Distinguishing Distinct Neural Systems for Proximal vs Distal Upper Extremity Motor Control After Acute Stroke.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The classic and singular pattern of distal greater than proximal upper extremity motor deficits after acute stroke does not account for the distinct structural and functional organization of circuits for proximal and distal motor control in the healthy CNS. We hypothesized that separate proximal and distal upper extremity clinical syndromes after acute stroke could be distinguished and that patterns of neuroanatomical injury leading to these 2 syndromes would reflect their distinct organization in the intact CNS. METHODS: Proximal and distal components of motor impairment (upper extremity Fugl-Meyer score) and strength (Shoulder Abduction Finger Extension score) were assessed in consecutively recruited patients within 7 days of acute stroke. Partial correlation analysis was used to assess the relationship between proximal and distal motor scores. Functional outcomes including the Box and Blocks Test (BBT), Barthel Index (BI), and modified Rankin scale (mRS) were examined in relation to proximal vs distal motor patterns of deficit. Voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping was used to identify regions of injury associated with proximal vs distal upper extremity motor deficits. RESULTS: A total of 141 consecutive patients (49% female) were assessed 4.0 ± 1.6 (mean ± SD) days after stroke onset. Separate proximal and distal upper extremity motor components were distinguishable after acute stroke (p = 0.002). A pattern of proximal more than distal injury (i.e., relatively preserved distal motor control) was not rare, observed in 23% of acute stroke patients. Patients with relatively preserved distal motor control, even after controlling for total extent of deficit, had better outcomes in the first week and at 90 days poststroke (BBT, ρ = 0.51, p < 0.001; BI, ρ = 0.41, p < 0.001; mRS, ρ = 0.38, p < 0.001). Deficits in proximal motor control were associated with widespread injury to subcortical white and gray matter, while deficits in distal motor control were associated with injury restricted to the posterior aspect of the precentral gyrus, consistent with the organization of proximal vs distal neural circuits in the healthy CNS. DISCUSSION: These results highlight that proximal and distal upper extremity motor systems can be selectively injured by acute stroke, with dissociable deficits and functional consequences. Our findings emphasize how disruption of distinct motor systems can contribute to separable components of poststroke upper extremity hemiparesis.

Motor Activated Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation as a Potential Neuromodulation Approach for Post-Stroke Motor Rehabilitation: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Implanted vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), when synchronized with post-stroke motor rehabilitation improves conventional motor rehabilitation training. A non-invasive VNS method known as transcutaneous auricular vagus nerves stimulation (taVNS) has emerged, which may mimic the effects of implanted VNS. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether taVNS paired with motor rehabilitation improves post-stroke motor function, and whether synchronization with movement and amount of stimulation is critical to outcomes. METHODS: We developed a closed-loop taVNS system for motor rehabilitation called motor activated auricular vagus nerve stimulation (MAAVNS) and conducted a randomized, double-blind, pilot trial investigating the use of MAAVNS to improve upper limb function in 20 stroke survivors. Participants attended 12 rehabilitation sessions over 4-weeks, and were assigned to a group that received either MAAVNS or active unpaired taVNS concurrently with task-specific training. Motor assessments were conducted at baseline, and weekly during rehabilitation training. Stimulation pulses were counted for both groups. RESULTS: A total of 16 individuals completed the trial, and both MAAVNS (n = 9) and unpaired taVNS (n = 7) demonstrated improved Fugl-Meyer Assessment upper extremity scores (Mean ± SEM, MAAVNS: 5.00 ± 1.02, unpaired taVNS: 3.14 ± 0.63). MAAVNS demonstrated greater effect size (Cohen's d = 0.63) compared to unpaired taVNS (Cohen's d = 0.30). Furthermore, MAAVNS participants received significantly fewer stimulation pulses (Mean ± SEM, MAAVNS: 36 070 ± 3205) than the fixed 45 000 pulses unpaired taVNS participants received (P < .05). CONCLUSION: This trial suggests stimulation timing likely matters, and that pairing taVNS with movements may be superior to an unpaired approach. Additionally, MAAVNS effect size is comparable to that of the implanted VNS approach.