Participant 1 had no increase in sensory scores in either hand after training. His WMFT scores met the criteria for minimal clinically important difference (MCID); importantly, the MCID was established in a study of acute stroke.48 His change in the MAL score was not clinically meaningful.47Imaging Outcomes: Participant 1 had low cortical activation overall, during contralesional, left index brush discrimination at pretest and posttest imaging time points. In a post-minus-pretest contrast of impaired hand brush discrimination statistic parametric maps, participant 1 had a statistically significant increase in activation that peaked in the contralesional precentral and postcentral gyri after training; this resulted from less deactivation in these areas at posttest compared with pretest (see Figure 1B). The diffusion tractography models of the right and left sSTRs for participant 1 are asymmetrical, consistent with attenuation of the right sSTR due to right hemisphere internal capsule stroke. The posttest sSTR models are depicted in Figure 1C; as no significant difference was observed between pretest and posttest, only the posttest sSTR models are shown for both participants. For participant 1, FA and FD values for the left (contralesional) sSTR were stable across imaging time points; whereas at posttest in the right sSTR, FA appears to have increased while FD appears to have decreased (see Table 4). It should be noted that this variability is likely due to the relatively small number of voxels in the right sSTR model. Reliability of DTT has not been established for small white matter projections such as this.64 Brain volume change was +0.4%, which is slightly above the published error rate of this method of 0.2%.66
Participant 2 had a positive change in sensory scores for touch perception, proprioception, and haptic performance, while weight and texture discrimination was in the range of normal at pretest and posttest. Right index finger touch perception improved from a threshold of 0.2 g at pretest to within the range of normal (0.07 g) at posttest.76 Mean normal error for the Wrist Position Sense Test is 11°, while standard error of measurement is 2.8°; 8.4° is considered “genuine change.”34 Participant 2 had a 4.5° decrease in error in the Wrist Position Sense Test after training, which represents a 33% decrease in error and a shift from above normal to below normal error. For healthy older adults, the average number of errors on the Haptic Object Recognition Test is 4.7 ± 2.5.36 Participant 2 decreased from 7 errors at pretest to 1 error at posttest. Following training, the MAL scores for participant 2 approached prestroke levels of use at 4.7/5, change in the MAL scores exceeded the arbitrarily established MCID of 10%.47 WMFT scores also exceeded the MCID.48 Participant 2 had a 29% decrease in time per peg on the Nine-Hole Peg Test and was within the range of normal (18–20 seconds)38 at posttest. Her Box and Blocks Test score was 76% of normal at both time points. Imaging Outcomes: Analysis of post-minus-pretest contrast of brush discrimination for participant 2 indicated a statistically significant increase in activation in clusters, peaking in the left postcentral gyrus (Figure 1B), the supplementary motor area, and in the right inferior frontal gyrus after training. The diffusion tractography models of the right and left sSTRs for participant 2 were symmetrical, FA and FD pre- and posttraining values were stable showing typical variability associated with these measures (Table 4).64 Percentage of brain volume change was 0.17%.
Poststroke tactile sensory dysfunction is common. This article detailed a novel, intensive training program and associated outcome measures, emphasizing sensory discrimination and manual manipulation of objects, which may be a useful framework from which a clinical trial of sensorimotor training after stroke could be designed. During training, the participants were engaged and able to participate at relatively similar levels, as indicated by time on task, despite differences in hand function. Tasks were easily adapted to meet the functional level of each individual and progressed to challenge emerging skills. Furthermore, this study provides an example of extending measurement to neural reorganization of the sensorimotor system that accompanies functional improvement.
Both participants surpassed the MCID in arm function after training, measured by the WMFT. Their recovery paralleled that achieved from motor-focused training paradigms, such as constraint-induced movement therapy.67 It should be noted that the MCID on the WMFT of −19 seconds, referred to here, was established in a study of participants with acute stroke.48 Therefore, caution should be exercised when interpreting the importance of this change for persons with chronic stroke. Sensory recovery was more variable and difficult to evaluate. Participant 2, with initial mild sensory impairment, demonstrated improvement in touch perception, wrist proprioception, and shape discrimination. Participant 1, with severely impaired sensation at pretest, had not improved in sensory measures by posttest. It is possible that the 2-week intervention was not adequate to show change on the sensory measures when impairment is severe. It is also possible that the more severe motor impairment of participant 1 limited the amount of sensory improvement.
