor cortex in hand movement after stroke,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 99, no. 22, pp. 14518–14523, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. E. A. Fridman, T. Hanakawa, M. Chung, F. Hummel, R. Leiguarda, and L. Cohen, “Reorganization of the human ipsilesional premotor cortex after stroke,” Brain, vol. 127, no. 4, pp. 747–758, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. S. M. Rao, J. R. Binder, P. A. Bandettini et al., “Functional magnetic resonance imaging of complex human movements,” Neurology, vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 2311–2318, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  44. N. Ward, M. Brown, A. Thompson, and R. Frackowiak, “Neural correlates of motor recovery after stroke: a longitudinal fMRI study,” Brain, vol. 126, no. 11, pp. 2476–2496, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. F. C. Hummel and L. G. Cohen, “Non-invasive brain stimulation: a new strategy to improve neurorehabilitation after stroke?” The Lancet Neurology, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 708–712, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. N. Murase, J. Duque, R. Mazzocchio, and L. G. Cohen, “Influence of interhemispheric interactions on motor function in chronic stroke,” Annals of Neurology, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 400–409, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus