Neurotechnologies as tools for cognitive rehabilitation in stroke patients

References

• Blackburn DJ, Bafadhel L, Randall M, et al. Cognitive screening in the acute stroke setting. Age Ageing. 2013;42:113–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jokinen H, Melkas S, Ylikoski R, et al. Post-stroke cognitive impairment is common even after successful clinical recovery. Eur J Neurol. 2015;22:1288–1294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nys G, Vanzandvoort M, Dekort P, et al. Restrictions of the mini-mental state examination in acute stroke. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2005;20:623–629.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nijsse B, Visser-Meily JM, van Mierlo ML, et al. Temporal evolution of poststroke cognitive impairment using the montreal cognitive assessment. Stroke. 2017;48:98–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsey LE, Siegel JS, Lang CE, et al. Behavioural clusters and predictors of performance during recovery from stroke. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1:0038.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet. 2011;377:1693–1702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernhardt J, Hayward KS, Kwakkel G, et al. Agreed definitions and a shared vision for new standards in stroke recovery research: the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable taskforce. Int J Stroke. 2017;12:444–450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosp JA, Luft AR. Cortical plasticity during motor learning and recovery after ischemic stroke. Neural Plast. 2011;2011:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivakumar L, Kate M, Jeerakathil T, et al. Serial montreal cognitive assessments demonstrate reversible cognitive impairment in patients with acute transient Ischemic Attack and Minor Stroke. Stroke. 2014;45:1709–1715.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ankolekar S, Renton C, Sprigg N, et al. The Cog-4 subset of the National Institutes of Health Stroke scale as a measure of cognition: relationship with baseline factors and functional outcome after stroke using data from the virtual international stroke trials archive. Stroke Res Treat. 2013;2013:1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Corbetta M, Ramsey L, Callejas A, et al. Common behavioral clusters and subcortical anatomy in stroke. Neuron. 2015;85:927–941.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomlinson BE, Blessed G, Roth M. Observations on the brains of demented old people. J Neurol Sci. 1970;11:205–242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun JH, Tan L, Yu JT. Post-stroke cognitive impairment: epidemiology, mechanisms and management. Ann Transl Med. 2014;2:80.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stephens S, Kenny RA, Rowan E, et al. Neuropsychological characteristics of mild vascular cognitive impairment and dementia after stroke. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2004;19:1053–1057.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barker-Collo SL, Feigin VL, Lawes CMM, et al. Reducing attention deficits after stroke using attention process training: a randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 2009;40:3293–3298.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson IH, Ridgeway V, Greenfield E, et al. Motor recovery after stroke depends on intact sustained attention: a 2-year follow-up study. Neuropsychology. 1997;11:290–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stapleton T, Ashburn A, Stack E. A pilot study of attention deficits, balance control and falls in the subacute stage following stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2001;15:437–444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyndman D, Ashburn A. People with stroke living in the community: attention deficits, balance, ADL ability and falls. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:817–822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Halloran AM, Pénard N, Galli A, et al. Falls and falls efficacy: the role of sustained attention in older adults. BMC Geriatr. 2011;11:85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulin V, Korner-Bitensky N, Dawson DR, et al. Efficacy of executive function interventions after stroke: a systematic review. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2012;19:158–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ardila A. On the evolutionary origins of executive functions. Brain Cogn. 2008;68:92–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cumming TB, Brodtmann A, Darby D, et al. The importance of cognition to quality of life after stroke. J Psychosom Res. 2014;77:374–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cicerone KD, Langenbahn DM, Braden C, et al. Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: updated review of the literature from 2003 through 2008. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92:519–530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cumming TB, Tyedin K, Churilov L, et al. The effect of physical activity on cognitive function after stroke: a systematic review. Int Psychogeriatr. 2012;24:557–567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dichgans M, Leys D. Vascular cognitive impairment. Circ Res. 2017;120:573–591.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cicerone KD, Goldin Y, Ganci K, et al. Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: systematic review of the literature from 2009 through 2014. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100:1515–1533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberlin LE, Waiwood AM, Cumming TB, et al. Effects of physical activity on poststroke cognitive function: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Stroke. 2017;48:3093–3100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auchus AP, Brashear HR, Salloway S, et al. Galantamine treatment of vascular dementia: a randomized trial. Neurology. 2007;69:448–458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballard C, Sauter M, Scheltens P, et al. Efficacy, safety and tolerability of rivastigmine capsules in patients with probable vascular dementia: the VantagE study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24:2561–2574.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dichgans M, Markus HS, Salloway S, et al. Donepezil in patients with subcortical vascular cognitive impairment: a randomised double-blind trial in CADASIL. Lancet Neurol. 2008;7:310–318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roman GC, Salloway S, Black SE, et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of donepezil in vascular dementia: differential effects by hippocampal size. Stroke. 2010;41:1213–1221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson D, Doody R, Helme R, et al. Donepezil in vascular dementia: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Neurology. 2003;61:479–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winstein CJ, Stein J, Arena R, et al. Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 May 20];47. Available from: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/STR.0000000000000098
