Funktionserholung nach Schlaganfall und die therapeutische Rolle der nicht-invasiven Hirnstimulation

Caroline Tscherpel; Christian Grefkes

doi:10.1055/a-1272-9435

Klinische Neurophysiologie, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Klinische Neurophysiologie 2020; 51(04): 214-223
DOI: 10.1055/a-1272-9435

Übersicht

Funktionserholung nach Schlaganfall und die therapeutische Rolle der nicht-invasiven Hirnstimulation

Functional Recovery after Stroke and the Therapeutic Relevance of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation

Authors

Caroline Tscherpel

¹Klinik und Poliklinik für Neurologie, Universitätsklinik Köln

²Institut für Neurowissenschaften und Medizin (INM-3), Forschungszentrum Jülich
Christian Grefkes

¹Klinik und Poliklinik für Neurologie, Universitätsklinik Köln

²Institut für Neurowissenschaften und Medizin (INM-3), Forschungszentrum Jülich

Abstract

Zusammenfassung

Im Bereich der non-invasiven Hirnstimulation stellen die transkranielle Magnetstimulation (engl. transcranial magnetic stimulation, TMS) sowie die transkranielle Gleichstromstimulation (engl. transcranial direct current stimulation, tDCS) bis heute die wichtigsten Techniken zur Modulation kortikaler Erregbarkeit dar. Beide Verfahren induzieren Nacheffekte, welche die Zeit der reinen Stimulation überdauern, und ebnen damit den Weg für ihren therapeutischen Einsatz beim Schlaganfall. In diesem Übersichtsartikel diskutieren wir die aktuelle Datenlage TMS- und tDCS-vermittelter Therapien für die häufigsten schlaganfallbedingten Defizite wie Hemiparese, Aphasie und Neglect. Darüber hinaus adressieren wir mögliche Einschränkungen der gegenwärtigen Ansätze und zeigen Ansatzpunkte auf, um Neuromodulation nach Schlaganfall effektiver zu gestalten und damit das Outcome der Patienten zu verbessern.

Abstract

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) currently represent the most important techniques for modulating cortical excitability. Both approaches induce after-effects that outlast the time of stimulation, and thus form the foundation for their therapeutic use in stroke rehabilitation. The purpose of this review is to discuss current data on non-invasive stimulation therapies for the most common stroke-related deficits, i. e., hemiparesis, aphasia and neglect. In addition, we address current limitations and finally suggest strategies to potentially increase the effectiveness of neuromodulation after stroke in order to improve patients’ outcome.

Schlüsselwörter

Exzitabilität - Neurorehabiltiation - Plastizität - Neuromodulation - Hirnstimulation

Key words

Excitability - neurorehabilitation - plasticity - neuromodulation - brain stimulation

Volltext

Referenzen

Literatur
1 Carmichael ST. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of neural repair after stroke: Making waves. Ann Neurol 2006; 59: 735-742
2 Cramer SC. Repairing the human brain after stroke: I. Mechanisms of spontaneous recovery. Ann Neurol 2008; 63: 272-287
3 Lakhan SE, Kirchgessner A, Hofer M. Inflammatory mechanisms in ischemic stroke: therapeutic approaches. J Transl Med 2009; 7: 97
4 Nudo RJ. Recovery after brain injury: mechanisms and principles. Front Hum Neurosci 2013; 7: 887
5 Rehme AK, Fink GR, Cramon von DY. , u. a. The role of the contralesional motor cortex for motor recovery in the early days after stroke assessed with longitudinal FMRI. Cereb Cortex 2011; 21: 756-768
6 Heiss WD, Thiel A. A proposed regional hierarchy in recovery of post-stroke aphasia. Brain and Language 2006; 98: 118-123
7 Corbetta M, Kincade MJ, Lewis C. , u. a. Neural basis and recovery of spatial attention deficits in spatial neglect. Nat Neurosci 2005; 8: 1603-1610
8 Stockert A, Wawrzyniak M, Klingbeil J. , u. a. Dynamics of language reorganization after left temporo-parietal and frontal stroke. Brain 2020; 143: 844-861
9 Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. The Lancet 2011; 377: 1693-1702
10 Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Lindeman E. Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: facts and theories. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 2004; 22: 281-299
11 Zeiler SR, Krakauer JW. The interaction between training and plasticity in the poststroke brain. Current Opinion in Neurology 2013; 26: 609-616
12 Bernhardt J, Hayward KS, Kwakkel G. , u. a. Agreed Definitions and a Shared Vision for New Standards in Stroke Recovery Research: The Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable Taskforce. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2017; 31: 793-799
13 Prabhakaran S, Zarahn E, Riley C. , u. a. Inter-individual Variability in the Capacity for Motor Recovery After Ischemic Stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2007; 22: 64-71
14 Vliet R, Selles RW, Andrinopoulou ER. , u. a. Predicting upper limb motor impairment recovery after stroke: a mixture model. Ann Neurol 2020; 25679-25623
15 Nijboer TCW, Kollen BJ, Kwakkel G. Time course of visuospatial neglect early after stroke: a longitudinal cohort study. Cortex 2013; 49: 2021-2027
16 Lazar RM, Speizer AE, Festa JR. , u. a. Variability in language recovery after first-time stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 2008; 79: 530-534
17 Dobkin BH, Carmichael ST. The Specific Requirements of Neural Repair Trials for Stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2015; 30: 470-478
18 Krakauer JW, Carmichael ST, Corbett D. u. a. Getting Neurorehabilitation Right. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2012; 26: 923-931
19 Biernaskie J. Efficacy of Rehabilitative Experience Declines with Time after Focal Ischemic Brain Injury. J Neurosci 2004; 24: 1245-1254
20 Clarkson AN, Overman JJ, Zhong S. , u. a. AMPA Receptor-Induced Local Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor Signaling Mediates Motor Recovery after Stroke. J Neurosci 2011; 31: 3766-3775
21 Duncan PW, Goldstein LB, Matchar D. , u. a. Measurement of motor recovery after stroke. Outcome assessment and sample size requirements. Stroke 1992; 23: 1084-1089
22 Stinear CM, Barber PA, Petoe M. , u. a. The PREP algorithm predicts potential for upper limb recovery after stroke. Brain 2012; 135: 2527-2535
23 Nakayama H, Jørgensen HS, Raaschou HO. , u. a. The influence of age on stroke outcome. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Stroke 1994; 25: 808-813
24 Feng W, Wang J, Chhatbar PY. , u. a. Corticospinal tract lesion load: An imaging biomarker for stroke motor outcomes. Ann Neurol 2015; 78: 860-870
25 Goldstein LB, Samsa GP, Matchar DB. , u. a. Charlson Index Comorbidity Adjustment for Ischemic Stroke Outcome Studies. Stroke 2004; 35: 1941-1945
26 Grefkes C, Fink GR. Connectivity-based approaches in stroke and recovery of function. The Lancet Neurology 2014; 13: 206-216
27 Heiss WD, Kessler J, Thiel A. , u. a. Differential capacity of left and right hemispheric areas for compensation of poststroke aphasia. Ann Neurol 1999; 45: 430-438
28 Léger A, Démonet J-F, Ruff S. , u. a. Neural Substrates of Spoken Language Rehabilitation in an Aphasic Patient: An fMRI Study. NeuroImage 2002; 17: 174-183
29 Belin P, Van Eeckhout P, Zilbovicius M. , u. a. Recovery from nonfluent aphasia after melodic intonation therapy: a PET study. Neurology 1996; 47: 1504-1511
30 Rosen HJ, Petersen SE, Linenweber MR. , u. a. Neural correlates of recovery from aphasia after damage to left inferior frontal cortex. Neurology 2000; 55: 1883-1894
31 Auriat AM, Neva JL, Peters S. , u. a. A Review of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Multimodal Neuroimaging to Characterize Post-Stroke Neuroplasticity. Front Neurol 2015; 6: 226
32 Xu J, Branscheidt M, Schambra H. , u. a. Rethinking interhemispheric imbalance as a target for stroke neurorehabilitation. Ann Neurol 2019; 1-36
33 Friston KJ, Harrison L, Penny W. Dynamic causal modelling. NeuroImage 2003; 19: 1273-1302
34 Grefkes C, Nowak DA, Eickhoff SB. , u. a. Cortical connectivity after subcortical stroke assessed with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Neurol 2008; 63: 236-246
35 Koch G, Oliveri M, Cheeran B. u. a. Hyperexcitability of parietal-motor functional connections in the intact left-hemisphere of patients with neglect. Brain 2008; 131: 3147-3155
36 Kinsbourne M. Hemi-neglect and hemisphere rivalry. Adv Neurol 1977; 18: 41-49
37 Geranmayeh F, Brownsett SLE, Wise RJS. Task-induced brain activity in aphasic stroke patients: what is driving recovery?. Brain 2014; 137: 2632-2648
38 Lefaucheur J-P, Aleman A, Baeken C. , u. a. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): An update (2014–2018). Clinical Neurophysiology 2020: 474-528
39 Rossini PM, Burke D, Chen R. , u. a. Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: Basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an I.F.C.N. Committee. Clin Neurophysiol 2015; 126: 1071-1107
40 Huang Y-Z, Edwards MJ, Rounis E. , u. a. Theta Burst Stimulation of the Human Motor Cortex. Neuron 2005; 45: 201-206
41 Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J Physiol (Lond) 2000; 527: 633-639
42 Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Transcranial direct current stimulation−update 2011. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 2011; 29: 463-492
43 Nitsche MA, Fricke K, Henschke U. , u. a. Pharmacological modulation of cortical excitability shifts induced by transcranial direct current stimulation in humans. J Physiol (Lond) 2003; 553: 293-301
44 Bestmann S, Baudewig J, Siebner HR, u. a. BOLD MRI responses to repetitive TMS over human dorsal premotor cortex. NeuroImage 2005;
45 Nettekoven C, Volz LJ, Kutscha M. , u. a. Dose-Dependent Effects of Theta Burst rTMS on Cortical Excitability and Resting-State Connectivity of the Human Motor System. Journal of Neuroscience 2014; 34: 6849-6859
46 Polanía R, Paulus W, Nitsche MA. Modulating cortico-striatal and thalamo-cortical functional connectivity with transcranial direct current stimulation. Hum Brain Mapp 2011; 33: 2499-2508
47 Polanía R, Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Modulating functional connectivity patterns and topological functional organization of the human brain with transcranial direct current stimulation. Hum Brain Mapp 2010; 32: 1236-1249
48 Keeser D, Meindl T, Bor J. , u. a. Prefrontal transcranial direct current stimulation changes connectivity of resting-state networks during fMRI. Journal of Neuroscience 2011; 31: 15284-15293
49 Liew S-L, Santarnecchi E, Buch ER. , u. a. Non-invasive brain stimulation in neurorehabilitation: local and distant effects for motor recovery. Front Hum Neurosci 2014; 8: 265
50 Rothkegel H, Sommer M, Paulus W. Breaks during 5 Hz rTMS are essential for facilitatory after effects. Clin Neurophysiol 2010; 121: 426-430
51 Hamada M, Murase N, Hasan A. , u. a. The role of interneuron networks in driving human motor cortical plasticity. Cereb Cortex 2013; 23: 1593-1605
