Download PDF
Semin Neurol 2021; 41(02): 111-123
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1725132
Review Article

Clinical Neurorehabilitation: Using Principles of Neurological Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Neuroplasticity in Assessment and Treatment Planning

Douglas I. Katz
1   Department of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
2   Encompass Health Braintree Rehabilitation Hospital, Braintree, Massachusetts
,
Brigid Dwyer 
1   Department of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
2   Encompass Health Braintree Rehabilitation Hospital, Braintree, Massachusetts
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Neurorehabilitation aspires to restore a person to his or her fullest potential after incurring neurological dysfunction. In medical rehabilitation, diagnosis involves assessment of medical conditions and their effects on functioning. It is usually a team effort that involves an amalgam of diagnostic assessments by multiple disciplines, leading to a collection of rehabilitative treatment plans and goals. This article discusses a clinical neurological paradigm, using rigorous clinical assessment of neuropathological and clinical diagnosis, along with prognostication of natural history and recovery. In the context of the role of neuroplasticity in recovery, this paradigm can add significant value to rehabilitation team management and planning. It contributes to enhanced understanding of neurological impairments and syndromes as they relate to functional disability, aiding in targeting deficits and setting treatment goals. Rehabilitation strategies and goals should be informed by natural history and prognosis, and viewed in the framework of the stage of recovery. Prognostic formulations should suggest an emphasis on restorative versus compensatory strategies for functional problems. Treatment planning should be informed by evidence on how interventions modulate brain reorganization in promoting recovery. Strategies that promote adaptive neuroplasticity should be favored, especially with restorative efforts, and evidence supporting optimal techniques, timing, and dosing of rehabilitation should be considered in treatment planning.

Keywords

neurorehabilitation - brain injuries - stroke rehabilitation - recovery of function


Publication History

Article published online:
04 March 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 World Health Organization.. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 2 World Health Organization.. International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps: A Manual of Classification Relating to the Consequences of Disease. Geneva: 1980
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Chen CL, Tang FT, Chen HC, Chung CY, Wong MK. Brain lesion size and location: effects on motor recovery and functional outcome in stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81 (04) 447-452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Shelton FN, Reding MJ. Effect of lesion location on upper limb motor recovery after stroke. Stroke 2001; 32 (01) 107-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Qu JF, Chen YK, Luo GP, Zhao JH, Zhong HH, Yin HP. Severe lesions involving cortical cholinergic pathways predict poorer functional outcome in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 2018; 49 (12) 2983-2989
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dijkland SA, Foks KA, Polinder S. et al. Prognosis in moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of contemporary models and validation studies. J Neurotrauma 2020; 37 (01) 1-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Haghbayan H, Boutin A, Laflamme M. et al. The prognostic value of MRI in moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2017; 45 (12) e1280-e1288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Novack TA, Bush BA, Meythaler JM, Canupp K. Outcome after traumatic brain injury: pathway analysis of contributions from premorbid, injury severity, and recovery variables. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82 (03) 300-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Felmingham KL, Baguley IJ, Crooks J. A comparison of acute and postdischarge predictors of employment 2 years after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82 (04) 435-439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Stevens RD, Sutter R. Prognosis in severe brain injury. Crit Care Med 2013; 41 (04) 1104-1123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Cohen-Zimerman S, Kachian ZR, Krueger F, Gordon B, Grafman J. Childhood socioeconomic status predicts cognitive outcomes across adulthood following traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychologia 2019; 124: 1-8 [correction appears in Neuropsychologia 2019;134:107142]
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Levin HS. Memory deficit after closed head injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1990; 12 (01) 129-153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Levin HS, Goldstein FC, High Jr WM, Eisenberg HM. Disproportionately severe memory deficit in relation to normal intellectual functioning after closed head injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1988; 51 (10) 1294-1301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Krakauer JW, Carmichael ST, Corbett D, Wittenberg GF. Getting neurorehabilitation right: what can be learned from animal models?. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2012; 26 (08) 923-931
