Nicole Varnerin

Rethinking Stimulation of the Brain in Stroke Rehabilitation Why Higher Motor Areas Might Be Better Alternatives for Patients with Greater Impairments

Stimulating the brain to drive its adaptive plastic potential is promising to accelerate rehabilitative outcomes in stroke. The ipsilesional primary motor cortex (M1) is invariably facilitated. However, evidence supporting its efficacy is divided, indicating that we may have overgeneralized its potential. Since the M1 and its corticospinal output are frequently damaged in patients with serious lesions and impairments, ipsilesional premotor areas (PMAs) could be useful alternates instead. We base our premise on their higher probability of survival, greater descending projections, and adaptive potential, which is causal for recovery across the seriously impaired. Using a conceptual model, we describe how chronically stimulating PMAs would strongly affect key mechanisms of stroke motor recovery, such as facilitating the plasticity of alternate descending output, restoring interhemispheric balance, and establishing widespread connectivity. Although at this time it is difficult to predict whether PMAs would be “better,” it is important to at least investigate whether they are reasonable substitutes for the M1. Even if the stimulation of the M1 may benefit those with maximum recovery potential, while that of PMAs may only help the more disadvantaged, it may still be reasonable to achieve some recovery across the majority rather than stimulate a single locus fated to be inconsistently effective across all.

Assessment of Inter-Hemispheric Imbalance Using Imaging and Noninvasive Brain Stimulation in Patients With Chronic Stroke

OBJECTIVE To determine how interhemispheric balance in stroke, measured using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), relates to balance defined using neuroimaging (functional magnetic resonance [fMRI], diffusion-tensor imaging [DTI]) and how these metrics of balance are associated with clinical measures of upper-limb function and disability. DESIGN Cross sectional. SETTING Laboratory. PARTICIPANTS Patients with chronic stroke (N = 10; age, 63 ± 9 y) in a population-based sample with unilateral upper-limb paresis. INTERVENTIONS Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Interhemispheric balance was measured with TMS, fMRI, and DTI. TMS defined interhemispheric differences in the recruitment of corticospinal output, size of the corticomotor output maps, and degree of mutual transcallosal inhibition that they exerted on one another. fMRI studied whether cortical activation during the movement of the paretic hand was lateralized to the ipsilesional or to the contralesional primary motor cortex (M1), premotor cortex (PMC), and supplementary motor cortex (SMA). DTI was used to define interhemispheric differences in the integrity of the corticospinal tracts projecting from the M1. Clinical outcomes tested function (upper extremity Fugl-Meyer [UEFM]) and perceived disability in the use of the paretic hand (Motor Activity Log [MAL] amount score). RESULTS Interhemispheric balance assessed with TMS relates differently to fMRI and DTI. Patients with high fMRI lateralization to the ipsilesional hemisphere possessed stronger ipsilesional corticomotor output maps (M1: r = .831, P = .006; PMC: r = .797, P = .01) and better balance of mutual transcallosal inhibition (r = .810, P = .015). Conversely, we found that patients with less integrity of the corticospinal tracts in the ipsilesional hemisphere show greater corticospinal output of homologous tracts in the contralesional hemisphere (r = .850, P = .004). However, an imbalance in integrity and output do not relate to transcallosal inhibition. Clinically, although patients with less integrity of corticospinal tracts from the ipsilesional hemisphere showed worse impairments (UEFM) (r = -.768, P = .016), those with low fMRI lateralization to the ipsilesional hemisphere had greater perception of disability (MAL amount score) (M1: r = .883, P = .006; PMC: r = .817, P = .007; SMA: r = .633, P = .062). CONCLUSIONS In patients with chronic motor deficits of the upper limb, fMRI may serve to mark perceived disability and transcallosal influence between hemispheres. DTI-based integrity of the corticospinal tracts, however, may be useful in categorizing the range of functional impairments of the upper limb. Further, in patients with extensive corticospinal damage, DTI may help infer the role of the contralesional hemisphere in recovery.