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Micera S, Caleo M, Chisari C, et al. Advanced neurotechnologies for the restoration of motor function. Neuron. 2020;105:604–620.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coscia M, Wessel MJ, Chaudary U, et al. Neurotechnology-aided interventions for upper limb motor rehabilitation in severe chronic stroke. Brain. 2019;142:2182–2197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faria AL, Paulino T, I Badia SB. Comparing adaptive cognitive training in virtual reality and paper-pencil in a sample of stroke patients. 2019 Int Conf Virtual Rehabil ICVR [Internet]; Tel Aviv (Israel): IEEE; 2019 [cited 2020 Aug 12]. p. 1–7. Available from: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8994746/
   Google Scholar
• Gagnon MM, Laforce RJ. Computerized vs. paper-pencil assessment of cognitive change following Acute Ischemic Stroke. J Neurol Disord [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 Aug 12];04. Available from: http://www.esciencecentral.org/journals/computerized-vs-paperpencil-assessment-of-cognitive-change-followingacute-ischemic-stroke-2329-6895-1000317.php?aid=83593
   Google Scholar
• De Luca R, Leonardi S, Spadaro L, et al. Improving cognitive function in patients with stroke: can computerized training be the future? J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2018;27:1055–1060.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Citri A, Malenka RC. Synaptic plasticity: multiple forms, functions, and mechanisms. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008;33:18–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ten Brinke LF, Davis JC, Barha CK, et al. Effects of computerized cognitive training on neuroimaging outcomes in older adults: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17:139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suo C, Singh MF, Gates N, et al. Therapeutically relevant structural and functional mechanisms triggered by physical and cognitive exercise. Mol Psychiatry. 2016;21:1633–1642.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anguera JA, Boccanfuso J, Rintoul JL, et al. Video game training enhances cognitive control in older adults. Nature. 2013;501:97–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Ven RM, Murre JMJ, Veltman DJ, et al. Computer-based cognitive training for executive functions after stroke: a systematic review. Front Hum Neurosci [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 May 15];10. Available from: http://journal.frontiersin.org/Article/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00150/abstract
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaportzis E, Giatsi Clausen M, Gow AJ. Older adults perceptions of technology and barriers to interacting with tablet computers: a focus group study. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richter KM, Mödden C, Eling P, et al. Working memory training and semantic structuring improves remembering future events, not past events. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29:33–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Åkerlund E, Esbjörnsson E, Sunnerhagen KS, et al. Can computerized working memory training improve impaired working memory, cognition and psychological health? Brain Inj. 2013;2013:1649–1657.
   Google Scholar
• Westerberg H, Jacobaeus H, Hirvikoski T, et al. Computerized working memory training after stroke–A pilot study. Brain Inj. 2007;21:21–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho H-Y, Kim K-T, Jung J-H. Effects of computer assisted cognitive rehabilitation on brain wave, memory and attention of stroke patients: a randomized control trial. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27:1029–1032.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Prokopenko SV, Mozheyko EY, Petrova MM, et al. Correction of post-stroke cognitive impairments using computer programs. J Neurol Sci. 2013;325:148–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogdanova Y, Yee MK, Ho VT, et al. Computerized cognitive rehabilitation of attention and executive function in acquired brain injury: a systematic review. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2016;31:419–433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Das Nair R, Cogger H, Worthington E, et al. Cognitive rehabilitation for memory deficits after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;9:CD002293.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Withiel D, Wong T, Ponsford J, et al. Comparing memory group training and computerized cognitive training for improving memory function following stroke: a phase II randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Med. 2019;51:343–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maggio MG, Latella D, Maresca G, et al. Virtual reality and cognitive rehabilitation in people with stroke: an overview. J Neurosci Nurs. 2019;51:101–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiza E, Matsangidou M, Neokleous K, et al. Virtual reality applications for neurological disease: a review. Front Robot AI. 2019;6:100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira J, Gamito P, Lopes B, et al. Computerized cognitive training using virtual reality on everyday life activities for patients recovering from stroke. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;1–6. DOI:10.1080/17483107.2020.1749891.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burdea G, Coiffet P. Virtual reality technology. 