Skip Navigation LinksHome > September 2010 - Volume 89 - Issue 9 > Stochastic Resonance Stimulation for Upper Limb Rehabilitati...
Text sizing:
A
A
A
American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation:
doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181ec9aa8
Original Research Article: Stroke

Stochastic Resonance Stimulation for Upper Limb Rehabilitation Poststroke

Stein, Joel MD; Hughes, Richard PT, MS, NCS; D'Andrea, Susan PhD; Therrien, Bethany BS; Niemi, James MS; Krebs, Kathryn Otr/L; Langone, Lisa BA; Harry, Jason PhD

Collapse Box

Abstract

Stein J, Hughes R, D'Andrea S, Therrien B, Niemi J, Krebs K, Langone L, Harry J: Stochastic resonance stimulation for upper limb rehabilitation poststroke.

Objectives: Previous studies have shown that subthreshold electrical or mechanical noise can reduce the sensory threshold and impart short-term improvements in sensorimotor function. We undertook this study to examine the effects of combined subsensory electrical and vibratory stimulation in conjunction with exercise training on long-term motor performance.

Design: Thirty subjects were recruited from adult community-dwelling stroke survivors with residual hemiparesis. Subjects were screened for residual motor ability using a functional task, and those who functioned below this level were excluded. All subjects had a history of a single unilateral ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke at least 6 mos before study entry and were not actively receiving occupational or physical therapy. Subjects were stratified by baseline upper extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFM) (more impaired [28–35] and less impaired [36–55]) and were randomized to one of two groups: treatment (stochastic resonance stimulation [plus over minus sign] exercise: 15 subjects) and control (sham stimulation [plus over minus sign] exercise: 15 subjects).

Results: No significant difference was found between the stochastic resonance treatment and control group in the UEFM or in any of the secondary measures. The combined group showed modest improvements in UEFM from baseline to completion of therapy (mean improvement, 2.6 points) (P = 0.004); however, these improvements declined by 1-mo follow-up to 1.5 points (P = 0.055). No change in sensory function was detectable.

Conclusions: Stochastic resonance therapy combined with occupational therapy was no more effective than occupational therapy alone in restoring sensorimotor performance. Other stochastic resonance stimulation montages or protocols might prove more effective.

© 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Login

Article Tools

Share

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.