Stimulation targeting higher motor areas in stroke rehabilitation: A proof-of-concept, randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled study of effectiveness and underlying mechanisms

PURPOSE To demonstrate, in a proof-of-concept study, whether potentiating ipsilesional higher motor areas (premotor cortex and supplementary motor area) augments and accelerates recovery associated with constraint induced movement. METHODS In a randomized, double-blinded pilot clinical study, 12 patients with chronic stroke were assigned to receive anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (n = 6) or sham (n = 6) to the ipsilesional higher motor areas during constraint-induced movement therapy. We assessed functional and neurophysiologic outcomes before and after 5 weeks of therapy. RESULTS Only patients receiving tDCS demonstrated gains in function and dexterity. Gains were accompanied by an increase in excitability of the contralesional rather than the ipsilesional hemisphere. CONCLUSIONS Our proof-of-concept study provides early evidence that stimulating higher motor areas can help recruit the contralesional hemisphere in an adaptive role in cases of greater ipsilesional injury. Whether this early evidence of promise translates to remarkable gains in functional recovery compared to existing approaches of stimulation remains to be confirmed in large-scale clinical studies that can reasonably dissociate stimulation of higher motor areas from that of the traditional primary motor cortices.

Models to tailor brain stimulation therapies in stroke

A great challenge facing stroke rehabilitation is the lack of information on how to derive targeted therapies. As such, techniques once considered promising, such as brain stimulation, have demonstrated mixed efficacy across heterogeneous samples in clinical studies. Here, we explain reasons, citing its one-type-suits-all approach as the primary cause of variable efficacy. We present evidence supporting the role of alternate substrates, which can be targeted instead in patients with greater damage and deficit. Building on this groundwork, this review will also discuss different frameworks on how to tailor brain stimulation therapies. To the best of our knowledge, our report is the first instance that enumerates and compares across theoretical models from upper limb recovery and conditions like aphasia and depression. Here, we explain how different models capture heterogeneity across patients and how they can be used to predict which patients would best respond to what treatments to develop targeted, individualized brain stimulation therapies. Our intent is to weigh pros and cons of testing each type of model so brain stimulation is successfully tailored to maximize upper limb recovery in stroke.

Age-Related Weakness of Proximal Muscle Studied with Motor Cortical Mapping: A TMS Study

Aging-related weakness is due in part to degeneration within the central nervous system. However, it is unknown how changes to the representation of corticospinal output in the primary motor cortex (M1) relate to such weakness. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a noninvasive method of cortical stimulation that can map representation of corticospinal output devoted to a muscle. Using TMS, we examined age-related alterations in maps devoted to biceps brachii muscle to determine whether they predicted its age-induced weakness. Forty-seven right-handed subjects participated: 20 young (22.6±0.90 years) and 27 old (74.96±1.35 years). We measured strength as force of elbow flexion and electromyographic activation of biceps brachii during maximum voluntary contraction. Mapping variables included: 1) center of gravity or weighted mean location of corticospinal output, 2) size of map, 3) volume or excitation of corticospinal output, and 4) response density or corticospinal excitation per unit area. Center of gravity was more anterior in old than in young (p<0.001), though there was no significant difference in strength between the age groups. Map size, volume, and response density showed no significant difference between groups. Regardless of age, center of gravity significantly predicted strength (β = −0.34, p = 0.005), while volume adjacent to the core of map predicted voluntary activation of biceps (β = 0.32, p = 0.008). Overall, the anterior shift of the map in older adults may reflect an adaptive change that allowed for the maintenance of strength. Laterally located center of gravity and higher excitation in the region adjacent to the core in weaker individuals could reflect compensatory recruitment of synergistic muscles. Thus, our study substantiates the role of M1 in adapting to aging-related weakness and subtending strength and muscle activation across age groups. Mapping from M1 may offer foundation for an examination of mechanisms that preserve strength in elderly.