52 Cheeran B, Talelli P, Mori F. , u. a. A common polymorphism in the brain-derived neurotrophic factor gene (BDNF) modulates human cortical plasticity and the response to rTMS. The Journal of Physiology 2008; 586: 5717-5725
53 Batsikadze G, Moliadze V, Paulus W. , u. a. Partially non-linear stimulation intensity-dependent effects of direct current stimulation on motor cortex excitability in humans. The Journal of Physiology 2013; 591: 1987-2000
54 Bienenstock EL, Cooper LN, Munro PW. Theory for the development of neuron selectivity: orientation specificity and binocular interaction in visual cortex. J Neurosci 1982; 2: 32-48
55 Müller-Dahlhaus F, Ziemann U. Metaplasticity in Human Cortex. The Neuroscientist 2015; 21: 185-202
56 Grefkes C, Ward NS. Cortical Reorganization After Stroke: How Much and How Functional?. The Neuroscientist 2014; 20: 56-70
57 Hummel FC, Celnik P, Pascual-Leone A. , u. a. Controversy: Noninvasive and invasive cortical stimulation show efficacy in treating stroke patients. Brain Stimul 2008; 1: 370-382
58 Lefaucheur J-P, André-Obadia N, Antal A. , u. a. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Clinical Neurophysiology 2014; 125: 2150-2206
59 Lefaucheur J-P, Antal A, Ayache SS. , u. a. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Clinical Neurophysiology 2017; 128: 56-92
60 Volz LJ, Rehme AK, Michely J. , u. a. Shaping Early Reorganization of Neural Networks Promotes Motor Function after Stroke. Cerebral Cortex 2016; bhw034
61 Guan Y-Z, Li J, Zhang X-W. , u. a. Effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) after acute stroke: A one-year longitudinal randomized trial. CNS Neurosci Ther 2017; 23: 940-946
62 Hosomi K, Morris S, Sakamoto T. , u. a. Daily Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Poststroke Upper Limb Paresis in the Subacute Period. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2016; 25: 1655-1664
63 Du J, Tian L, Liu W. , u. a. Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on motor recovery and motor cortex excitability in patients with stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Neurol 2016; 23: 1666-1672
64 Li J, Meng X-M, Li R-Y. , u. a. Effects of different frequencies of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on the recovery of upper limb motor dysfunction in patients with subacute cerebral infarction. Neural Regen Res 2016; 11: 1584-1587
65 Matsuura A, Onoda K, Oguro H. , u. a. Magnetic stimulation and movement-related cortical activity for acute stroke with hemiparesis. Eur J Neurol 2015; 22: 1526-1532
66 Lüdemann-Podubecká J, Bösl K, Theilig S. , u. a. The Effectiveness of 1Hz rTMS Over the Primary Motor Area of the Unaffected Hemisphere to Improve Hand Function After Stroke Depends on Hemispheric Dominance. Brain Stimul 2015; 8: 823-830
67 Meng Z-Y, Song W-Q. Low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation improves motor dysfunction after cerebral infarction. Neural Regen Res 2017; 12: 610-613
68 Ameli M, Grefkes C, Kemper F. , u. a. Differential effects of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over ipsilesional primary motor cortex in cortical and subcortical middle cerebral artery stroke. Ann Neurol 2009; 66: 298-309
69 Long H, Wang H, Zhao C. , u. a. Effects of combining high- and low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on upper limb hemiparesis in the early phase of stroke. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 2018; 36: 21-30
70 Duque J, Hummel F, Celnik P. , u. a. Transcallosal inhibition in chronic subcortical stroke. NeuroImage 2005; 28: 940-946
71 Nowak DA, Grefkes C, Dafotakis M. , u. a. Effects of Low-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Contralesional Primary Motor Cortex on Movement Kinematics and Neural Activity in Subcortical Stroke. Archives of Neurology 2008; 65: 741-747
72 Grefkes C, Nowak DA, Wang LE. , u. a. Modulating cortical connectivity in stroke patients by rTMS assessed with fMRI and dynamic causal modeling – ScienceDirect. NeuroImage 2010; 2013: 233-242 Im Internet: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811909013172