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Konigs M, Beurskens EA, Snoep L, Scherder EJ, Oosterlaan J. Effects of timing and intensity of neurorehabilitation on functional outcome after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2018; 99 (06) 1149-1159.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Taub E, Uswatte G. Constraint-induced movement therapy: bridging from the primate laboratory to the stroke rehabilitation laboratory. J Rehabil Med 2003; (41, Suppl): 34-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Taub E, Uswatte G, Mark VW, Morris DM. The learned nonuse phenomenon: implications for rehabilitation. Eura Medicophys 2006; 42 (03) 241-256
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Agosta S, Herpich F, Miceli G, Ferraro F, Battelli L. Contralesional rTMS relieves visual extinction in chronic stroke. Neuropsychologia 2014; 62: 269-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nijland RH, van Wegen EE, Harmeling-van der Wel BC, Kwakkel G. EPOS Investigators. Presence of finger extension and shoulder abduction within 72 hours after stroke predicts functional recovery: early prediction of functional outcome after stroke: the EPOS cohort study. Stroke 2010; 41 (04) 745-750
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nakayama H, Jørgensen HS, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Compensation in recovery of upper extremity function after stroke: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75 (08) 852-857
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Byblow WD, Stinear CM, Barber PA, Petoe MA, Ackerley SJ. Proportional recovery after stroke depends on corticomotor integrity. Ann Neurol 2015; 78 (06) 848-859
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cortes JC, Goldsmith J, Harran MD. et al. A short and distinct time window for recovery of arm motor control early after stroke revealed with a global measure of trajectory kinematics. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2017; 31 (06) 552-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Winters C, van Wegen EE, Daffertshofer A, Kwakkel G. Generalizability of the proportional recovery model for the upper extremity after an ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2015; 29 (07) 614-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Prabhakaran S, Zarahn E, Riley C. et al. Inter-individual variability in the capacity for motor recovery after ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2008; 22 (01) 64-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Nudo RJ. Neural bases of recovery after brain injury. J Commun Disord 2011; 44 (05) 515-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Nudo RJ. Recovery after brain injury: mechanisms and principles. Front Hum Neurosci 2013; 7: 887
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 McGuire JL, Ngwenya LB, McCullumsmith RE. Neurotransmitter changes after traumatic brain injury: an update for new treatment strategies. Mol Psychiatry 2019; 24 (07) 995-1012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Ferrer I, Vidal N. Neuropathology of cerebrovascular diseases. Handb Clin Neurol 2017; 145: 79-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Urban III ET, Bury SD, Barbay HS, Guggenmos DJ, Dong Y, Nudo RJ. Gene expression changes of interconnected spared cortical neurons 7 days after ischemic infarct of the primary motor cortex in the rat. Mol Cell Biochem 2012; 369 (1-2): 267-286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Stowe AM, Plautz EJ, Eisner-Janowicz I. et al. VEGF protein associates to neurons in remote regions following cortical infarct. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2007; 27 (01) 76-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cramer SC, Sur M, Dobkin BH. et al. Harnessing neuroplasticity for clinical applications. Brain 2011; 134 (Pt 6): 1591-1609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Coleman ER, Moudgal R, Lang K. et al. Early rehabilitation after stroke: a narrative review. Curr Atheroscler Rep 2017; 19 (12) 59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Page SJ, Gater DR, Bach-Y-Rita P. Reconsidering the motor recovery plateau in stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85 (08) 1377-1381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Berthier ML, García-Casares N, Walsh SF. et al. Recovery from post-stroke aphasia: lessons from brain imaging and implications for rehabilitation and biological treatments. Discov Med 2011; 12 (65) 275-289
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Dancause N, Nudo RJ. Shaping plasticity to enhance recovery after injury. Prog Brain Res 2011; 192: 273-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Ward NS, Newton JM, Swayne OB. et al. Motor system activation after subcortical stroke depends on corticospinal system integrity. Brain 2006; 129 (Pt 3): 809-819
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Ward NS, Brown MM, Thompson AJ, Frackowiak RS. Neural correlates of outcome after stroke: a cross-sectional fMRI study. Brain 2003; 126 (Pt 6): 1430-1448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Ward NS, Cohen LG. Mechanisms underlying recovery of motor function after stroke. Arch Neurol 2004; 61: 1844Y8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Richards LG, Stewart KC, Woodbury ML, Senesac C, Cauraugh JH. Movement-dependent stroke recovery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of TMS and fMRI evidence. Neuropsychologia 2008; 46 (01) 3-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Grefkes C, Nowak DA, Eickhoff SB. et al. Cortical connectivity after subcortical stroke assessed with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Neurol 2008; 63 (02) 236-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Cunningham DA, Machado A, Janini D. et al. Assessment of inter-hemispheric imbalance using imaging and noninvasive brain stimulation in patients with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015; 96 (4, Suppl): S94-S103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Bertolucci F, Chisari C, Fregni F. The potential dual role of transcallosal inhibition in post-stroke motor recovery. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2018; 36 (01) 83-97