This protocol used a variety of behavioral tests to evaluate function. Review of the results and observation regarding their application yielded several key ideas. The Weinstein Enhanced Sensory Test, although easily completed, did not allow sufficient discrimination of touch perception; thus, the Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments are a preferable measure.76 The Haptic Object Recognition Test is very challenging, especially for older adults, because of the cross-modal nature (ie, haptic exploration with visual comparison of unfamiliar objects). It requires visual imagery, perhaps to a greater extent than other shape discrimination measures36; use of another measure of shape discrimination is recommended. The Hand Active Sensation Test discriminates high and low function well but is lengthy to administer; other measures of texture and weight discrimination should be explored. The Wrist Position Sense Test adequately identifies proprioception deficits and was sensitive to change. Finally, our participant with no sensory recovery after training could not discriminate hot and cold. Hot/cold discrimination screening is economical and time-efficient. Future researchers may wish to include temperature discrimination with other measures examined to predict sensory recovery. Motor measures used here were effective in discriminating motor behavior. The largest pre-post test differences were documented using the WMFT and MAL. We included both the Nine-Hole Peg Test and Box and Blocks Test to provide a greater focus on hand and finger function; however, the WMFT seems to differentiate function as effectively as these other measures. In summary, the motor outcome measures used in this case series are expected to capture change due to training in larger studies, using this protocol. Continued evaluation of sensory measures to identify those that provide the best profile of sensory behavior poststroke is recommended.
Participant 1, with severely impaired left-hand sensation and no measurable recovery of sensory function, had low activation overall during left index brush discrimination, and most notably, the ipsilesional right parietal cortex had no activation that met threshold before or after training. This likely reflects impaired perception of the stimulus at both time points. A post-minus-pretest contrast identified significantly greater activation bilaterally; however, the majority of voxels were in the left sensorimotor cortical areas after training, suggesting predominantly contralesional neural reorganization. In the absence of measurable change in sensory function, we suggest that this functional reorganization may represent the effect of practice imagining sensory stimuli.77 However, we cannot rule out the possibility that improved sensory function may have been possible with longer treatment duration or that the posttest activation change might be a precursor for later sensory improvement. Participant 1 had a 0.4% increase in brain volume after training. At just more than the published error rate of 0.2% for the method used, the significance of the increase is difficult to interpret. Overall volume and pattern of activation of participant 2 was within the range of previously published control data at both time points,31 evidence that she perceived the stimulus and was performing the task. A contrast of post-minus-pretest right index brush perception identified statistically significantly greater activation in left ipsilesional sensory cortex (Figure 1B), right inferior frontal gyrus, and left supplementary motor area after training. If the statistical difference in fMRI in these 2 participants is taken as evidence of neural reorganization, these findings are in line with others who report better function is associated with a return to contralateral control, as demonstrated by participant 2, while poorer function is more often associated with ipsilateral and diffuse patterns of activation, as demonstrated by participant 1.13
The participants in this case series have markedly different structural integrity of the sSTR in their lesioned hemisphere. In these 2 participants, ipsilesional sSTR integrity appears to correspond to their level of sensory function. While the sSTRs are nearly symmetrical in participant 2, in participant 1, contralesional sSTR has high FA, FD, and bundle volume values that may reflect contralesional remodeling similar to data from Schaechter et al,84 who suggest evidence of contralesional corticospinal tract remodeling. The small volume of white matter obtained in the right sSTR bundle in participant 1 reflects white matter damage associated with the stroke lesion. Lack of change in sensory function after training in participant 1 points to the possibility that a minimum amount of neural substrate may be necessary for sensory recovery. Given this, it is interesting to consider whether a visuomotor training program with enriched feedback, as described by Quaney et al,86 would have yielded better outcomes for this participant. These ideas are important from a prognostic standpoint; however, additional inquiry is needed to identify the minimum functional activation or substrate required to benefit from sensorimotor or visuomotor training.
The tractography method and diffusion parameters used here did not identify a change in sSTR white matter after training in either participant. The 34% increase in FA in participant 1 is likely an artifact of low reliability associated with measurement of small white matter tracts.64 Importantly, the tractography method and diffusion parameters used here may not be sensitive to white matter reorganization; alternatively, reorganization may have taken place elsewhere in network. These cases highlight questions for future research on poststroke white matter reorganization, including (1) what treatment dose is necessary, (2) where microstructural white matter changes might occur, (3) what diffusion parameters are sensitive enough to identify change, and (4) what time-frame is sufficient?
This study lacked a multiple baseline design, and while the participants were in the chronic phase poststroke, natural recovery cannot be ruled out. Study participants did not have aphasia, apraxia, or neglect. We expect these conditions would affect outcomes of future research. We used different sensory discrimination tasks for fMRI and behavioral testing. Because of incompatibility with the MRI, Hand Active Sensation Test scores were not obtained during functional scanning; instead, we used brush texture discrimination, which reliably identifies sensory discrimination dysfunction in stroke survivors.87 Prior experience with MRI may impact activation at posttest, consistent with the observation of less variability in experienced than MRI naive participants.88 Further research on dose, timing, and duration of training is necessary to generalize this protocol to the greater population of individuals with stroke.
1. Carod-Artal J, Egido JA, González JL, Varela de Seijas E. Quality of life among stroke
survivors evaluated 1 year after stroke
: experience of a stroke
2. Connell LA, Lincoln NB, Radford KA. Somatosensory impairment after stroke
: frequency of different deficits and their recovery. Clin Rehabil. 2008;22(8):758–767.
3. Park SW, Wolf SL, Blanton S, Winstein C, Nichols-Larsen DS. The EXCITE trial: predicting a clinically meaningful Motor Activity Log outcome. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22(5):486–493.
4. Rao N, Jellinek HM, Harberg JK, Fryback DG. The art of medicine: subjective measures as predictors of outcome in stroke
and traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;69(3 Pt 1):179–182.
5. Doyle S, Bennett S, Fasoli SE, McKenna KT. Interventions for sensory impairment in the upper limb after stroke
. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(6):CD006331.
6. Carey LM, Matyas TA, Oke LE. Sensory loss in stroke
patients: effective training of tactile and proprioceptive discrimination. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74(6):602–611.
7. Carey LM, Matyas TA. Training of somatosensory discrimination after stroke
: facilitation of stimulus generalization. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84(6):428–442.
8. Yekutiel M, Guttman E. A controlled trial of the retraining of the sensory function
of the hand in stroke
patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1993;56(3):241–244.
9. Byl NN, Nagajaran S, McKenzie AL. Effect of sensory discrimination
training on structure and function in patients with focal hand dystonia: a case series 1. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84(10):1505–1514.
10. Byl NN, Pitsch EA, Abrams GM. Functional outcomes can vary by dose: learning-based sensorimotor training
for patients stable poststroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22(5):494–504.
11. Carey L, Macdonell R, Matyas TA. SENSe: study of the effectiveness of neurorehabilitation on sensation: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25(4):304–313.
12. Xerri C, Merzenich MM, Peterson BE, Jenkins W. Plasticity of primary somatosensory cortex paralleling sensorimotor skill recovery from stroke
in adult monkeys 10. J Neurophysiol. 1998;79(4):2119–2148.
13. Ward NS, Brown MM, Thompson AJ, Frackowiak RSJ. Neural correlates of motor recovery after stroke
: a longitudinal fMRI
study. Brain. 2003;126(11):2476–2496.
14. Serrien DJ, Strens LHA, Cassidy MJ, Thompson AJ, Brown P. Functional significance of the ipsilateral hemisphere during movement of the affected hand after stroke
. Exp Neurol. 2004;190(2):425–432.
15. Hamdy S, Aziz Q, Rothwell JC, et al. Recovery of swallowing after dysphagic stroke
relates to functional reorganization in the intact motor cortex. Gastroenterology. 1998;115(5):1104–1112.
16. Carey JR, Kimberley TJ, Lewis SM, et al. Analysis of fMRI
and finger tracking training in subjects with chronic stroke
. Brain. 2002;125(4):773–788.
17. Ward NS, Brown MM, Thompson AJ, Frackowiak RSJ. Longitudinal changes in cerebral response to proprioceptive input in individual patients after stroke
: an FMRI
study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2006;20(3):398–405.
