Top

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

Topographical measures of functional connectivity as biomarkers for post-stroke motor recovery

Authors: Gavin R. Philips, Janis J. Daly, José C. Príncipe

Published in: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation | Issue 1/2017

Abstract

Background

Biomarkers derived from neural activity of the brain present a vital tool for the prediction and evaluation of post-stroke motor recovery, as well as for real-time biofeedback opportunities.

Methods

In order to encapsulate recovery-related reorganization of brain networks into such biomarkers, we have utilized the generalized measure of association (GMA) and graph analyses, which include global and local efficiency, as well as hemispheric interdensity and intradensity. These methods were applied to electroencephalogram (EEG) data recorded during a study of 30 stroke survivors (21 male, mean age 57.9 years, mean stroke duration 22.4 months) undergoing 12 weeks of intensive therapeutic intervention.

Results

We observed that decreases of the intradensity of the unaffected hemisphere are correlated (r _s=−0.46;p<0.05) with functional recovery, as measured by the upper-extremity portion of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMUE). In addition, high initial values of local efficiency predict greater improvement in FMUE (R ²=0.16;p<0.05). In a subset of 17 subjects possessing lesions of the cerebral cortex, reductions of global and local efficiency, as well as the intradensity of the unaffected hemisphere are found to be associated with functional improvement (r _s=−0.60,−0.66,−0.75;p<0.05). Within the same subgroup, high initial values of global and local efficiency, are predictive of improved recovery (R ²=0.24,0.25;p<0.05). All significant findings were specific to the 12.5–25 Hz band.

Conclusions

These topological measures show promise for prognosis and evaluation of therapeutic outcomes, as well as potential application to BCI-enabled biofeedback.

Daly JJ, Sitaram R. Brain-Computer Interfaces Princ. Pract In: Wolpaw JR, Wolpaw EW, editors. New York: Oxford University Press: 2012. p. 351–62.

Nudo RJ, McNeal D. Neurol. Rehabil. Handb. Clin. Neurol In: Barnes MP, Good DC, editors. Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V.: 2013. p. 13–21.

Buma F, Kwakkel G, Ramsey N. Understanding upper limb recovery after stroke. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2013; 31(6):707–22. doi:10.3233/RNN-130332.

Grefkes C, Fink GR. Reorganization of cerebral networks after stroke: new insights from neuroimaging with connectivity approaches. Brain. 2011; 134(Pt 5):1264–76. doi:10.1093/brain/awr033.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Johansen-Berg H, Dawes H, Guy C. Correlation between motor improvements and altered fMRI activity after rehabilitative therapy. Brain. 2002; 125:2731–42.CrossRefPubMed

McCabe J, Monkiewicz M, Holcomb J, Pundik S, Daly JJ. Comparison of robotics, functional electrical stimulation, and motor learning methods for treatment of persistent upper extremity dysfunction after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015; 96(6):981–90. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2014.10.022.CrossRefPubMed

Young BM, Nigogosyan Z, Walton LM, Song J, Nair V. a, Grogan SW, Tyler ME, Edwards DF, Caldera K, Sattin J. a, Williams JC, Prabhakaran V. Changes in functional brain organization and behavioral correlations after rehabilitative therapy using a brain-computer interface. Front Neuroeng. 2014; 7:26. doi:10.3389/fneng.2014.00026.PubMedPubMedCentral

Daly JJ, Wolpaw JR. Brain-computer interfaces in neurological rehabilitation. Lancet. 2008; 7(11):1032–1043. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70223-0.CrossRefPubMed

Ang KK, Guan C, Chua KSG, Ang BT, Kuah C, Wang C, Phua KS, Chin ZY, Zhang H. Clinical study of neurorehabilitation in stroke using EEG-based motor imagery brain-computer interface with robotic feedback. In: Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. (EMBC), 2010 32nd Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE: 2010. p. 5549–52. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5626782.

10.

Ang KK, Chua KSG, Phua KS, Wang C, Chin ZY, Kuah CWK, Low W, Guan C. A randomized controlled trial of EEG-based motor imagery brain-computer interface robotic rehabilitation for stroke,. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2014; 46(4):310–20. doi:10.1177/1550059414522229.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Daly JJ, Cheng R, Hrovat K, Rogers JM, Litinas K, Dohring ME. Development and testing of non-invasive BCI+ FES/robot system for use in motor re-learning after stroke. In: Proc. 13th Annu. Conf. Int. Funct. Electr. Stimul. Soc. Freiburg: IFESS: 2008. p. 200–2.