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 McCambridge AB, Stinear JW, Byblow WD. Revisiting interhemispheric imbalance in chronic stroke: a tDCS study. Clin Neurophysiol 2018; 129 (01) 42-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Di Pino G, Pellegrino G, Assenza G. et al. Modulation of brain plasticity in stroke: a novel model for neurorehabilitation. Nat Rev Neurol 2014; 10 (10) 597-608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Avenanti A, Coccia M, Ladavas E, Provinciali L, Ceravolo MG. Low-frequency rTMS promotes use-dependent motor plasticity in chronic stroke: a randomized trial. Neurology 2012; 78 (04) 256-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Wang RY, Tseng HY, Liao KK, Wang CJ, Lai KL, Yang YR. rTMS combined with task-oriented training to improve symmetry of interhemispheric corticomotor excitability and gait performance after stroke: a randomized trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2012; 26 (03) 222-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Corti M, Patten C, Triggs W. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of motor cortex after stroke: a focused review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 91 (03) 254-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Nowak DA, Grefkes C, Ameli M, Fink GR. Interhemispheric competition after stroke: brain stimulation to enhance recovery of function of the affected hand. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009; 23 (07) 641-656
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Cullen NK, Weisz K. Cognitive correlates with functional outcomes after anoxic brain injury: a case-controlled comparison with traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj 2011; 25 (01) 35-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Giacino JT, Katz DI, Schiff ND. et al. Practice guideline update recommendations summary: disorders of consciousness: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology; the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine; and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. Neurology 2018; 91 (10) 450-460 [correction appears in Neurology 2019;93(3):135]
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Adams JH, Doyle D, Ford I, Gennarelli TA, Graham DI, McLellan DR. Diffuse axonal injury in head injury: definition, diagnosis and grading. Histopathology 1989; 15 (01) 49-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Sarkar S, Majumder S, Roychowdhury A. Factors affecting diffuse axonal injury under blunt impact and proposal for a head injury criteria: a finite element analysis. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 2018; 46 (04) 289-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Katz DI, Alexander MP. Traumatic brain injury. Predicting course of recovery and outcome for patients admitted to rehabilitation. Arch Neurol 1994; 51 (07) 661-670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Zafonte RD, Mann NR, Millis SR, Black KL, Wood DL, Hammond F. Posttraumatic amnesia: its relation to functional outcome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997; 78 (10) 1103-1106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Nakase-Richardson R, Yablon SA, Sherer M. Prospective comparison of acute confusion severity with duration of post-traumatic amnesia in predicting employment outcome after traumatic brain injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2007; 78 (08) 872-876
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Cohen JR, D'Esposito M. The segregation and integration of distinct brain networks and their relationship to cognition. J Neurosci 2016; 36 (48) 12083-12094
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Liang X, Zou Q, He Y, Yang Y. Topologically reorganized connectivity architecture of default-mode, executive-control, and salience networks across working memory task loads. Cereb Cortex 2016; 26 (04) 1501-1511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Sair HI, Hannawi Y, Li S. et al; Neuroimaging for Coma Emergence and Recovery (NICER) Consortium. Early functional connectome integrity and 1-year recovery in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest. Radiology 2018; 287 (01) 247-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Ramani R. Connectivity. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2015; 28 (05) 498-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Park HJ, Friston K. Structural and functional brain networks: from connections to cognition. Science 2013; 342 (6158): 1238411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Bell PT, Shine JM. Estimating large-scale network convergence in the human functional connectome. Brain Connect 2015; 5 (09) 565-574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Siegel JS, Seitzman BA, Ramsey LE. et al. Re-emergence of modular brain networks in stroke recovery. Cortex 2018; 101: 44-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Zheng X, Schlaug G. Structural white matter changes in descending motor tracts correlate with improvements in motor impairment after undergoing a treatment course of tDCS and physical therapy. Front Hum Neurosci 2015; 9: 229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Feys H, Hetebrij J, Wilms G, Dom R, De Weerdt W. Predicting arm recovery following stroke: value of site of lesion. Acta Neurol Scand 2000; 102 (06) 371-377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Puig J, Pedraza S, Blasco G. et al. Acute damage to the posterior limb of the internal capsule on diffusion tensor tractography as an early imaging predictor of motor outcome after stroke. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011; 32 (05) 857-863