Neurophysiological correlates of aging-related muscle weakness

Muscle weakness associated with aging implicates central neural degeneration. However, role of the primary motor cortex (M1) is poorly understood, despite evidence that gains in strength in younger adults are associated with its adaptations. We investigated whether weakness of biceps brachii in aging analogously relates to processes in M1. We enrolled 20 young (22.6 ± 0.87 yr) and 28 old (74.79 ± 1.37 yr) right-handed participants. Using transcranial magnetic stimulation, representation of biceps in M1 was identified. We examined the effect of age and sex on strength of left elbow flexion, voluntary activation of biceps, corticospinal excitability and output, and short-interval intracortical and interhemispheric inhibition. Interhemispheric inhibition was significantly exaggerated in the old (P = 0.047), while strength tended to be lower (P = 0.075). Overall, women were weaker (P < 0.001). Processes of M1 related to strength or voluntary activation of biceps, but only in older adults. Corticospinal excitability was lower in weaker individuals (r = 0.38), and corticospinal output, intracortical inhibition and interhemispheric inhibition were reduced too in individuals who poorly activated biceps (r = 0.43, 0.54 and 0.38). Lower intracortical inhibition may reflect compensation for reduced corticospinal excitability, allowing weaker older adults to spread activity in M1 to recruit synergists and attempt to sustain motor output. Exaggerated interhemispheric inhibition, however, conflicts with previous evidence, potentially related to greater callosal damage in our older sample, our choice of proximal vs. distal muscle and differing influence of measurement of inhibition in rest vs. active states of muscle. Overall, age-specific relation of M1 to strength and muscle activation emphasizes that its adaptations only emerge when necessitated, as in a weakening neuromuscular system in aging.

Inhibition versus facilitation of contralesional motor cortices in stroke: Deriving a model to tailor brain stimulation

OBJECTIVE The standard approach to brain stimulation in stroke is based on the premise that ipsilesional M1 (iM1) is important for motor function of the paretic upper limb, while contralesional cortices compete with iM1. Therefore, the approach typically advocates facilitating iM1 and/or inhibiting contralesional M1 (cM1). But, this approach fails to elicit much improvement in severely affected patients, who on account of extensive damage to ipsilesional pathways, cannot rely on iM1. These patients are believed to instead rely on the undamaged cortices, especially the contralesional dorsal premotor cortex (cPMd), for support of function of the paretic limb. Here, we tested for the first time whether facilitation of cPMd could improve paretic limb function in severely affected patients, and if a cut-off could be identified to separate responders to cPMd from responders to the standard approach to stimulation. METHODS In a randomized, sham-controlled crossover study, fifteen patients received the standard approach of stimulation involving inhibition of cM1 and a new approach involving facilitation of cPMd using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Patients also received rTMS to control areas. At baseline, impairment [Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFMPROXIMAL, max=36)] and damage to pathways [fractional anisotropy (FA)] was measured. We measured changes in time to perform proximal paretic limb reaching, and neurophysiology using TMS. RESULTS Facilitation of cPMd generated more improvement in severely affected patients, who had experienced greater damage and impairment than a cut-off value of FA (0.5) and UEFMPROXIMAL (26-28). The standard approach instead generated more improvement in mildly affected patients. Responders to cPMd showed alleviation of interhemispheric competition imposed on iM1, while responders to the standard approach showed gains in ipsilesional excitability in association with improvement. CONCLUSIONS A preliminary cut-off level of severity separated responders for standard approach vs. facilitation of cPMd. SIGNIFICANCE Cut-offs identified here could help select candidates for tailored stimulation in future studies so patients in all ranges of severity could potentially achieve maximum benefit in function of the paretic upper limb.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Targeting Primary Motor Versus Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortices: Proof-of-Concept Study Investigating Functional Connectivity of Thalamocortical Networks Specific to Sensory-Affective Information Processing