12.

Daly JJ, Cheng R, Rogers J, Litinas K, Hrovat K, Dohring M. Feasibility of a new application of noninvasive Brain Computer Interface (BCI): a case study of training for recovery of volitional motor control after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2009; 33(4)(4):203–11. doi:10.1097/NPT.0b013e3181c1fc0b.CrossRef

13.

Daly JJ, Huggins JE. Brain-computer interface: current and emerging rehabilitation applications. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015; 96(3):1–7. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2015.01.007.CrossRef

14.

Hortal E, Planelles D, Resquin F, Climent JM, Azorin JM, Pons JL. Using a brain-machine interface to control a hybrid upper limb exoskeleton during rehabilitation of patients with neurological conditions. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015; 12:92. doi:10.1186/s12984-015-0082-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Pichiorri F, Morone G, Petti M, Toppi J, Pisotta I, Molinari M, Paolucci S, Inghilleri M, Astolfi L, Cincotti F, Mattia D. Brain-computer interface boosts motor imagery practice during stroke recovery. Ann Neurol. 2015; 77(5):851–65. doi:10.1002/ana.24390.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Prasad G, Herman P, Coyle D, McDonough S, Crosbie J. Applying a brain-computer interface to support motor imagery practice in people with stroke for upper limb recovery: a feasibility study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2010; 7(1):60. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-7-60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Scherer R, Mohapp A. Sensorimotor EEG patterns during motor imagery in hemiparetic stroke patients. Int. J Bioelectromagn. 2007; 9(3):155–62.

18.

Sharma N, Pomeroy VM, Baron JC. Motor imagery: a backdoor to the motor system after stroke?. Stroke. 2006; 37(7):1941–52. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000226902.43357.fc.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Silvoni S, Ramos-Murguialday A, Cavinato M, Volpato C, Cisotto G, Turolla A, Piccione F, Birbaumer N. Brain-computer interface in stroke: a review of progress. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2011; 42(4):245–52. doi:10.1177/155005941104200410.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Teo WP, Chew E. Is motor-imagery brain-computer interface feasible in stroke rehabilitation?. PM R. 2014; 6(8):723–8. doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.01.006.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Tung SW, Guan C, Ang KK, Phua KS, Wang C, Zhao L, Teo WP, Chew E. Motor imagery BCI for upper limb stroke rehabilitation: An evaluation of the EEG recordings using coherence analysis. In: Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. (EMBC), 2013 35th Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE. Osaka: IEEE: 2013. p. 261–4. doi:10.1109/EMBC.2013.6609487.

22.

Várkuti B, Guan C, Pan Y, Phua KS, Ang KK, Kuah CWK, Chua K, Ang BT, Birbaumer N, Sitaram R. Resting state changes in functional connectivity correlate with movement recovery for BCI and robot-assisted upper-extremity training after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013; 27(1):53–62. doi:10.1177/1545968312445910.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Mazzoleni S, Coscia M, Rossi G, Aliboni S, Posteraro F, Carrozza MC. Effects of an upper limb robot-mediated therapy on paretic upper limb in chronic hemiparetic subjects: A biomechanical and EEG-based approach for functional assessment. In: 2009 IEEE Int. Conf. Rehabil. Robot. ICORR 2009. Kyoto: IEEE: 2009. p. 92–7. doi:10.1109/ICORR.2009.5209579.

24.

Strens LHA, Asselman P, Pogosyan A, Loukas C, Thompson AJ, Brown P. Corticocortical coupling in chronic stroke: its relevance to recovery. Neurology. 2004; 63(3):475–84.CrossRefPubMed

25.

van Putten MJAM, Tavy DLJ. Continuous quantitative EEG monitoring in hemispheric stroke patients using the brain symmetry index. Stroke. 2004; 35(11):2489–92. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000144649.49861.1d.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Wu J, Srinivasan R, Quinlan EB, Solodkin A, Small SL, Cramer SC. Utility of EEG measures of brain function in patients with acute stroke. J Neurophysiol. 2016; 115:2399–405. doi:10.1152/jn.00978.2015.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Cheng L, Wu Z, Sun J, Fu Y, Wang X, Yang GY, Miao F, Tong S. Reorganization of motor execution networks during sub-acute phase after stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2015; 23(4):713–23. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2015.2401978.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Kopp B, Kunkel A, Mühlnickel W, Villringer K, Taub E, Flor H. Plasticity in the motor system related to therapy-induced improvement of movement after stroke. Technical Report 4, Department of Psychology, Humboldt University, Clinical Psychology and Behavioral Neuroscience, Berlin, Germany. 1999.

