Ipsilateral motor pathways after stroke: implications for noninvasive brain stimulation

In humans the two cerebral hemispheres have essential roles in controlling the upper limb. The purpose of this article is to draw attention to the potential importance of ipsilateral descending pathways for functional recovery after stroke, and the use of noninvasive brain stimulation (NBS) protocol...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Lynley V Bradnam, Cathy M Stinear, Winston D. Byblow
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2013-05-01
Series:Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00184/full
id doaj-437ad83b22e84c28a973ed52868bab94
record_format Article
spelling doaj-437ad83b22e84c28a973ed52868bab942020-11-25T03:52:54ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience1662-51612013-05-01710.3389/fnhum.2013.0018445172Ipsilateral motor pathways after stroke: implications for noninvasive brain stimulationLynley V Bradnam0Cathy M Stinear1Winston D. Byblow2Flinders UniversityUniversity of AucklandUniversity of AucklandIn humans the two cerebral hemispheres have essential roles in controlling the upper limb. The purpose of this article is to draw attention to the potential importance of ipsilateral descending pathways for functional recovery after stroke, and the use of noninvasive brain stimulation (NBS) protocols of the contralesional primary motor cortex (M1). Conventionally NBS is used to suppress contralesional M1, and to attenuate transcallosal inhibition onto the ipsilesional M1. There has been little consideration of the fact that contralesional M1 suppression may also reduce excitability of ipsilateral descending pathways that may be important for paretic upper limb control for some patients. One such ipsilateral pathway is the cortico-reticulo-propriospinal pathway (CRPP). In this review we outline a neurophysiological model to explain how contralesional M1 may gain control of the paretic arm via the CRPP. We conclude that the relative importance of the CRPP for motor control in individual patients must be considered before using NBS to suppress contralesional M1. Neurophysiological, neuroimaging and clinical assessments can assist this decision making and facilitate the translation of NBS into the clinical setting.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00184/fullMotor CortexMovementstroke rehabilitationdirect current stimulationpropriospinal
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Lynley V Bradnam
Cathy M Stinear
Winston D. Byblow
spellingShingle Lynley V Bradnam
Cathy M Stinear
Winston D. Byblow
Ipsilateral motor pathways after stroke: implications for noninvasive brain stimulation
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Motor Cortex
Movement
stroke rehabilitation
direct current stimulation
propriospinal
author_facet Lynley V Bradnam
Cathy M Stinear
Winston D. Byblow
author_sort Lynley V Bradnam
title Ipsilateral motor pathways after stroke: implications for noninvasive brain stimulation
title_short Ipsilateral motor pathways after stroke: implications for noninvasive brain stimulation
title_full Ipsilateral motor pathways after stroke: implications for noninvasive brain stimulation
title_fullStr Ipsilateral motor pathways after stroke: implications for noninvasive brain stimulation
title_full_unstemmed Ipsilateral motor pathways after stroke: implications for noninvasive brain stimulation
title_sort ipsilateral motor pathways after stroke: implications for noninvasive brain stimulation
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
issn 1662-5161
publishDate 2013-05-01
description In humans the two cerebral hemispheres have essential roles in controlling the upper limb. The purpose of this article is to draw attention to the potential importance of ipsilateral descending pathways for functional recovery after stroke, and the use of noninvasive brain stimulation (NBS) protocols of the contralesional primary motor cortex (M1). Conventionally NBS is used to suppress contralesional M1, and to attenuate transcallosal inhibition onto the ipsilesional M1. There has been little consideration of the fact that contralesional M1 suppression may also reduce excitability of ipsilateral descending pathways that may be important for paretic upper limb control for some patients. One such ipsilateral pathway is the cortico-reticulo-propriospinal pathway (CRPP). In this review we outline a neurophysiological model to explain how contralesional M1 may gain control of the paretic arm via the CRPP. We conclude that the relative importance of the CRPP for motor control in individual patients must be considered before using NBS to suppress contralesional M1. Neurophysiological, neuroimaging and clinical assessments can assist this decision making and facilitate the translation of NBS into the clinical setting.
topic Motor Cortex
Movement
stroke rehabilitation
direct current stimulation
propriospinal
url http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00184/full
work_keys_str_mv AT lynleyvbradnam ipsilateralmotorpathwaysafterstrokeimplicationsfornoninvasivebrainstimulation
AT cathymstinear ipsilateralmotorpathwaysafterstrokeimplicationsfornoninvasivebrainstimulation
AT winstondbyblow ipsilateralmotorpathwaysafterstrokeimplicationsfornoninvasivebrainstimulation
_version_ 1724480297690464256