2nd ed. Hoboken (N.J): J. Wiley-Interscience; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Sanchez-Vives MV, Slater M. From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005;6:332–339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saposnik G, Cohen LG, Mamdani M, et al. Efficacy and safety of non-immersive virtual reality exercising in stroke rehabilitation (EVREST): a randomised, multicentre, single-blind, controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2016;15:1019–1027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson EB, Feigon M, Gagliardo P, et al. Virtual reality and cognitive rehabilitation: a review of current outcome research. Jacobs HE, editor. NeuroRehabilitation. 2014;34:759–772.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rand D, (Tamar) Weiss PL, Katz N. Training multitasking in a virtual supermarket: a novel intervention after stroke. Am J Occup Ther. 2009;63:535–542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim BR, Chun MH, Kim LS, et al. Effect of virtual reality on cognition in stroke patients. Ann Rehabil Med. 2011;35:450.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Luca R, Russo M, Naro A, et al. Effects of virtual reality-based training with BTs-Nirvana on functional recovery in stroke patients: preliminary considerations. Int J Neurosci. 2018;128:791–796.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho D-R, Lee S-H. Effects of virtual reality immersive training with computerized cognitive training on cognitive function and activities of daily living performance in patients with acute stage stroke: A preliminary randomized controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98:e14752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hummel FC, Cohen LG. Non-invasive brain stimulation: a new strategy to improve neurorehabilitation after stroke? Lancet Neurol. 2006;5:708–712.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kubis N. Non-invasive brainstimulation to enhance post-stroke recovery. Front Neural Circuits [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 May 29];10. Available from: http://journal.frontiersin.org/Article/10.3389/fncir.2016.00056/abstract
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessel MJ, Zimerman M, Hummel FC. Non-invasive brain stimulation: an interventional tool for enhancing behavioral training after stroke. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9:265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J Physiol. 2000;527:633–639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nitsche MA, Cohen LG, Wassermann EM, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation: state of the art 2008. Brain Stimul. 2008;1:206–223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fritsch B, Reis J, Martinowich K, et al. Direct current stimulation promotes BDNF-dependent synaptic plasticity: potential implications for motor learning. Neuron. 2010;66:198–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallett M. Transcranial magnetic stimulation: a primer. Neuron. 2007;55:187–199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Lieshout ECC, van Hooijdonk RF, Dijkhuizen RM, et al. The effect of noninvasive brain stimulation on poststroke cognitive function: a systematic review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019;33:355–374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi S, Hallett M, Rossini PM, et al. Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009;120:2008–2039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Floel A, Cohen LG. Recovery of function in humans: cortical stimulation and pharmacological treatments after stroke. Neurobiol Dis. 2010;37:243–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hummel F, Cohen LG. Improvement of motor function with noninvasive cortical stimulation in a patient with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2005;19:14–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reis J, Schambra HM, Cohen LG, et al. Noninvasive cortical stimulation enhances motor skill acquisition over multiple days through an effect on consolidation. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009;106:1590–1595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessel MJ, Zimerman M, Timmermann JE, et al. Enhancing consolidation of a new temporal motor skill by cerebellar noninvasive stimulation. Cereb Cortex. 2016;26:1660–1667.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berthier ML. Poststroke aphasia: epidemiology, pathophysiology and treatment. Drugs Aging. 2005;22:163–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dionísio A, Duarte IC, Patrício M, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation as an intervention tool to recover from language, swallowing and attentional deficits after stroke: a systematic review. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2018;46:178–185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisicaro F, Lanza G, Grasso AA, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in stroke rehabilitation: review of the current evidence and pitfalls. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2019;12:175628641987831.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lefaucheur J-P, Aleman A, Baeken C, et al. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): an update (2014–2018). Clin Neurophysiol. 2020;131:474–528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker JM, Rorden C, Fridriksson J. Using transcranial direct-current stimulation to treat stroke patients with aphasia. Stroke. 2010;41:1229–1236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fridriksson J, Richardson JD, Baker JM, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation improves naming reaction time in fluent aphasia: a double-blind, sham-controlled study. Stroke. 2011;42:819–821.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menke R, Meinzer M, Kugel H, et al. Imaging short- and long-term training success in chronic aphasia. BMC Neurosci. 2009;10:118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung IY, Lim JY, Kang EK, et al. The factors associated with good responses to speech therapy combined with transcranial direct current stimulation in post-stroke aphasic patients. Ann Rehabil Med. 2011;35:460–469.