29.

Finnigan SP, Rose SE, Walsh M, Griffin M, Janke AL, McMahon KL, Gillies R, Strudwick MW, Pettigrew CM, Semple J, Brown J, Brown P, Chalk JB. Correlation of quantitative EEG in acute ischemic stroke with 30-day NIHSS score: comparison with diffusion and perfusion MRI. Stroke. 2004; 35(4):899–903. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000122622.73916.d2.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Leamy DJ, Kocijan J, Domijan K, Duffin J, Roche RA, Commins S, Collins R, Ward TE. An exploration of EEG features during recovery following stroke - implications for BCI-mediated neurorehabilitation therapy. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014; 11(9). doi:10.1186/1743-0003-11-9.

31.

Sale P, Infarinato F, Del Percio C, Lizio R, Babiloni C, Foti C, Franceschini M. Electroencephalographic markers of robot-aided therapy in stroke patients for the evaluation of upper limb rehabilitation. Int J Rehabil Res. 2015; 38(4):294–305. doi:10.1097/MRR.0000000000000125.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Carter AR, Shulman GL, Corbetta M. Why use a connectivity-based approach to study stroke and recovery of function?. Neuroimage. 2012; 62(4):2271–80. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.070.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Faith A, Chen Y, Rikakis T, Iasemidis L. Interactive rehabilitation and dynamical analysis of scalp EEG. In: Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. (EMBC), 2011 33rd Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE. Boston: IEEE: 2011. p. 1387–90. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2011.6090326.

34.

Sakkalis V. Review of advanced techniques for the estimation of brain connectivity measured with EEG/MEG. Comput Biol Med. 2011; 41(12):1110–7. doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2011.06.020.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Stam CJ, van Straaten ECW. The organization of physiological brain networks. Clin Neurophysiol. 2012; 123(6):1067–87. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2012.01.011.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Varela F, Lachaux JP, Rodriguez E, Martinerie J. The brainweb: phase synchronization and large-scale integration. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001; 2(4):229–39. doi:10.1038/35067550.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Wang L, Yu C, Chen H, Qin W, He Y, Fan F, Zhang Y, Wang M, Li K, Zang Y, Woodward TS, Zhu C. Dynamic functional reorganization of the motor execution network after stroke. Brain. 2010; 133(4):1224–38. doi:10.1093/brain/awq043.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Kitago T, Marshall RS. Strategies for early stroke recovery: what lies ahead?. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2015; 17(1):356. doi:10.1007/s11936-014-0356-8.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Carrera E, Tononi G. Diaschisis: Past, present, future. Brain. 2014; 137(9):2408–22. doi:10.1093/brain/awu101.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Achard S, Bullmore E. Efficiency and cost of economical brain functional networks. PLoS Comput Biol. 2007; 3(2):0174–83. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030017.CrossRef

41.

Bartolomei F, Bosma I, Klein M, Baayen JC, Reijneveld JC, Postma TJ, Heimans JJ, van Dijk BW, de Munck JC, de Jongh A, Cover KS, Stam CJ. Disturbed functional connectivity in brain tumour patients: evaluation by graph analysis of synchronization matrices. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006; 117(9):2039–49. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2006.05.018.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Bullmore E, Sporns O. Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009; 10(3):186–98. doi:10.1038/nrn2575.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Cohen MX. Analyzing Neural Time Series Data. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2014.

44.

De Vico Fallani F, Latora V, Astolfi L, Cincotti F, Mattia D, Marciani MG, Salinari S, Colosimo A, Babiloni F. Persistent patterns of interconnection in time-varying cortical networks estimated from high-resolution EEG recordings in humans during a simple motor act. J Phys A Math Theor. 2008; 41(22):224014. doi:10.1088/1751-8113/41/22/224014.CrossRef

45.

De Vico Fallani F, Astolfi L, Cincotti F, Mattia D, la Rocca D, Maksuti E, Salinari S, Babiloni F, Vegso B, Kozmann G, Nagy Z. Evaluation of the brain network organization from EEG signals: a preliminary evidence in stroke patient. Anat Rec. 2009; 292(12):2023–31. doi:10.1002/ar.20965.CrossRef

46.