The pain matrix is comprised of an extensive network of brain structures involved in sensory and/or affective information processing. The thalamus is a key structure constituting the pain matrix. The thalamus serves as a relay center receiving information from multiple ascending pathways and relating information to and from multiple cortical areas. However, it is unknown how thalamocortical networks specific to sensory-affective information processing are functionally integrated. Here, in a proof-of-concept study in healthy humans, we aimed to understand this connectivity using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) targeting primary motor (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortices (DLPFC). We compared changes in functional connectivity (FC) with DLPFC tDCS to changes in FC with M1 tDCS. FC changes were also compared to further investigate its relation with individuals baseline experience of pain. We hypothesized that resting-state FC would change based on tDCS location and would represent known thalamocortical networks. Ten right-handed individuals received a single application of anodal tDCS (1 mA, 20 min) to right M1 and DLPFC in a single-blind, sham-controlled crossover study. FC changes were studied between ventroposterolateral (VPL), the sensory nucleus of thalamus, and cortical areas involved in sensory information processing and between medial dorsal (MD), the affective nucleus, and cortical areas involved in affective information processing. Individuals perception of pain at baseline was assessed using cutaneous heat pain stimuli. We found that anodal M1 tDCS and anodal DLPFC tDCS both increased FC between VPL and sensorimotor cortices, although FC effects were greater with M1 tDCS. Similarly, anodal M1 tDCS and anodal DLPFC tDCS both increased FC between MD and motor cortices, but only DLPFC tDCS modulated FC between MD and affective cortices, like DLPFC. Our findings suggest that M1 stimulation primarily modulates FC of sensory networks, whereas DLPFC stimulation modulates FC of both sensory and affective networks. Our findings when replicated in a larger group of individuals could provide useful evidence that may inform future studies on pain to differentiate between effects of M1 and DLPFC stimulation. Notably, our finding that individuals with high baseline pain thresholds experience greater FC changes with DLPFC tDCS implies the role of DLPFC in pain modulation, particularly pain tolerance.

Post-exercise depression following submaximal and maximal isometric voluntary contraction.

It is well known that corticomotor excitability is altered during the post-exercise depression following fatigue within the primary motor cortex (M1). However, it is currently unknown whether corticomotor reorganization following muscle fatigue differs between magnitudes of force and whether corticomotor reorganization occurs measured with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Fifteen young healthy adults (age 23.8±1.4, 8 females) participated in a within-subjects, repeated measures design study, where they underwent three testing sessions separated by one-week each. Subjects performed separate sessions of each: low-force isometric contraction (30% maximal voluntary contraction [MVC]), high-force isometric contraction (95% MVC) of the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle until self-perceived exhaustion, as well as one session of a 30-min rest as a control. We examined changes in corticomotor map area, excitability and location of the FDI representation in and around M1 using TMS. The main finding was that following low-force, but not high-force fatigue (HFF) corticomotor map area and excitability reduced [by 3cm(2) (t(14)=-2.94, p=0.01) and 56% respectively t(14)=-4.01, p<0.001)]. Additionally, the region of corticomotor excitability shifted posteriorly (6.4±2.5mm) (t(14)=-6.33, p=.019). Corticomotor output became less excitable particularly in regions adjoining M1. Overall, post-exercise depression is present in low-force, but not for HFF. Further, low-force fatigue (LFF) results in a posterior shift in corticomotor output. These changes may be indicative of increased sensory feedback from the somatosensory cortex during the recovery phase of fatigue.

Challenges in Recruitment for the Study of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation in Stroke: Lessons from Deep Brain Stimulation

OBJECTIVE Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) can augment functional recovery following stroke; however, the technique lacks regulatory approval. Low enrollment in NIBS clinical trials is a key roadblock. Here, we pursued evidence to support the prevailing opinion that enrollment in trials of NIBS is even lower than enrollment in trials of invasive, deep brain stimulation (DBS). METHODS We compared 2 clinical trials in stroke conducted within a single urban hospital system, one employing NIBS and the other using DBS, (1) to identify specific criteria that generate low enrollment rates for NIBS and (2) to devise strategies to increase recruitment with guidance from DBS. RESULTS Notably, we found that enrollment in the NIBS case study was 5 times lower (2.8%) than the DBS trial (14.5%) (χ(2) = 20.815, P < .0001). Although the number of candidates who met the inclusion criteria was not different (χ(2) = .04, P < .841), exclusion rates differed significantly between the 2 studies (χ(2) = 21.354, P < .0001). Beyond lack of interest, higher exclusion rates in the NIBS study were largely due to exclusion criteria that were not present in the DBS study, including restrictions for recurrent strokes, seizures, and medications. CONCLUSIONS Based on our findings, we conclude and suggest that by (1) establishing criteria specific to each NIBS modality, (2) adjusting exclusion criteria based on guidance from DBS, and (3) including patients with common contraindications based on a probability of risk, we may increase enrollment and hence significantly impact the feasibility and generalizability of NIBS paradigms, particularly in stroke.