A Functional Threshold for Long-Term Use of Hand and Arm Function Can Be Determined: Predictions From a Computational Model and Supporting Data From the Extremity Constraint-Induced Therapy Evaluation (EXCITE) Trial

Background Although spontaneous use of the more-affected arm and hand after stroke is an important determinant of participation and quality of life, a number of patients exhibit decreases in use following rehabilitative therapy. A previous neurocomputational model predicted that if the dose of therapy is sufficient to bring performance above a certain threshold, training can be stopped. Objective The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that there exists a threshold for function of the paretic arm and hand after therapy. If function is above this threshold, spontaneous use will increase in the months following therapy. In contrast, if function is below this threshold, spontaneous use will decrease. Methods New computer simulations are presented showing that changes in arm use following therapy depend on a performance threshold. This prediction was tested by reanalyzing the data from the Extremity Constraint-Induced Therapy Evaluation (EXCITE) trial, a phase III randomized controlled trial in which participants received constraint-induced movement therapy for 2 weeks and were tested both 1 week and 1 year after therapy. Results The results demonstrate that arm and hand function measured immediately after therapy predicts, on average, the long-term change of arm use. Above a functional threshold, use improves. Below this threshold, use decreases. Limitations The reanalysis of the EXCITE trial data provides a “group” threshold above which a majority of patients, but not all, improve spontaneously. A goal of future research is to provide the means to assess when patients reach their individual threshold. Conclusion Understanding of the causal and nonlinear relationship between limb function and daily use is important for the future development of cost-effective interventions and prevention of “rehabilitation in vain.”

[1]  Steven L Wolf,et al.  Revisiting Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy: Are We Too Smitten With the Mitten? Is All Nonuse “Learned”? and Other Quandaries , 2007, Physical Therapy.

[2]  Paul A Thompson,et al.  Retention of upper limb function in stroke survivors who have received constraint-induced movement therapy: the EXCITE randomised trial , 2008, The Lancet Neurology.

[3]  S. Wood-Dauphinée,et al.  Activity, participation, and quality of life 6 months poststroke. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[4]  S. Wolf,et al.  Repetitive Task Practice: A Critical Review of Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy in Stroke , 2002, The neurologist.

[5]  E. Taub,et al.  Improved motor recovery after stroke and massive cortical reorganization following Constraint-Induced Movement therapy. , 2003, Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America.

[6]  M. Tuszynski,et al.  Lesions of the Basal Forebrain Cholinergic System Impair Task Acquisition and Abolish Cortical Plasticity Associated with Motor Skill Learning , 2003, Neuron.

[7]  G. Kwakkel,et al.  Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: a randomised trial , 1999, The Lancet.

[8]  E. Taub,et al.  Reliability and Validity of the Upper-Extremity Motor Activity Log-14 for Measuring Real-World Arm Use , 2005, Stroke.

[9]  J. P. Miller,et al.  Methods for a Multisite Randomized Trial to Investigate the Effect of Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy in Improving Upper Extremity Function among Adults Recovering from a Cerebrovascular Stroke , 2003, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[10]  K. Mauritz,et al.  Repetitive training of isolated movements improves the outcome of motor rehabilitation of the centrally paretic hand , 1995, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

[11]  S. Wolf,et al.  Forced use of hemiplegic upper extremities to reverse the effect of learned nonuse among chronic stroke and head-injured patients , 1989, Experimental Neurology.

[12]  Hilla Peretz,et al.  Ju n 20 03 Schrödinger ’ s Cat : The rules of engagement , 2003 .

[13]  E. Taub,et al.  The EXCITE Trial: Attributes of the Wolf Motor Function Test in Patients with Subacute Stroke , 2005, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[14]  Rieko Osu,et al.  Motor Improvement and Corticospinal Modulation Induced by Hybrid Assistive Neuromuscular Dynamic Stimulation (HANDS) Therapy in Patients With Chronic Stroke , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[15]  J. P. Miller,et al.  Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. , 2006, JAMA.

[16]  R. Nudo,et al.  Neural Substrates for the Effects of Rehabilitative Training on Motor Recovery After Ischemic Infarct , 1996, Science.

[17]  T. Olsen,et al.  Compensation in recovery of upper extremity function after stroke: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. , 1994, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[18]  S. Embretson,et al.  The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. , 1999, Stroke.

[19]  J. Liepert,et al.  Treatment-induced cortical reorganization after stroke in humans. , 2000, Stroke.

[20]  J. Kleim,et al.  Functional reorganization of the rat motor cortex following motor skill learning. , 1998, Journal of neurophysiology.

[21]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  Stroke Rehabilitation Reaches a Threshold , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[22]  S. Wolf,et al.  Assessing Wolf Motor Function Test as Outcome Measure for Research in Patients After Stroke , 2001, Stroke.

[23]  C. Winstein,et al.  A randomized controlled comparison of upper-extremity rehabilitation strategies in acute stroke: A pilot study of immediate and long-term outcomes. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.