De Vico Fallani F, Pichiorri F, Morone G, Molinari M, Babiloni F, Cincotti F, Mattia D. Multiscale topological properties of functional brain networks during motor imagery after stroke. Neuroimage. 2013; 83:438–49. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.06.039.CrossRefPubMed

47.

De Vico Fallani F, Richiardi J, Chavez M, Achard S. Graph analysis of functional brain networks: practical issues in translational neuroscience. Phil Trans R. Soc B Biol Sci. 2014; 369(1653). doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0521.

48.

Eguíluz VM, Chialvo DR, Cecchi G. a, Baliki M, Apkarian AV. Scale-free brain functional networks. Phys Rev Lett. 2005; 94(1):018102. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.018102.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Fadlallah BH, Keil A, Principe JC. Functional dependence in the human brain: A graph theoretical analysis. In: Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. (EMBC), 2013 35th Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE. Osaka: IEEE: 2013. p. 2948–51. doi:10.1109/EMBC.2013.6610158.

50.

He Y, Evans A. Graph theoretical modeling of brain connectivity. Curr Opin Neurol. 2010; 23(4):341–50. doi:10.1097/WCO.0b013e32833aa567.PubMed

51.

Micheloyannis S, Pachou E, Stam CJ, Vourkas M, Erimaki S, Tsirka V. Using graph theoretical analysis of multi channel EEG to evaluate the neural efficiency hypothesis. Neurosci Lett. 2006; 402(3):273–7. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2006.04.006.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Rubinov M, Sporns O. Complex network measures of brain connectivity: Uses and interpretations. Neuroimage. 2010; 52(3):1059–69. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.003.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Salvador R, Suckling J, Coleman MR, Pickard JD, Menon D, Bullmore E. Neurophysiological architecture of functional magnetic resonance images of human brain. Cereb Cortex. 2005; 15(9):1332–42. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhi016.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Stam CJ. Functional connectivity patterns of human magnetoencephalographic recordings: a ‘small-world’ network?. Neurosci Lett. 2004; 355(1-2):25–8. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2003.10.063.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Seth S, Brockmeier A. Evaluating dependence in spike train metric spaces. In: Neural Networks (IJCNN), 2011 Int. Jt. Conf. San Jose: IEEE: 2011. p. 2645–52. doi:10.1109/IJCNN.2011.6033564.

56.

Fadlallah B, Seth S, Keil A, Principe J. Quantifying cognitive state from EEG using dependence measures. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2012; 59(10):2773–81.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Hazrati MK, Miskovic V, Príncipe JC, Keil A. Functional connectivity in frequency-tagged cortical networks during active harm avoidance. Brain Connect. 2015; 5(5):292–302. doi:10.1089/brain.2014.0307.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Daly JJ, Ruff RL. Construction of efficacious gait and upper limb functional interventions based on brain plasticity evidence and model-based measures for stroke patients. ScientificWorldJournal. 2007; 7:2031–45. doi:10.1100/tsw.2007.299.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Fang Y, Daly J, Sun J, Hvorat K, Fredrickson E, Pundik S, Sahgal V, Yue G. Functional corticomuscular connection during reaching is weakened following stroke. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009; 120(5):994–1002. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2009.02.173.Functional.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

60.

Gladstone DJ, Danells CJ, Black SE. The Fugl-Meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002; 16(3):232–40. doi:10.1177/154596802401105171.CrossRefPubMed

61.

Page SJ, Fulk GD, Boyne P. Clinically important differences for the upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer scale in people with minimal to moderate impairment due to chronic stroke. Phys Ther. 2012; 92(6):791–8. doi:10.2522/ptj.20110009.CrossRefPubMed

62.

Bastos AM, Schoffelen J-M. A tutorial review of functional connectivity analysis methods and their interpretational pitfalls. Front Syst Neurosci. 2016; 9:1–23. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2015.00175.CrossRef

63.

Schoffelen JM, Gross J. Source connectivity analysis with MEG and EEG. Hum Brain Mapp. 2009; 30(6):1857–65. doi:10.1002/hbm.20745.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Nunez PL, Srinivasan R, Westdorp AF, Wijesinghe RS, Tucker DM, Silberstein RB, Cadusch PJ. EEG coherency I: Statistics, reference electrode, volume conduction, Laplacians, cortical imaging, and interpretation at multiple scales. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1997; 103(5):499–515. doi:10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00066-7.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Fadlallah BH, Seth S, Keil A, Príncipe JC. Robust EEG preprocessing for dependence-based condition discrimination. In: Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. (EMBC), 2011 33rd Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE. Boston: IEEE: 2011. p. 1407–10. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2011.6090331.