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 van Kuijk AA, Pasman JW, Hendricks HT, Zwarts MJ, Geurts AC. Predicting hand motor recovery in severe stroke: the role of motor evoked potentials in relation to early clinical assessment. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009; 23 (01) 45-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Soulard J, Huber C, Baillieul S. et al; ISIS-HERMES Group. Motor tract integrity predicts walking recovery: a diffusion MRI study in subacute stroke. Neurology 2020; 94 (06) e583-e593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Andoh J, Matsushita R, Zatorre RJ. Insights into auditory cortex dynamics from non-invasive brain stimulation. Front Neurosci 2018; 12: 469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Morecraft RJ, Louie JL, Herrick JL, Stilwell-Morecraft KS. Cortical innervation of the facial nucleus in the non-human primate: a new interpretation of the effects of stroke and related subtotal brain trauma on the muscles of facial expression. Brain 2001; 124 (Pt 1): 176-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 D'Esposito M, Verfaellie M, Alexander MP, Katz DI. Amnesia following traumatic bilateral fornix transection. Neurology 1995; 45 (08) 1546-1550
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Scoville WB, Milner B. Loss of recent memory after bilateral hippocampal lesions. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1957; 20 (01) 11-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Yonelinas AP, Kroll NE, Quamme JR. et al. Effects of extensive temporal lobe damage or mild hypoxia on recollection and familiarity. Nat Neurosci 2002; 5 (11) 1236-1241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Ramsey LE, Siegel JS, Baldassarre A. et al. Normalization of network connectivity in hemispatial neglect recovery. Ann Neurol 2016; 80 (01) 127-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Smania N, Paolucci S, Tinazzi M. et al. Active finger extension: a simple movement predicting recovery of arm function in patients with acute stroke. Stroke 2007; 38 (03) 1088-1090
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Winters C, Kwakkel G, Nijland R, van Wegen E. EXPLICIT-Stroke Consortium. When does return of voluntary finger extension occur post-stroke? A prospective cohort study. PLoS One 2016; 11 (08) e0160528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Stinear CM, Barber PA, Petoe M, Anwar S, Byblow WD. The PREP algorithm predicts potential for upper limb recovery after stroke. Brain 2012; 135 (Pt 8): 2527-2535
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Stinear CM, Byblow WD, Ackerley SJ, Smith MC, Borges VM, Barber PA. PREP2: A biomarker-based algorithm for predicting upper limb function after stroke. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 2017; 4 (11) 811-820
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Dobkin BH, Dorsch A. New evidence for therapies in stroke rehabilitation. Curr Atheroscler Rep 2013; 15 (06) 331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Krakauer JW. Arm function after stroke: from physiology to recovery. Semin Neurol 2005; 25 (04) 384-395
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP. et al. Retention of upper limb function in stroke survivors who have received constraint-induced movement therapy: the EXCITE randomised trial. Lancet Neurol 2008; 7 (01) 33-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Duncan PW, Sullivan KJ, Behrman AL. et al; LEAPS Investigative Team. Protocol for the Locomotor Experience Applied Post-stroke (LEAPS) trial: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Neurol 2007; 7: 39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Lo AC, Guarino PD, Richards LG. et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med 2010; 362 (19) 1772-1783
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Lewthwaite R, Winstein CJ, Lane CJ. et al. Accelerating stroke recovery: body structures and functions, activities, participation, and quality of life outcomes from a large rehabilitation trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2018; 32 (02) 150-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Li Z, Zhang X, Wang K, Wen J. Effects of early mobilization after acute stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2018; 27 (05) 1326-1337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Risedal A, Zeng J, Johansson BB. Early training may exacerbate brain damage after focal brain ischemia in the rat. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1999; 19 (09) 997-1003
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 AVERT Trial Collaboration Group.. Efficacy and safety of very early mobilisation within 24 h of stroke onset (AVERT): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 386 (9988): 46-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Moss A, Nicholas M. Language rehabilitation in chronic aphasia and time postonset: a review of single-subject data. Stroke 2006; 37 (12) 3043-3051
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Kolb B, Teskey GC. Age, experience, injury, and the changing brain. Dev Psychobiol 2012; 54 (03) 311-325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Pang TY, Hannan AJ. Enhancement of cognitive function in models of brain disease through environmental enrichment and physical activity. Neuropharmacology 2013; 64: 515-528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Frasca D, Tomaszczyk J, McFadyen BJ, Green RE. Traumatic brain injury and post-acute decline: what role does environmental enrichment play? A scoping review. Front Hum Neurosci 2013; 7: 31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Giacino JT, Whyte J, Bagiella E. et al. Placebo-controlled trial of amantadine for severe traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med 2012; 366 (09) 819-826
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Chollet F, Tardy J, Albucher JF. et al. Fluoxetine for motor recovery after acute ischaemic stroke (FLAME): a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 2011; 10 (02) 123-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Quinn TJ. Fluoxetine in stroke (FOCUS) trial-reasons to be cheerful about antidepressants in stroke?. Ann Transl Med 2019; 7 (Suppl. 03) S131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Collaboration FT. FOCUS Trial Collaboration. Effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke (FOCUS): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 2019; 393 (10168): 265-274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Viale L, Catoira NP, Di Girolamo G, González CD. Pharmacotherapy and motor recovery after stroke. Expert Rev Neurother 2018; 18 (01) 65-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Schneider CL, Majewska AK, Busza A, Williams ZR, Mahon BZ, Sahin B. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for functional recovery after stroke: similarities with the critical period and the role of experience-dependent plasticity. J Neurol 2019; ; [epub ahead of print] DOI: 10.1007/s00415-019-09480-0.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Levin H, Troyanskaya M, Petrie J. et al. Methylphenidate treatment of cognitive dysfunction in adults after mild to moderate traumatic brain injury: rationale, efficacy, and neural mechanisms. Front Neurol 2019; 10: 925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Wheaton P, Mathias JL, Vink R. Impact of pharmacological treatments on cognitive and behavioral outcome in the postacute stages of adult traumatic brain injury: a meta-analysis. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2011; 31 (06) 745-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 Feeney DM, Gonzalez A, Law WA. Amphetamine, haloperidol, and experience interact to affect rate of recovery after motor cortex injury. Science 1982; 217 (4562): 855-857
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Jones TA, Schallert T. Subcortical deterioration after cortical damage: effects of diazepam and relation to recovery of function. Behav Brain Res 1992; 51 (01) 1-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Goldstein LB. Basic and clinical studies of pharmacologic effects on recovery from brain injury. J Neural Transplant Plast 1993; 4 (03) 175-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 102 Goldstein LB. Potential effects of common drugs on stroke recovery. Arch Neurol 1998; 55 (04) 454-456
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 103 Stanislav SW. Cognitive effects of antipsychotic agents in persons with traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj 1997; 11 (05) 335-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 104 León Ruiz M, Rodríguez Sarasa ML, Sanjuán Rodríguez L, Benito-León J, García-Albea Ristol E, Arce Arce S. Current evidence on transcranial magnetic stimulation and its potential usefulness in post-stroke neurorehabilitation: opening new doors to the treatment of cerebrovascular disease. [in Spanish] Neurologia 2018; 33 (07) 459-472
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 105 Sánchez-Kuhn A, Pérez-Fernández C, Cánovas R, Flores P, Sánchez-Santed F. Transcranial direct current stimulation as a motor neurorehabilitation tool: an empirical review. Biomed Eng Online 2017; 16 (Suppl. 01) 76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 106 Schiff ND, Giacino JT, Kalmar K. et al. Behavioural improvements with thalamic stimulation after severe traumatic brain injury. Nature 2007; 448 (7153): 600-603
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 107 Jin K, Mao X, Xie L. et al. Transplantation of human neural precursor cells in Matrigel scaffolding improves outcome from focal cerebral ischemia after delayed postischemic treatment in rats. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2010; 30 (03) 534-544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 108 Daly JJ, Wolpaw JR. Brain-computer interfaces in neurological rehabilitation. Lancet Neurol 2008; 7 (11) 1032-1043
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 109 Dimyan MA, Cohen LG. Neuroplasticity in the context of motor rehabilitation after stroke. Nat Rev Neurol 2011; 7 (02) 76-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 110 Katz DI, Alexander MP, Seliger GM, Bellas DN. Traumatic basal ganglia hemorrhage: clinicopathologic features and outcome. Neurology 1989; 39 (07) 897-904
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 111 Katz DI, Alexander MP, Klein RB. Recovery of arm function in patients with paresis after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998; 79 (05) 488-493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 112 Katz DI, White DK, Alexander MP, Klein RB. Recovery of ambulation after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85 (06) 865-869
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 113 Jørgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Vive-Larsen J, Støier M, Olsen TS. Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part II: Time course of recovery. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995; 76 (05) 406-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 114 Skilbeck CE, Wade DT, Hewer RL, Wood VA. Recovery after stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1983; 46 (01) 5-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 115 Dikmen S, Machamer J, Temkin N, McLean A. Neuropsychological recovery in patients with moderate to severe head injury: 2 year follow-up. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1990; 12 (04) 507-519
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 116 Nudo RJ, Dancause N. Neuroscientific basis for occupational and physical therapy interventions. In: Zasler ND, Katz DI, Zafonte RD. eds. Brain Injury Medicine: Principles and Practice. 2nd ed.. Demos:; New York: 2013
    Google Scholar