This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective To test the hypothesis that, in the context of robotic therapy designed to enhance proprioceptive feedback via a Hebbian model, integrity of both somatosensory and motor systems would be important in understanding interparticipant differences in treatment-related motor gains.
Methods In 30 patients with chronic stroke, behavioral performance, neural injury, and neural function were quantified for somatosensory and motor systems. Patients then received a 3-week robot-based therapy targeting finger movements with enhanced proprioceptive feedback.
Results Hand function improved after treatment (Box and Blocks score increase of 2.8 blocks, p = 0.001) but with substantial variability: 9 patients showed improvement exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (6 blocks), while 8 patients (all of whom had >2-SD greater proprioception deficit compared to 25 healthy controls) showed no improvement. In terms of baseline behavioral assessments, a somatosensory measure (finger proprioception assessed robotically) best predicted treatment gains, outperforming all measures of motor behavior. When the neural basis underlying variability in treatment response was examined, somatosensory-related variables were again the strongest predictors. A multivariate model combining total sensory system injury and sensorimotor cortical connectivity (between ipsilesional primary motor and secondary somatosensory cortices) explained 56% of variance in treatment-induced hand functional gains (p = 0.002).
Conclusions Measures related to the somatosensory network best explained interparticipant differences in treatment-related hand function gains. These results underscore the importance of baseline somatosensory integrity for improving hand function after stroke and provide insights useful for individualizing rehabilitation therapy.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02048826.
Glossary
- B&B=
- Box and Blocks;
- CST=
- corticospinal tract;
- FINGER=
- Finger Individuating Grasp Exercise Robot;
- MNI=
- Montreal Neurological Institute;
- ROI=
- region of interest;
- TST=
- thalamocortical spinal tract
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
- Received July 11, 2018.
- Accepted in final form October 31, 2018.
- © 2019 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
NOTE: All authors' disclosures must be entered and current in our database before comments can be posted. Enter and update disclosures at http://submit.neurology.org. Exception: replies to comments concerning an article you originally authored do not require updated disclosures.
- Stay timely. Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- 200 words maximum.
- 5 references maximum. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- 5 authors maximum. Exception: replies can include all original authors of the article.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.