66.

Gandhi T, Panigrahi BK, Anand S. A comparative study of wavelet families for EEG signal classification. Neurocomputing. 2011; 74(17):3051–7. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2011.04.029.CrossRef

67.

Fadlallah BH, Brockmeier AJ, Seth S, Li L, Keil A, Príncipe JC. An association framework to analyze dependence structure in time series. In: Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. (EMBC), 2012 34th Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE. San Diego: IEEE: 2012. p. 6176–9. doi:10.1109/EMBC.2012.6347404.

68.

Takens F. Detecting strange attractors in turbulence. Lect Notes Math. 1981; 898:366–81. doi:10.1007/BFb0091924.CrossRef

69.

Kennel M, Brown R, Abarbanel H. Determining embedding dimension for phase-space reconstruction using a geometrical construction. Phys Rev A. 1992; 45(6):45–3403.CrossRef

70.

De Vico Fallani F, Latora V, Chavez M. A Topological Criterion for Filtering Information in Complex Brain Networks. PLOS Comput Biol. 2017; 13(1):1005305. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005305.CrossRef

71.

Latora V, Marchiori M. Efficient behavior of small-world networks. Phys Rev Lett. 2001; 87(19):198701. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.198701. 0101396.CrossRefPubMed

72.

Kitzbichler MG, Henson RNA, Smith ML, Nathan PJ, Bullmore ET. Cognitive effort drives workspace configuration of human brain functional networks. J Neurosci. 2011; 31(22):8259–70. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0440-11.2011.CrossRefPubMed

73.

Spearman C. The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am J Psychol. 1904; 15(1):72–101.CrossRef

74.

Maris E, Oostenveld R. Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. J Neurosci Methods. 2007; 164(1):177–90. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024.CrossRefPubMed

75.

Ward NS, Brown MM, Thompson a. J, Frackowiak RSJ. Neural correlates of motor recovery after stroke: a longitudinal fMRI study. Brain. 2003; 126(Pt 11):2476–96. doi:10.1093/brain/awg245.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

76.

Buetefisch CM. Role of the contralesional hemisphere in post-stroke recovery of upper extremity motor function. Front Neurol. 2015; 6:1–10. doi:10.3389/fneur.2015.00214.CrossRef

77.

Rehme AK, Grefkes C. Cerebral network disorders after stroke: evidence from imaging-based connectivity analyses of active and resting brain states in humans. J Physiol. 2013; 591(1):17–31. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2012.243469.CrossRefPubMed

78.

Cramer SC, Nelles G, Benson RR, Kaplan JD, Parker RA, Kwong KK, Kennedy DN, Finklestein SP, Rosen BR. A functional MRI study of subjects recovered from hemiparetic stroke. Stroke. 1997; 28(12):2518–27. doi:10.1161/01.STR.28.12.2518.CrossRefPubMed

79.

Jaillard A, Martin CD, Garambois K, Lebas JF, Hommel M. Vicarious function within the human primary motor cortex? A longitudinal fMRI stroke study. Brain. 2005; 128(Pt 5):1122–38. doi:10.1093/brain/awh456.CrossRefPubMed

80.

Teasell R, Bayona NA, Bitensky J. Plasticity and reorganization of the brain post stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2005; 12(3):11–26. doi:10.1310/6AUM-ETYW-Q8XV-8XAC.CrossRefPubMed

81.

Calautti C, Leroy F, Guincestre JY, Baron JC. Dynamics of motor network overactivation after striatocapsular stroke: A longitudinal PET study using a fixed-performance paradigm. Stroke. 2001; 32(11):2534–42. doi:10.1161/hs1101.097401.CrossRefPubMed

82.

Carey JR, Kimberley TJ, Lewis SM, Auerbach EJ, Dorsey L, Rundquist P, Ugurbil K. Analysis of fMRI and finger tracking training in subjects with chronic stroke. Brain. 2002; 125:773–88.CrossRefPubMed

83.

Dancause N, Nudo R. Shaping plasticity to enhance recovery after injury. Prog Brain Res. 2011; 192:273–95. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53355-5.00015-4.Shaping.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

84.

Newton J, Sunderland A, Butterworth SE, Peters AM, Peck KK, Gowland PA. A pilot study of event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging of monitored wrist movements in patients with partial recovery. Stroke. 2002; 33(12):2881–7. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000042660.38883.56.CrossRefPubMed

85.