18. Carey LM, Abbott DF, Puce A, Jackson GD, Syngeniotis A, Donnan GA. Reemergence of activation with poststroke somatosensory recovery: a serial fMRI
case study. Neurology. 2002;59(5):749–752.
19. Nhan H, Barquist K, Bell K, Esselman P, Odderson IR, Cramer SC. Brain function early after stroke
in relation to subsequent recovery. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2004;24(7):756–763.
20. Staines WR, Black SE, Graham SJ, McIlroy WE. Somatosensory gating and recovery from stroke
involving the thalamus. Stroke
21. Dechaumont-Palacin S, Marque P, De Boissezon X, et al. Neural correlates of proprioceptive integration in the contralesional hemisphere of very impaired patients shortly after a subcortical stroke
: an fMRI
study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22(2):154–165.
22. Johansen-Berg H, Behrens TEJ. Diffusion MRI: from quantitative measurement to in vivo neuroanatomy. London, England: Academic Press; 2009.
23. Yamada K, Kizu O, Nishimura T. MR Tractography for Stroke
. Elsevier; 2006:67–72.
24. Schaechter JD, Perdue KL, Wang R. Structural damage to the corticospinal tract correlates with bilateral sensorimotor cortex reorganization in stroke
patients. Neuroimage. 2008;39(3):1370–1382.
25. Yang DS, Kim DS, Kim YH, Jang SH. Demonstration of recovery of a severely damaged corticospinal tract: a diffusion tensor tractography and transcranial magnetic stimulation follow-up study. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2008;32(3):418–420.
26. Yamada K, Mori S, Nakamura H, et al. Fiber-tracking method reveals sensorimotor pathway involvement in stroke
27. Nelles M, Gieseke J, Flacke S, Lachenmayer L, Schild HH, Urbach H. Diffusion tensor pyramidal tractography in patients with anterior choroidal artery infarcts. Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29(3):488–493.
28. Cho SH, Kim DG, Kim DS, Kim YH, Lee CH, Jang SH. Motor outcome according to the integrity of the corticospinal tract determined by diffusion tensor tractography in the early stage of corona radiata infarct. Neurosci Lett. 2007;426(2):123–127.
29. Johansen-Berg H, Scholz J, Stagg CJ. Relevance of structural brain connectivity to learning and recovery from stroke
. Front Syst Neurosci. 2010;4:146.
30. Wakana S, Jiang H, Nagae-Poetscher LM, van Zijl P, Mori S. Fiber tract-based atlas of human white matter anatomy. Radiology. 2004;230(1):77–87.
31. Borstad A, Schmalbrock P, Choi S, Nichols-Larsen DS. Neural correlates supporting sensory discrimination
after left hemisphere stroke
. Brain Res. 2012;1460:78–87.
32. Weinstein S. Fifty years of somatosensory research: from the Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments to the Weinstein Enhanced Sensory Test. J Hand Ther. 1993;6(1):11–22.
33. Jerosch-Herold C. Assessment of sensibility after nerve injury and repair: a systematic review of evidence for validity, reliability and responsiveness of tests. J Hand Surg Br. 2005;30(3):252–264.
34. Carey LM, Oke LE, Matyas TA. Impaired limb position sense after stroke
: a quantitative test for clinical use. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(12):1271–1278.
35. Williams PS, Basso DM, Case-Smith J, Nichols-Larsen DS. Development of the Hand Active Sensation Test: reliability and validity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(11):1471–1477.
36. Kalisch T, Tegenthoff M, Dinse HR. Improvement of sensorimotor functions in old age by passive sensory stimulation. Clin Interv Aging. 2008;3(4):673–690.
37. Kalisch T, Kattenstroth JC, Kowalewski R, Tegenthoff M, Dinse HR. Cognitive and tactile factors affecting human haptic performance in later life. PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e30420.
38. Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Kashman N, Volland G. Adult norms for the nine hole peg test of finger dexterity. Occup Ther J Res. 1985;5(1):24–38.
39. Heller A, Wade DT, Wood VA, Sunderland A, Hewer RL, Ward E. Arm function after stroke
: measurement and recovery over the first three months. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1987;50(6):714–719.
40. Mathiowetz V, Volland G, Kashman N, Weber K. Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther. 1985;39(6):386–391.