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Floel A, Rosser N, Michka O, et al. Noninvasive brain stimulation improves language learning. J Cogn Neurosci. 2008;20:1415–1422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meinzer M, Darkow R, Lindenberg R, et al. Electrical stimulation of the motor cortex enhances treatment outcome in post-stroke aphasia. Brain. 2016;139:1152–1163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fridriksson J, Basilakos A, Stark BC, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation to treat aphasia: longitudinal analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Brain Stimul. 2019;12:190–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flöel A, Meinzer M, Kirstein R, et al. Short-term anomia training and electrical brain stimulation. Stroke. 2011;42:2065–2067.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang EK, Baek MJ, Kim S, et al. Non-invasive cortical stimulation improves post-stroke attention decline. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2009;27:647–652.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park S-H, Koh E-J, Choi H-Y, et al. A double-blind, sham-controlled, pilot study to assess the effects of the concomitant use of transcranial direct current stimulation with the computer assisted cognitive rehabilitation to the prefrontal cortex on cognitive functions in patients with stroke. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2013;54:484.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim J, Kang E, Paik N. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to hemispatial neglect in patients after stroke: an open-label pilot study. J Rehabil Med. 2010;42:447–452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Agata F, Peila E, Cicerale A, et al. Cognitive and neurophysiological effects of non-invasive brain stimulation in stroke patients after motor rehabilitation. Front Behav Neurosci [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 Mar 30];10. Available from: http://journal.frontiersin.org/Article/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00135/abstract
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim YK, Jung JH, Shin SH. A comparison of the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) by number of stimulation sessions on hemispatial neglect in chronic stroke patients. Exp Brain Res. 2015;233:283–289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang W, Liu -T-T, Song X-B, et al. Comparison of different stimulation parameters of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for unilateral spatial neglect in stroke patients. J Neurol Sci. 2015;359:219–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazuta T, Takeda K, Osu R, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation improves audioverbal memory in stroke patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;96:565–571.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yun GJ, Chun MH, Kim BR. The effects of transcranial direct-current stimulation on cognition in stroke patients. J Stroke. 2015;17:354–358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsai P-Y, Lin W-S, Tsai K-T, et al. High-frequency versus theta burst transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of poststroke cognitive impairment in humans. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2020;45:190060.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun L. Impact of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on post-stroke dysmnesia and the role of BDNF Val66Met SNP. Med Sci Monit. 2015;21:761–768.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jo JM, Kim YH, Ko MH, et al. Enhancing the working memory of stroke patients using tDCS. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;88:404–409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kropotov JD. Transcranial direct current stimulation. Funct Neuromarkers Psychiatry [Internet]. Elsevier. 2016 [cited 2020 May 17];273–280. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780124105133000188
   Google Scholar
• Jacobson L, Koslowsky M, Lavidor M. tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: a meta-analytical review. Exp Brain Res. 2012;216:1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carelli L, Solca F, Faini A, et al. Brain-computer interface for clinical purposes: cognitive assessment and rehabilitation. BioMed Res Int. 2017;2017:1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dokkum LEH, Ward T, Laffont I. Brain computer interfaces for neurorehabilitation – its current status as a rehabilitation strategy post-stroke. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2015;58:3–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez-Rodriguez M, Grosse-Wentrup M, Hill J, et al. Towards brain-robot interfaces in stroke rehabilitation. 2011 IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot [Internet]; Zurich: IEEE; 2011 [cited 2020 May 21]. p. 1–6. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5975385/
   Google Scholar
• Biasiucci A, Leeb R, Iturrate I, et al. Brain-actuated functional electrical stimulation elicits lasting arm motor recovery after stroke. Nat Commun. 2018;9:2421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soekadar SR, Birbaumer N, Slutzky MW, et al. Brain–machine interfaces in neurorehabilitation of stroke. Neurobiol Dis. 2015;83:172–179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleih SC, Gottschalt L, Teichlein E, et al. Toward a P300 based brain-computer interface for aphasia rehabilitation after stroke: presentation of theoretical considerations and a pilot feasibility study. Front Hum Neurosci [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 Apr 8];10. Available from: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00547/full
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Musso M, Bamdadian A, Umaroma R, et al. A novel BCI based rehabilitation approach for aphasia rehabilitation. Proc 6Th Int Bci Meet Bci Past Present Future [Internet]. [ cited 2020 Apr 9]. Available from: https://openlib.tugraz.at/download.php?id=5e6a2616a5e27&location=medra
   Google Scholar
• Shih J, Townsend G, Krusienski D, et al. Comparison of the checkerboard P300 speller vs. the row-column speller in normal elderly and an aphasic stroke population (S21.006). Neurology. 2014;82:S21.006.
