Poststroke Upper Extremity Rehabilitation: A Review of Robotic Systems and Clinical Results

REFERENCES

• Aisen ML, Krebs H I, Hogan N, McDowell F, Volpe BT. The effect of robot-assisted therapy and reha-bilitative training on motor recovery following stroke. Arch Neurol. 1997;54:443–446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Volpe BT, Krebs HI, Hogan N, Edelsteinn L, DieIs CM, Aisen ML. Robot training enhanced motor outcome in patients with stroke maintained over 3 years. Neurology. 1999;53:1874–1876.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Volpe BT, Krebs HI, Hogan N, Edelstein OL, Diels C, Aisen M. A novel approach to stroke rehabilita-tion: robot-aided sensorimotor stimulation. Neu-rology. 2000;54:1938–1944.
   Google Scholar
• Krebs HI, Volpe BT, Aisen ML, Hogan N. Increasing productivity and quality of care: robot-aided neuro-rehabilitation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2000;37: 639–652.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krakauer JW. Arm function after stroke: from physiology to recovery. Semin Neurol. 2005;25: 384–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krakauer JW. Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol. 2006;19:84–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pohl PS, McDowd JM, Filion D, Richards LG, Stiers W. Implicit learning of a motor skill after mild and moderate stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20:246–253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton JL, Mussa-lvaldi FA. Robot-assisted adaptive training: custom force fields for teaching move-ment patterns. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2004; 51:636–646.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleeremans A. Implicit learning. In: Nadel L, ed. Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. London: Nature Publishing Group; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Buccino G, Solodkin A, Small SL. Functions of the mirror neuron system: implications for neurorehabilitation. Cogn Behav Neurol. 2006; 19:55–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanlon RE. Motor learning following unilateral stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77:811–815.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton JL, Stoykov ME, Kovic M., Mussa-lvaldi FA.. Evaluation of robotic training forces that either en-hance or reduce error in chronic hemiparetic stroke survivors. Exp Brain Res. 2006;168:368–383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton JL, Kovic M, lAussa-lvaldi FA. Custom-de-signed haptic training for restoring reaching abil-ity to individuals with poststroke hemiparesis. I Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43:643–656.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trombly CA, Wu C. Effect of rehabilitation tasks on organization of movement after stroke. Am J Occup Ther. 1999;53:333–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wisneski KJ, Johnson MJ. Quantifying kinematics of purposeful movements to real, imagined, or absent functional objects: implications for model-ling trajectories for robot-assisted ADL tasks. Neuroengineering Rehabil. 2007;4:7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose FD, Attree EA, Brooks BM, Parslow DM, Penn PR, Ambihaipahan N. Training in virtual environ-ments: transfer to real world tasks and equivalence to real task training. Ergonomics. 2000;43:494–511.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todorov E, Shadmehr R, Bizzi E. Augmented feed-back presented in a virtual environment acceler-ates learning of a difficult motor task. J Mot Behav. 1997;29: 147–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holden M, Todorov E, Callahan J, Bizzi E. Virtual environment training improves motor perfor-mance in two patients with stroke: case report. Neurology Rep. 1999; 23:57–67.
   Google Scholar
• Krebs HI, Hogan N, Aisen ML, Volpe BT. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 1998;6:75–87.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Volpe BT, Krebs HI, Hogan N. Is robot-aided sen-sorimotor training in stroke rehabilitation a realis-tic option? Curr Opin Neurol. 2001;14:745–752.