41. Platz T, Pinkowski C, Van Wijck F, Kim IH, Di Bella P, Johnson G. Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multicentre study. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19(4):404–411.
42. Desrosiers J, Bravo G, Hebert R, Dutil E, Mercier L. Validation of the Box and Block Test as a measure of dexterity of elderly people: reliability, validity, and norms studies. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75(7):751–755.
43. Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Ellis M, Archer AL, Morgan B, Piacentino A. Assessing Wolf Motor Function
Test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke
44. Morris DM, Uswatte G, Crago JE, Cook EW, Taub E. The reliability of the Wolf Motor Function
Test for assessing upper extremity function after stroke
. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(6):750–755.
45. Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D, Light K, Thompson PA. The Motor Activity Log-28: assessing daily use of the hemiparetic arm after stroke
. Neurology. 2006;67(7):1189–1194.
46. Schulz LA, Bohannon RW, Morgan WJ. Normal digit tip values for the Weinstein Enhanced Sensory Test. J Hand Ther. 1998;11(3):200–205.
47. Van der Lee JH, Beckerman H, Knol DL, De Vet HCW, Bouter LM. Clinimetric properties of the Motor Activity Log for the assessment of arm use in hemiparetic patients. Stroke
48. Lang CE, Edwards DF, Birkenmeier RL, Dromerick AW. Estimating minimal clinically important differences of upper extremity measures early after stroke
. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(9):1693–1700.
49. Chen HM, Chen CC, Hsueh IP, Huang SL, Hsieh CL. Test-retest reproducibility and smallest real difference of 5 hand function tests in patients with stroke
. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(5):435–440.
50. Jiang H, van Zijl P, Kim J, Pearlson GD, Mori S. DtiStudio: resource program for diffusion tensor computation and fiber bundle tracking. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2006;81(2):106–116.
51. Roberts TPL, Liu F, Kassner A, Mori S, Guha A. Fiber density index correlates with reduced fractional anisotropy in white matter of patients with glioblastoma. Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26(9):2183–2186.
52. Bazin PL, Cuzzocreo JL, Yassa MA, et al. Volumetric neuroimage analysis extensions for the MIPAV software package. J Neurosci Methods. 2007;165(1):111–121.
53. Orrison WW. Atlas of Brain Function. Thieme Medical Publishers: New York, NY; 2008.
54. Smith SM, Jenkinson M, Woolrich MW, et al. Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL. Neuroimage. 2004;23(suppl 1):S208–S219.
55. Jenkinson M, Bannister P, Brady M, Smith S. Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. Neuroimage. 2002;17(2):825–841.
56. Smith SM. Fast robust automated brain extraction. Hum Brain Mapp. 2002;17(3):143–155.
57. Woolrich MW, Ripley BD, Brady M, Smith SM. Temporal autocorrelation in univariate linear modeling of FMRI
data. Neuroimage. 2001;14(6):1370–1386.
58. Jenkinson M, Smith S. A global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images. Med Image Anal. 2001;5(2):143–156.
59. Andersson JLR, Jenkinson M, Smith S. Non-linear Registration Aka Spatial Normalisation FMRIB Technical Report TR07JA2. FMRIB Analysis Group Technical Reports TR07JA02:Oxford, UK; 2007.
60. Desikan RS, Ségonne F, Fischl B, et al. An automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based regions of interest. Neuroimage. 2006;31(3):968–980.
61. Kimberley TJ, Khandekar G, Borich M. fMRI
reliability in subjects with stroke
. Exp Brain Res. 2008;186(1):183–190.
62. Carey LM, Abbott DF, Egan GF, Donnan GA. Reproducible activation in BA2, 1 and 3b associated with texture discrimination in healthy volunteers over time. Neuroimage. 2008;39(1):40–51.
63. Mori S, Crain BJ, Chacko VP, Van Zijl PC. Three-dimensional tracking of axonal projections in the brain by magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Neurol. 1999;45(2):265–269.
64. Wakana S, Caprihan A, Panzenboeck MM, et al. Reproducibility of quantitative tractography methods applied to cerebral white matter. Neuroimage. 2007;36(3):630–644.
