Back

Hebbian plasticity induced by temporally coincident BCI enhances post-stroke motor recovery

Krueger, J.; Krauth, R.; Reichert, C.; Perdikis, S.; Vogt, S.; Huchtemann, T.; Duerschmid, S.; Sickert, A.; Lamprecht, J.; Huremovic, A.; Goertler, M.; Nasuto, S. J.; Tsai, I.-C.; Knight, R. T.; Hinrichs, H.; Heinze, H.-J.; Lindquist, S.; Sailer, M.; Millan, J. d. R.; Sweeney-Reed, C. M.

2023-10-02 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.1101/2023.09.28.23296226 medRxiv
Show abstract

Functional electrical stimulation (FES) can support functional restoration of a paretic limb post-stroke. Hebbian plasticity depends on temporally coinciding pre- and post-synaptic activity. A tight temporal relationship between motor cortical (MC) activity associated with attempted movement and FES-generated visuo-proprioceptive feedback is hypothesized to enhance motor recovery. Using a brain-computer interface (BCI) to classify MC spectral power in electroencephalographic (EEG) signals to trigger FES-delivery with detection of movement attempts improved motor outcomes in chronic stroke patients. We hypothesized that heightened neural plasticity earlier post-stroke would further enhance corticomuscular functional connectivity and motor recovery. We compared subcortical non-dominant hemisphere stroke patients in BCI-FES and Random-FES (FES temporally independent of MC movement attempt detection) groups. The primary outcome measure was the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Upper Extremity (FMA-UE). We recorded high-density EEG and transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced motor evoked potentials before and after treatment. The BCI group showed greater: FMA-UE improvement; motor evoked potential amplitude; beta oscillatory power and long-range temporal correlation reduction over contralateral MC; and corticomuscular coherence with contralateral MC. These changes are consistent with enhanced post-stroke motor improvement when movement is synchronized with MC activity reflecting attempted movement.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.