73 Fregni F, Boggio PS, Valle AC. , u. a. A sham-controlled trial of a 5-day course of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the unaffected hemisphere in stroke patients. Stroke 2006; 37: 2115-2122
74 Avenanti A, Coccia M, Ladavas E. , u. a. Low-frequency rTMS promotes use-dependent motor plasticity in chronic stroke: A randomized trial. Neurology 2012; 78: 256-264
75 Emara TH, Moustafa RR, ElNahas NM. , u. a. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation at 1 Hz and 5 Hz produces sustained improvement in motor function and disability after ischaemic stroke. Eur J Neurol 2010; 17: 1203-1209
76 Harvey RL, Edwards D, Dunning K. , u. a. Randomized Sham-Controlled Trial of Navigated Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Motor Recovery in Stroke. Stroke 2018; 49: 2138-2146
77 Diekhoff-Krebs S, Pool E-M, Sarfeld A-S. , u. a. Interindividual differences in motor network connectivity and behavioral response to iTBS in stroke patients. NeuroImage: Clinical 2017; 15: 559-571
78 Hao Z, Wang D, Zeng Y. , u. a. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for improving function after stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013; 78: 256-256
79 Sattler V, Acket B, Raposo N. , u. a. Anodal tDCS Combined With Radial Nerve Stimulation Promotes Hand Motor Recovery in the Acute Phase After Ischemic Stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2014; 29: 743-754
80 Khedr EM, Shawky OA, El-Hammady DH. , u. a. Effect of Anodal Versus Cathodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Stroke Rehabilitation. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2013; 27: 592-601
81 Chang MC, Kim DY, Park DH. Enhancement of Cortical Excitability and Lower Limb Motor Function in Patients With Stroke by Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation. Brain Stimul 2015; 8: 561-566
82 Hesse S, Waldner A, Mehrholz J. , u. a. Combined Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Robot-Assisted Arm Training in Subacute Stroke Patients. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2011; 25: 838-846
83 Rossi C, Sallustio F, Di Legge S. , u. a. Transcranial direct current stimulation of the affected hemisphere does not accelerate recovery of acute stroke patients. Eur J Neurol 2013; 20: 202-204
84 Allman C, Amadi U, Winkler AM. , u. a. Ipsilesional anodal tDCS enhances the functional benefits of rehabilitation in patients after stroke. Science Translational Medicine 2016; 8: 330re1
85 Geroin C, Picelli A, Munari D. , u. a. Combined transcranial direct current stimulation and robot-assisted gait training in patients with chronic stroke: a preliminary comparison. Clin Rehabil 2011; 25: 537-548
86 Viana RT, Laurentino GEC, Souza RJP. , u. a. Effects of the addition of transcranial direct current stimulation to virtual reality therapy after stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. NRE 2014; 34: 437-446
87 Elsner B, Kugler J, Pohl M. , u. a. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning, in people after stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016; 96: S79-S190
88 Naeser MA, Martin PI, Baker EH. , u. a. Overt propositional speech in chronic nonfluent aphasia studied with the dynamic susceptibility contrast fMRI method. NeuroImage 2004; 22: 29-41
89 Bhogal SK, Teasell R, Speechley M. Intensity of Aphasia Therapy, Impact on Recovery. Stroke 2003; 34: 987-993
90 Thiel A, Hartmann A, Rubi-Fessen I. , u. a. Effects of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation on Language Networks and Recovery in Early Poststroke Aphasia. Stroke 2013; 44: 2240-2246
91 Waldowski K, Seniów J, Leśniak M. , u. a. Effect of Low-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Naming Abilities in Early-Stroke Aphasic Patients: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Sham-Controlled Study. The Scientific World Journal 2012; 2012: 1-8