65. Smith SM, Zhang Y, Jenkinson M, et al. Accurate, robust, and automated longitudinal and cross-sectional brain change analysis. Neuroimage. 2002;17(1):479–489.
66. Smith SM, Rao A, De Stefano N, et al. Longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of atrophy in Alzheimer's disease: cross-validation of BSI, SIENA and SIENAX. Neuroimage. 2007;36(4):1200–1206.
67. Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP, et al. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke
: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2006;296(17):2095–2104.
68. Wolf SL, Lecraw DE, Barton LA, Jann BB. Forced use of hemiplegic upper extremities to reverse the effect of learned nonuse among chronic stroke
and head-injured patients. Exp Neurol. 1989;104(2):125–132.
69. Saito D, Okada T, Honda M, Yonekura Y, Sadato N. Practice makes perfect: the neural substrates of tactile discrimination by Mah-Jong experts include the primary visual cortex. BMC Neurosci. 2006;7(1):79.
70. Yekutiel M. Sensory Re-education of the Hand After Stroke
. Paris, France: Lavoisier; 2000.
71. Stinear CM, Byblow WD. Task-dependent modulation of silent period duration in focal hand dystonia. Mov Disord. 2005;20(9):1143–1151.
72. McDonnell MN, Hillier SL, Miles TS, Thompson PD, Ridding MC. Influence of combined afferent stimulation and task-specific training following stroke
: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21(5):435–443.
73. Harada T, Saito DN, Kashikura KI, et al. Asymmetrical neural substrates of tactile discrimination in humans: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurosci. 2004;24(34):7524–7530.
74. Yang J, Han H, Chui D, Shen Y, Wu J. Prominent activation of the intraparietal and somatosensory areas during angle discrimination by intra-active touch. Hum Brain Mapp. 2012;33(12):2957–2970.
75. Kitada R, Kito T, Saito DN, et al. Multisensory activation of the intraparietal area when classifying grating orientation: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurosci. 2006;26(28):7491–501.
76. Hunter JM, Mackin EJ, Callahan AD. Rehabilitation of the Hand: Surgery and Therapy. St Louis, MO: Mosby; 1995.
77. Deutsch JE, Fischer S, Liu W, Kalnin A, Mosier K. Representation of imagined and executed sequential finger movements of adults post stroke
and healthy controls. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2005;29(4):194.
78. Keller TA, Just MA. Altering cortical connectivity: remediation-induced changes in the white matter of poor readers. Neuron. 2009;64:624–631.
79. Scholz J, Klein MC, Behrens TEJ, Johansen-Berg H. Training induces changes in white-matter architecture. Nat Neurosci. 2009;12(11):1370–1371.
80. Lovden M, Bodammer NC, Kohn S, et al. Experience-dependent plasticity of white-matter microstructure extends into old age. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48(13):3878–3883.
81. Blumenfeld-Katzir T, Pasternak O, Dagan M, Assaf Y. Diffusion MRI of structural brain plasticity induced by a learning and memory task. PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20678.
82. Hihara S, Notoya T, Tanaka M, et al. Extension of corticocortical afferents into the anterior bank of the intraparietal sulcus by tool-use training in adult monkeys. Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(13):2636–2646.
83. Ding G, Jiang Q, Li L, et al. Angiogenesis detected after embolic stroke
in rat brain using magnetic resonance T2* WI. Stroke
84. Schaechter JD, Fricker ZP, Perdue KL, et al. Microstructural status of ipsilesional and contralesional corticospinal tract correlates with motor skill in chronic stroke
patients. Hum Brain Mapp. 2009;30(11):3461–3474.
85. Crofts JJ, Higham DJ, Bosnell R, et al. Network analysis detects changes in the contralesional hemisphere following stroke
. Neuroimage. 2011;54(1):161–169.
86. Quaney BM, He J, Timberlake G, Dodd K, Carr C. Visuomotor training improves stroke
-related ipsilesional upper extremity impairments. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24(1):52–61.
87. Dannenbaum RM, Michaelsen SM, Desrosiers J, Levin MF. Development and validation of two new sensory tests of the hand for patients with stroke
. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16(6):630–639.
88. Loubinoux I, Carel C, Alary F, et al. Within-session and between-session reproducibility of cerebral sensorimotor activation: a test–retest effect evidenced with functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2001;21(5):592–607.