1,721,001 research outputs found
Does the Side of Stroke Matter? An fMRI Study on the Role of Stroke Laterality on the Action Observation Network
No full textAbstract
Date Presented 4/1/2017
This poster presents an fMRI study on the role of the action observation network in stroke recovery by examining brain activity differences after left hemisphere stroke and right hemisphere stroke. Our findings suggest that the side of stroke may impact responsiveness to treatment.
Primary Author and Speaker: Kaori L. Ito
Contributing Authors: Sook-Lei Liew, Kathleen Alice Garrison, Panthea Heydari, Mona Sobhani, Julie Werner, Hanna Damasio, Carolee Winstein, Lisa Aziz-Zadeh</jats:p
sj-docx-2-otj-10.1177_15394492221091266 – Supplemental material for Feasibility of an Online Langerian Mindfulness Program for Stroke Survivors and Caregivers
No full textSupplemental material, sj-docx-2-otj-10.1177_15394492221091266 for Feasibility of an Online Langerian Mindfulness Program for Stroke Survivors and Caregivers by Marika Demers, Francesco Pagnini, Deborah Phillips, Brianna Chang, Carolee Winstein and Ellen Langer in OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health</p
sj-doc-1-otj-10.1177_15394492221091266 – Supplemental material for Feasibility of an Online Langerian Mindfulness Program for Stroke Survivors and Caregivers
No full textSupplemental material, sj-doc-1-otj-10.1177_15394492221091266 for Feasibility of an Online Langerian Mindfulness Program for Stroke Survivors and Caregivers by Marika Demers, Francesco Pagnini, Deborah Phillips, Brianna Chang, Carolee Winstein and Ellen Langer in OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health</p
Supplemental_Material – Supplemental material for An investigation into the validity and reliability of mHealth devices for counting steps in chronic stroke survivors
No full textSupplemental material, Supplemental_Material for An investigation into the validity and reliability of mHealth devices for counting steps in chronic stroke survivors by Pollyana Helena Vieira Costa, Thainá Paula Dias de Jesus, Carolee Winstein, Camila Torriani-Pasin and Janaine Cunha Polese in Clinical Rehabilitation</p
sj-pdf-1-nnr-10.1177_15459683211068441 – Supplemental Material for Corticospinal Tract Lesion Load Originating From Both Ventral Premotor and Primary Motor Cortices Are Associated With Post-stroke Motor Severity
No full textSupplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-nnr-10.1177_15459683211068441 for Corticospinal Tract Lesion Load Originating From Both Ventral Premotor and Primary Motor Cortices Are Associated With Post-stroke Motor Severity by Kaori L. Ito, Bokkyu Kim, Jingchun Liu, Surjo R. Soekadar, Carolee Winstein, Chunshui Yu, Steven C. Cramer, Nicolas Schweighofer, and Sook-Lei Liew in Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair</p
Measurement_Supplementary_Tables – Supplemental material for Standardized Measurement of Sensorimotor Recovery in Stroke Trials: Consensus-Based Core Recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable*
No full textSupplemental material, Measurement_Supplementary_Tables for Standardized Measurement of Sensorimotor Recovery in Stroke Trials: Consensus-Based Core Recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable* by Gert Kwakkel, Natasha A. Lannin, Karen Borschmann, Coralie English, Myzoon Ali, Leonid Churilov, Gustavo Saposnik, Carolee Winstein, Erwin E. H. van Wegen, Steven L. Wolf, John W. Krakauer and Julie Bernhardt in Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair</p
Thoughts About the Negative Results of Clinical Trials in Rehabilitation Medicine
No full textThe last decade has witnessed an increase in the number of moderate to large-scale nonpharmacologic stroke recovery trials. While a majority, having tested the superiority of a particular evidence-based intervention, returned negative findings, the rehabilitation research community has gained an important perspective for future efforts. We offer our interpretation first, on why most of the past decade’s trials failed in the sense of not supporting the primary superiority hypothesis, and, second, we provide our perspective on how to solve this problem and thereby inform the next generation of neurorehabilitation clinical trials. The first large-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) ever conducted in neurorehabilitation was the Extremity Constraint Induced Movement Therapy Evaluation (EXCITE) trial. The majority of stroke recovery trials that followed were based on a prevailing, but as yet immature science of brain-behavior mechanisms for recovery and limited practical know-how about how to select the most meaningful outcomes. The research community had been seduced by a set of preclinical studies, ignited by the 1990’s revolution in neuroscience and an oversimplified premise that high doses of task-oriented training was the most important ingredient to foster recovery. Here, we highlight recent qualitative and quantitative evidence, both mechanistic and theory-driven, that integrates crucial social and personal factors to inform a more mature science better suited for the next generation of recovery-supportive rehabilitation clinical trials.</jats:p
The ATTEND trial: An alternative explanation with implications for future recovery and rehabilitation clinical trials
No full text Over the past decade, ATTEND is one of only a handful of moderate to large-scale nonpharmacologic stroke recovery trials with a focus on rehabilitation. While unique in some respects, its test of superiority for the experimental intervention returned negative/neutral results, with no differences in outcome between the experimental intervention and an appropriate control group – a result not uncommon to the majority of moderate to large stroke rehabilitation intervention trials (i.e. six out of eight conducted in the past decade). The authors offer a number of potential explanations for the negative outcome, all of which have merit. We choose not to dwell on these possibilities, but rather offer a radically different explanation, one which has implications for future rehabilitation clinical trials. Our premise is that the process of neurorehabilitation is complex and multifaceted, but most importantly, for success, it requires a genuine collaboration between the patient and the clinician or caregiver to effect optimal recovery. This collaborative relationship must be defined by the unique perspective of each patient. By doing so, we acknowledge the importance of the individual patient’s values, goals, perspectives, and capacity. Rehabilitation scientists can design what arguably is a scientifically sound intervention that is evidence-based and even with preliminary data supporting its efficacy, but if the patient does not value the target outcome, does not fully engage in the therapy, or does not expect the intervention to succeed, the likelihood of success is poor. We offer this opinion, not to be critical, but to suggest a paradigm shift in the way in which we conduct stroke recovery and rehabilitation trials. </jats:p
Relationship Between Motor Capacity of the Contralesional and Ipsilesional Hand Depends on the Side of Stroke in Chronic Stroke Survivors With Mild-to-Moderate Impairment
No full text
- …