92 Heiss W-D, Hartmann A, Rubi-Fessen I. , u. a. Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Treatment of Right- and Left-Handed Poststroke Aphasics. Cerebrovasc Dis 2013; 36: 363-372
93 Seniów J, Waldowski K, Leśniak M. , u. a. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Combined with Speech and Language Training in Early Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Pilot Study. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 2015; 20: 250-261
94 Rubi-Fessen I, Hartmann A, Huber W. , u. a. Add-on Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Subacute Aphasia Therapy: Enhanced Improvement of Functional Communication and Basic Linguistic Skills. A Randomized Controlled Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015; 96: e2
95 Yoon TH, Han SJ, Yoon TS. , u. a. Therapeutic effect of repetitive magnetic stimulation combined with speech and language therapy in post-stroke non-fluent aphasia. NRE 2015; 36: 107-114
96 Hu X-Y, Zhang T, Rajah GB. , u. a. Effects of different frequencies of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in stroke patients with non-fluent aphasia: a randomized, sham-controlled study. Neurological Research 2018; 1-7
97 Tsai P-Y, Wang C-P, Ko JS. , u. a. The Persistent and Broadly Modulating Effect of Inhibitory rTMS in Nonfluent Aphasic Patients. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2014; 28: 779-787
98 Wang C-P, Hsieh C-Y, Tsai P-Y. , u. a. Efficacy of Synchronous Verbal Training During Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Patients With Chronic Aphasia. Stroke 2014; 45: 3656-3662
99 Elsner B, Kugler J, Pohl M. , u. a. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia in adults with aphasia after stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019; 41: 1229-112
100 Biou E, Cassoudesalle H, Cogné M. , u. a. Transcranial direct current stimulation in post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation: A systematic review. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2019; 62: 104-121
101 de Aguiar V, Paolazzi CL, Miceli G. tDCS in post-stroke aphasia: the role of stimulation parameters, behavioral treatment and patient characteristics. Cortex 2015; 63: 296-316
102 You DS, Kim DY, Chun MH. , u. a. Cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the right Wernicke’s area improves comprehension in subacute stroke patients. Brain and Language 2011; 119: 1-5
103 Spielmann K, van de Sandt-Koenderman WME, Heijenbrok-Kal MH. , u. a. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Does Not Improve Language Outcome in Subacute Poststroke Aphasia. Stroke 2018; 49: 1018-1020
104 Polanowska KE, Leśniak MM, Seniów JB. , u. a. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation in early rehabilitation of patients with post-stroke non-fluent aphasia: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled pilot study. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 2013; 31: 761-771
105 Fridriksson J, Rorden C, Elm J. , u. a. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation vs Sham Stimulation to Treat Aphasia After Stroke. JAMA Neurol 2018; 75: 1470-1477
106 Fridriksson J, Richardson JD, Baker JM. , u. a. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Improves Naming Reaction Time in Fluent Aphasia. Stroke 2011; 42: 819-821
107 Baker JM, Rorden C, Fridriksson J. Using Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation to Treat Stroke Patients With Aphasia. Stroke 2010; 41: 1229-1236
108 Fiori V, Coccia M, Marinelli CV. , u. a. Transcranial direct current stimulation improves word retrieval in healthy and nonfluent aphasic subjects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2011; 23: 2309-2323
109 Campana S, Caltagirone C, Marangolo P. Combining Voxel-based Lesion-symptom Mapping (VLSM) With A-tDCS Language Treatment: Predicting Outcome of Recovery in Nonfluent Chronic Aphasia. Brain Stimul 2015; 8: 769-776
110 Yi YG, Chun MH, Do KH. , u. a. The Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Neglect Syndrome in Stroke Patients. Ann Rehabil Med 2016; 40: 223-227