   Google Scholar
• Sutton S, Braren M, Zubin J, et al. Evoked-potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Science. 1965;150:1187–1188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kübler A, Kleih S, Mattia D. Brain computer interfaces for cognitive rehabilitation after stroke. In: Ibáñez J, González-Vargas J, Azorín JM, et al., editors. Converging Clin Eng Res Neurorehabilitation II [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017 [cited 2020 Apr 9]. p. 847–852. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-46669-9_138
   Google Scholar
• Toppi J, Mattia D, Anzolin A, et al. Time varying effective connectivity for describing brain network changes induced by a memory rehabilitation treatment. 2014 36th Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc [Internet]. Chicago (IL): IEEE; 2014 [cited 2020 Apr 9]. p. 6786–6789. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6945186/
   Google Scholar
• Birbaumer N, Ruiz S, Sitaram R. Learned regulation of brain metabolism. Trends Cogn Sci. 2013;17:295–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin MF. Can virtual reality offer enriched environments for rehabilitation? Expert Rev Neurother. 2011;11:153–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alsawaier RS. The effect of gamification on motivation and engagement. Int J Inf Learn Technol. 2018;35:56–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perez-Marcos D, Bieler-Aeschlimann M, Serino A. Virtual reality as a vehicle to empower motor-cognitive neurorehabilitation. Front Psychol. 2018;9:2120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demain S, Wiles R, Roberts L, et al. Recovery plateau following stroke: fact or fiction? Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28:815–821.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spence C, Obrist M, Velasco C, et al. Digitizing the chemical senses: possibilities & pitfalls. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2017;107:62–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lefaucheur J-P, André-Obadia N, Antal A, et al. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Clin Neurophysiol. 2014;125:2150–2206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antal A, Alekseichuk I, Bikson M, et al. Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines. Clin Neurophysiol. 2017;128:1774–1809.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommer M, Wu T, Tergau F, et al. Intra- and interindividual variability of motor responses to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2002;113:265–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stinear CM, Barber PA, Petoe M, et al. The PREP algorithm predicts potential for upper limb recovery after stroke. Brain. 2012;135:2527–2535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang N, Summers JJ, Cauraugh JH. Transcranial direct current stimulation facilitates motor learning post-stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016;87:345–355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lefaucheur J-P. Why image-guided navigation becomes essential in the practice of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurophysiol Clin Neurophysiol. 2010;40:1–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carvalho F, Brietzke AP, Gasparin A, et al. Home-based transcranial direct current stimulation device development: an updated protocol used at home in healthy subjects and fibromyalgia patients. J Vis Exp. 2018;137:57614.
   Google Scholar
• Park J, Oh Y, Chung K, et al. Effect of home-based transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a study protocol for a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study. Trials. 2019;20:278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervera MA, Soekadar SR, Ushiba J, et al. Brain-computer interfaces for post-stroke motor rehabilitation: a meta-analysis. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2018;5:651–663.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azad TD, Veeravagu A, Steinberg GK. Neurorestoration after stroke. Neurosurg Focus. 2016;40:E2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frolich L, Winkler I, Muller K-R, et al. Investigating effects of different artefact types on motor imagery BCI. 2015 37th Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc EMBC [Internet]; Milan: IEEE; 2015 [cited 2020 May 31]. p. 1942–1945. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7318764/
   Google Scholar
• Rupp R. Challenges in clinical applications of brain computer interfaces in individuals with spinal cord injury. Front Neuroeng [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2020 May 23];7. Available from: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fneng.2014.00038/abstract
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McCrimmon CM, Wang M, Lopes LS, et al. A small, portable, battery-powered brain-computer interface system for motor rehabilitation. 2016 38th Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc EMBC [Internet]. Orlando (FL): IEEE; 2016 [cited 2020 May 21]. p. 2776–2779. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7591306/
   Google Scholar
• Reinkensmeyer DJ. JNER at 15 years: analysis of the state of neuroengineering and rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019;16:144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cogollor JM, Rojo-Lacal J, Hermsdörfer J, et al. Evolution of cognitive rehabilitation after stroke from traditional techniques to smart and personalized home-based information and communication technology systems: literature review. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;5:e4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maceira-Elvira P, Popa T, Schmid A-C, et al. Wearable technology in stroke rehabilitation: towards improved diagnosis and treatment of upper-limb motor impairment. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019;16:142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar