Michelle D. Harran

Sensitivity to prediction error in reach adaptation

It has been proposed that the brain predicts the sensory consequences of a movement and compares it to the actual sensory feedback. When the two differ, an error signal is formed, driving adaptation. How does an error in one trial alter performance in the subsequent trial? Here we show that the sensitivity to error is not constant but declines as a function of error magnitude. That is, one learns relatively less from large errors compared with small errors. We performed an experiment in which humans made reaching movements and randomly experienced an error in both their visual and proprioceptive feedback. Proprioceptive errors were created with force fields, and visual errors were formed by perturbing the cursor trajectory to create a visual error that was smaller, the same size, or larger than the proprioceptive error. We measured single-trial adaptation and calculated sensitivity to error, i.e., the ratio of the trial-to-trial change in motor commands to error size. We found that for both sensory modalities sensitivity decreased with increasing error size. A reanalysis of a number of previously published psychophysical results also exhibited this feature. Finally, we asked how the brain might encode sensitivity to error. We reanalyzed previously published probabilities of cerebellar complex spikes (CSs) and found that this probability declined with increasing error size. From this we posit that a CS may be representative of the sensitivity to error, and not error itself, a hypothesis that may explain conflicting reports about CSs and their relationship to error.

Changes in corticospinal excitability during reach adaptation in force fields

Both abrupt and gradually imposed perturbations produce adaptive changes in motor output, but the neural basis of adaptation may be distinct. Here, we measured the state of the primary motor cortex (M1) and the corticospinal network during adaptation by measuring motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) before reach onset using transcranial magnetic stimulation of M1. Subjects reached in a force field in a schedule in which the field was introduced either abruptly or gradually over many trials. In both groups, by end of the training, muscles that countered the perturbation in a given direction increased their activity during the reach (labeled as the on direction for each muscle). In the abrupt group, in the period before the reach toward the on direction, MEPs in these muscles also increased, suggesting a direction-specific increase in the excitability of the corticospinal network. However, in the gradual group, these MEP changes were missing. After training, there was a period of washout. The MEPs did not return to baseline. Rather, in the abrupt group, off direction MEPs increased to match on direction MEPs. Therefore, we observed changes in corticospinal excitability in the abrupt but not gradual condition. Abrupt training includes the repetition of motor commands, and repetition may be the key factor that produces this plasticity. Furthermore, washout did not return MEPs to baseline, suggesting that washout engaged a new network that masked but did not erase the effects of previous adaptation. Abrupt but not gradual training appears to induce changes in M1 and/or corticospinal networks.

Robotic therapy for chronic stroke: general recovery of impairment or improved task-specific skill?

There is a great need to develop new approaches for rehabilitation of the upper limb after stroke. Robotic therapy is a promising form of neurorehabilitation that can be delivered in higher doses than conventional therapy. Here we sought to determine whether the reported effects of robotic therapy, which have been based on clinical measures of impairment and function, are accompanied by improved motor control. Patients with chronic hemiparesis were trained for 3 wk, 3 days a week, with titrated assistive robotic therapy in two and three dimensions. Motor control improvements (i.e., skill) in both arms were assessed with a separate untrained visually guided reaching task. We devised a novel PCA-based analysis of arm trajectories that is sensitive to changes in the quality of entire movement trajectories without needing to prespecify particular kinematic features. Robotic therapy led to skill improvements in the contralesional arm. These changes were not accompanied by changes in clinical measures of impairment or function. There are two possible interpretations of these results. One is that robotic therapy only leads to small task-specific improvements in motor control via normal skill-learning mechanisms. The other is that kinematic assays are more sensitive than clinical measures to a small general improvement in motor control.

A Short and Distinct Time Window for Recovery of Arm Motor Control Early After Stroke Revealed With a Global Measure of Trajectory Kinematics

Background. Studies demonstrate that most arm motor recovery occurs within three months after stroke, when measured with standard clinical scales. Improvements on these measures, however, reflect a combination of recovery in motor control, increases in strength, and acquisition of compensatory strategies. Objective. To isolate and characterize the time course of recovery of arm motor control over the first year poststroke. Methods. Longitudinal study of 18 participants with acute ischemic stroke. Motor control was evaluated using a global kinematic measure derived from a 2-dimensional reaching task designed to minimize the need for antigravity strength and prevent compensation. Arm impairment was evaluated with the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the upper extremity (FMA-UE), activity limitation with the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and strength with biceps dynamometry. Assessments were conducted at: 1.5, 5, 14, 27, and 54 weeks poststroke. Results. Motor control in the paretic arm improved up to week 5, with no further improvement beyond this time point. In contrast, improvements in the FMA-UE, ARAT, and biceps dynamometry continued beyond 5 weeks, with a similar magnitude of improvement between weeks 5 and 54 as the one observed between weeks 1.5 and 5. Conclusions. Recovery after stroke plateaued much earlier for arm motor control, isolated with a global kinematic measure, compared to motor function assessed with clinical scales. This dissociation between the time courses of kinematic and clinical measures of recovery may be due to the contribution of strength improvement to the latter. Novel interventions, focused on the first month poststroke, will be required to exploit the narrower window of spontaneous recovery for motor control.

Separable systems for recovery of finger strength and control after stroke

Impaired hand function after stroke is a major cause of long-term disability. We developed a novel paradigm that quantifies two critical aspects of hand function, strength, and independent control of fingers (individuation), and also removes any obligatory dependence between them. Hand recovery was tracked in 54 patients with hemiparesis over the first year after stroke. Most recovery of strength and individuation occurred within the first 3 mo. A novel time-invariant recovery function was identified: recovery of strength and individuation were tightly correlated up to a strength level of ~60% of estimated premorbid strength; beyond this threshold, strength improvement was not accompanied by further improvement in individuation. Any additional improvement in individuation was attributable instead to a second process that superimposed on the recovery function. We conclude that two separate systems are responsible for poststroke hand recovery: one contributes almost all of strength and some individuation; the other contributes additional individuation.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We tracked recovery of the hand over a 1-yr period after stroke in a large cohort of patients, using a novel paradigm that enabled independent measurement of finger strength and control. Most recovery of strength and control occurs in the first 3 mo after stroke. We found that two separable systems are responsible for motor recovery of hand: one contributes strength and some dexterity, whereas a second contributes additional dexterity.

Recovery of hand function after stroke: separable systems for finger strength and control

Loss of hand function after stroke is a major cause of long-term disability. Hand function can be partitioned into strength and independent control of fingers (individuation). Here we developed a novel paradigm, which independently quantifies these two aspects of hand function, to track hand recovery in 54 patients with hemiparesis over the first year after their stroke. Most recovery of both strength and individuation occurred in the first three months after stroke. Improvement in strength and individuation were tightly correlated up to a strength level of approximately 60% of the unaffected side. Beyond this threshold, further gains in strength were not accompanied by improvements in individuation. Any observed improvements in individuation beyond the 60% threshold were attributable instead to a second independent stable factor. Lesion analysis revealed that damage to the hand area in motor cortex and the corticospinal tract (CST) correlated more with individuation than with strength. CST involvement correlated with individuation even after factoring out the strength-individuation correlation. The most parsimonious explanation for these behavioral and lesion-based findings is that most strength recovery, along with some individuation, can be attributed to descending systems other than the CST, whereas further recovery of individuation is CST dependent.

Evidence for a subcortical origin of mirror movements after stroke: a longitudinal study

Following a stroke, mirror movements are unintended movements that appear in the non-paretic hand when the paretic hand voluntarily moves. Mirror movements have previously been linked to overactivation of sensorimotor areas in the non-lesioned hemisphere. In this study, we hypothesized that mirror movements might instead have a subcortical origin, and are the by-product of subcortical motor pathways upregulating their contributions to the paretic hand. To test this idea, we first characterized the time course of mirroring in 53 first-time stroke patients, and compared it to the time course of activities in sensorimotor areas of the lesioned and non-lesioned hemispheres (measured using functional MRI). Mirroring in the non-paretic hand was exaggerated early after stroke (Week 2), but progressively diminished over the year with a time course that parallelled individuation deficits in the paretic hand. We found no evidence of cortical overactivation that could explain the time course changes in behaviour, contrary to the cortical model of mirroring. Consistent with a subcortical origin of mirroring, we predicted that subcortical contributions should broadly recruit fingers in the non-paretic hand, reflecting the limited capacity of subcortical pathways in providing individuated finger control. We therefore characterized finger recruitment patterns in the non-paretic hand during mirroring. During mirroring, non-paretic fingers were broadly recruited, with mirrored forces in homologous fingers being only slightly larger (1.76 times) than those in non-homologous fingers. Throughout recovery, the pattern of finger recruitment during mirroring for patients looked like a scaled version of the corresponding control mirroring pattern, suggesting that the system that is responsible for mirroring in controls is upregulated after stroke. Together, our results suggest that post-stroke mirror movements in the non-paretic hand, like enslaved movements in the paretic hand, are caused by the upregulation of a bilaterally organized subcortical system.

Finger recruitment patterns during mirror movements suggest two systems for hand recovery after stroke

Accumulating behavioural and neurophysiological evidence suggests that upper-limb control relies on contributions from both cortical and subcortical motor circuits, with cortical inputs providing fine-finger function and subcortical inputs providing the ability for gross movements, respectively. During recovery of function after stroke, the relative contributions from these pathways may shift. Here we propose that mirror movements that appear after stroke provide a non-invasive assay through which relative contributions from cortical and subcortical pathways towards hand recovery can be studied. We hypothesized that mirror movements, like hand function, are generated by summed contributions from cortical and subcortical pathways, and suggest that subcortical contributions should be characterized by a broad recruitment of fingers, while cortical contributions primarily recruit the homologous finger in the passive hand. In a longitudinal stroke recovery study (Xu et al., 2016), we quantified mirror movements and paretic hand function in 53 stroke patients in the year following unilateral stroke. Mirror movements in the non-paretic hand were exaggerated early after damage (week 2), with paretic finger presses broadly recruiting multiple fingers in the non-paretic hand. On average, however, mirroring in homologous fingers was 1.76 times larger than in non-homologous fingers. Over the year, mirroring in the non-paretic hand progressively normalized with a time-course that mimicked that for the fine-finger deficits in the paretic hand. In comparison, during non-paretic finger presses, the homologous component of mirroring in the paretic hand was reduced early after stroke (week 2) but progressively normalized. Altogether, we conclude that the pattern of mirror movements across homologous and non-homologous fingers reflect the summed contributions of both cortical and subcortical systems, and we discuss the implications of our results towards hand recovery after stroke.