111 Làdavas E, Giulietti S, Avenanti A. , u. a. a-tDCS on the ipsilesional parietal cortex boosts the effects of prism adaptation treatment in neglect. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 2015; 33: 647-662
112 Cazzoli D, Muri RM, Schumacher R. , u. a. Theta burst stimulation reduces disability during the activities of daily living in spatial neglect. Brain 2012; 135: 3426-3439
113 Koch G, Bonnì S, Giacobbe V. , u. a. θ-burst stimulation of the left hemisphere accelerates recovery of hemispatial neglect. Neurology 2012; 78: 24-30
114 Nyffeler T, Vanbellingen T, Kaufmann BC. , u. a. Theta burst stimulation in neglect after stroke: functional outcome and response variability origins. Brain 2019; 142: 992-1008
115 Nyffeler T, Cazzoli D, Hess CW. , u. a. One Session of Repeated Parietal Theta Burst Stimulation Trains Induces Long-Lasting Improvement of Visual Neglect. Stroke 2009; 40: 2791-2796
116 Fu W, Song W, Zhang Y. , u. a. Long-term effects of continuous theta-burst stimulation in visuospatial neglect. J Int Med Res 2015; 43: 196-203
117 Bornheim S, Maquet P, Croisier JL. , u. a. Motor cortex Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) improves acute stroke visuo-spatial neglect: A series of four case reports. Brain Stimul 2019; 11: 459-461
118 Ko M-H, Han S-H, Park S-H. , u. a. Improvement of visual scanning after DC brain polarization of parietal cortex in stroke patients with spatial neglect. Neuroscience Letters 2008; 448: 171-174
119 Smit M, Schutter DJLG, Nijboer TCW. , u. a. Transcranial direct current stimulation to the parietal cortex in hemispatial neglect: A feasibility study. Neuropsychologia 2015; 74: 152-161
120 Sunwoo H, Kim Y-H, Chang WH. , u. a. Effects of dual transcranial direct current stimulation on post-stroke unilateral visuospatial neglect. Neuroscience Letters 2013; 554: 94-98
121 Tscherpel C, Hensel L, Lemberg K. , u. a. The differential roles of contralesional frontoparietal areas in cortical reorganization after stroke. Brain Stimul 2020; 13: 614-624
122 Lotze M, Markert J, Sauseng P. , u. a. The role of multiple contralesional motor areas for complex hand movements after internal capsular lesion. Journal of Neuroscience 2006; 26: 6096-6102
123 Johansen-Berg H, Rushworth MFS, Bogdanovic MD. , u. a. The role of ipsilateral premotor cortex in hand movement after stroke. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002; 99: 14518-14523
124 Rehme AK, Volz LJ, Feis DL. , u. a. Identifying Neuroimaging Markers of Motor Disability in Acute Stroke by Machine Learning Techniques. Cerebral Cortex 2015; 25: 3046-3056
125 Rehme AK, Volz LJ, Feis D-L. , u. a. Individual prediction of chronic motor outcome in the acute post-stroke stage: Behavioral parameters versus functional imaging. Hum Brain Mapp 2015; 36: 4553-4565
126 Siegel JS, Seitzman BA, Ramsey LE. , u. a. Re-emergence of modular brain networks in stroke recovery. Cortex 2018; 101: 44-59
127 Zrenner C, Belardinelli P, Müller-Dahlhaus F. , u. a. Closed-Loop Neuroscience and Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation: A Tale of Two Loops. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience 2016; 10: 92
128 Zrenner C, Desideri D, Belardinelli P. , u. a. Brain Stimulation. Brain Stimul 2018; 11: 374-389
129 Hussain SJ, Hayward W, Fourcand F. , u. a. Phase-dependent transcranial magnetic stimulation of the lesioned hemisphere is accurate after stroke. Brain Stimul 2020; 1-11
130 Tscherpel C, Dern S, Hensel L. et al. Brain responsivity provides an individual readout for motor recovery after stroke. Brain 2020; 143: 1873-1888
131 Hensel L, Grefkes C, Tscherpel C. , u. a. Intermittent theta burst stimulation applied during early rehabilitation after stroke: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2019; 9 (12) e034088
132 Kleineberg NN, Richter MK, Becker I. , u. a. Verum versus sham tDCS in the treatment of stroke-induced apraxia: study protocol of the randomized controlled trial RAdiCS -“Rehabilitating (stroke-induced) Apraxia with direct Current stimulation”. Neurological Research and Practice 2020; 2: 7