Calautti C, Leroy F, Guincestre JY, Marié R. -M, Baron JC. Sequential activation brain mapping after subcortical stroke: changes in hemispheric balance and recovery. Neuroreport. 2001; 12(18):3883–6. doi:10.1097/00001756-200112210-00005.CrossRefPubMed

86.

Feydy a, Carlier R, Roby-Brami A, Bussel B, Cazalis F, Pierot L, Burnod Y, Maier M. a.Longitudinal study of motor recovery after stroke: recruitment and focusing of brain activation. Stroke. 2002; 33(6):1610–7. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000017100.68294.52.CrossRefPubMed

87.

Jang SH, Kim YH, Cho SH, Chang Y, Lee ZI, Ha JS. Cortical reorganization associated with motor recovery in hemiparetic stroke patients. Neuroreport. 2003; 14(10):1305–10. doi:10.1097/01.wnr.0000078700.79393.09.CrossRefPubMed

88.

Marshall RS, Perera GM, Lazar RM, Krakauer JW, Constantine RC, DeLaPaz RL. Evolution of cortical activation during recovery from corticospinal tract infarction. Stroke. 2000; 31(3):656–61. doi:10.1161/01.STR.31.3.656.CrossRefPubMed

89.

Mima T, Toma K, Koshy B, Hallett M. Coherence between cortical and muscular activities after subcortical stroke. Stroke. 2001; 32(11):2597–601. doi:10.1161/hs1101.098764.CrossRefPubMed

90.

Napieralski J, Butler A, Chesselet M. Anatomical and functional evidence for lesion-specific sprouting of corticostriatal input in the adult rat. J Comp Neurol. 1996; 373(4):484–97. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19960930)373:4.CrossRefPubMed

91.

Serrien DJ, Strens L. H. a, Cassidy MJ, Thompson AJ, Brown P. Functional significance of the ipsilateral hemisphere during movement of the affected hand after stroke. Exp Neurol. 2004; 190(2):425–32. doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2004.08.004.CrossRefPubMed

92.

Traversa R, Cicinelli P, Pasqualetti P, Filippi M, Rossini PM. Follow-up of interhemispheric differences of motor evoked potentials from the ‘affected’ and ‘unaffected’ hemispheres in human stroke. Brain Res. 1998; 803(1-2):1–8. doi:10.1016/S0006-8993(98)00505-8.CrossRefPubMed

93.

Frost SB, Barbay S, Friel KM, Plautz EJ, Nudo RJ. Reorganization of remote cortical regions after ischemic brain injury: a potential substrate for stroke recovery. J Neurophysiol. 2003; 89:3205–14. doi:10.1152/jn.01143.2002.CrossRefPubMed

94.

Nudo RJ. Recovery after brain injury: mechanisms and principles. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013; 7:887. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00887.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

95.

Schaechter JD. Motor rehabilitation and brain plasticity after hemiparetic stroke. Prog Neurobiol. 2004; 73(1):61–72. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2004.04.001.CrossRefPubMed

96.

Mani S, Mutha PK, Przybyla A, Haaland KY, Good DC, Sainburg RL. Contralesional motor deficits after unilateral stroke reflect hemisphere-specific control mechanisms. Brain. 2013; 136(4):1288–303. doi:10.1093/brain/aws283.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

97.

Ruiz S, Buyukturkoglu K, Rana M, Birbaumer N, Sitaram R. Real-time fMRI brain computer interfaces: Self-regulation of single brain regions to networks. Biol Psychol. 2014; 95(1):4–20. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.04.010.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Topographical measures of functional connectivity as biomarkers for post-stroke motor recovery
Authors: Gavin R. Philips
Janis J. Daly
José C. Príncipe
Publication date: 01-12-2017
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1743-0003
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-017-0277-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Topographical measures of functional connectivity as biomarkers for post-stroke motor recovery

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

A decision support system for electrode shaping in multi-pad FES foot drop correction

Setting the pace: insights and advancements gained while preparing for an FES bike race

Physical human-robot interaction of an active pelvis orthosis: toward ergonomic assessment of wearable robots

Correction to: Sensorimotor learning: Neurocognitive mechanisms and individual differences

Comprehensive measurement of stroke gait characteristics with a single accelerometer in the laboratory and community: a feasibility, validity and reliability study

SoftHand at the CYBATHLON: a user’s experience