   Google Scholar
• Fasoli SE, Krebs HI, Hogan N. Robotic technology and stroke rehabilitation: translating research into practice. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2004;11:11–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ferraro M, Palazzolo JJ, Krol J, Krebs HI, Hogan N, Volpe BT. Robot-aided sensorimotor arm training improves outcome in patients with chronic stroke. Neurology. 2003;61:1604–1607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merians AS, Poizner H, Boian R, Burdea G, Adamovich S. Sensorimotor training in a virtual reality environment: Does it improve functional recovery poststroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2006;20: 252–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC, Majmundar M, Van der Loos M. Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor func-tion after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 83:952–959.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lum PS, Burgar CG, Van der Loos M, Shor PC, Majmundar M, Yap R. MIME robotic device for upper-limb neurorehabilitation in subacute stroke subjects: a follow-up study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43:631–642.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hesse S, Werner C, Pohl M, Rueckriem S, Mehrholz J, Lingnau ML. Computerized arm train-ing improves the motor control of the severely affected arm after stroke: a single-blinded ran-domized trial in two centers. Stroke. 2005;36: 1960–1966.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn LE, Lum PS, Rymer WZ, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Robot-assisted movement training for the stroke-impaired arm: Does it matter what the robot does? J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43:619-630.
   Google Scholar
• Stein J, Krebs HI, Frontera WR, Fasoli SE, Hughes R, Hogan N. Comparison of two techniques of robot-aided upper limb exercise training after stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;83:720–728.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt RA, Lee TD. Motor Control and Learning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Shea CH, Kohl RM. Composition of practice: influ-ence on the retention of motor skills. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1991;62:187–195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coote S, Stokes E, Murphy B, Harwin W. The effect of GENTLE/s robot-mediated therapy on upper extremity dysfunction post stroke. Presented at: International Conference on Rehabilitation Robot-ics; 2003; Daejeon, South Korea.
   Google Scholar
• Amirabdollahian F, Loureiro R, Harwin W. Mini-mum jerk trajectory control for rehabilitation and haptic applications. In: ICRA 2002 - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Washington, DC: IEEE; 2002:3380–3385.
   Google Scholar
• Amirabdollahian F, Loureiro R, Gradwell E, Collin C, Harwin W, Johnson G. Multivariate analysis of the Fugl-Meyer outcome measures assessing the effectiveness of GENTLE/S robot-mediated stroke therapy. I Neuroengineering Rehabil. 2007;4:4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lum PS, Burgar CC, Shor PC. Evidence for im-proved muscle activation patterns after retraining of reaching movements with the MIME robotic system in subjects with post-stroke hemiparesis. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2004;12:186–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fazekas G, Horvath M, Toth A. A novel robot training system designed to supplement upper limb physiotherapy of patients with spastic hemi-paresis. Intl Rehabil Res. 2006;29:251–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fasoli SE, Krebs HI, Stein J, Frontera WR, Hughes R, Hogan N. Robotic therapy for chronic motor im-pairments after stroke: follow-up results. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:1106–1111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krebs HI, Ferraro M, Buerger SP, et al. Rehabilita-tion robotics: pilot trial of a spatial extension for MIT-Manus. J Neuroengineering Rehabil. 2004;1:5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nef T, Riener K. AKMin: Design of a novel arm rehabilitation robot. Presented at: International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; 2005; Chi-cago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Wolbrecht E, Leavitt J, Reinkensmeyer DJ, Bobrow J. Control of a pneumatic orthosis for upper ex-tremity stroke rehabilitation. In: EMBS '06. 28th Annual Conference of the IEEE. New York: IEEE; 2006: 2687–2693.
   Google Scholar
• Sukal T, Dewald JP. Ellis M. Use of a novel robotic system for quantification of upper limb work area following stroke. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2005;5:5032–5035.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sukal T, Ellis M, Dewald JP. Source of work area reduction following hemiparetic stroke and preliminary intervention using the ACT 3D system. In: EMBS '06. 28th Annual Conference of the IEEE. New York: IEEE; 2006:177–180.
   Google Scholar
• Stein J, Narendran K, McBean J, Krebs K, Hughes R. Electromyography-controlled exoskeletal up-per-limb-powered orthosis for exercise training af-ter stroke. Am J Phvs Med Rehabil. 2007;86:255–261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hesse S, Schmidt H, Werner C. Machines to sup-port motor rehabilitation after stroke: 10 years of experience in Berlin. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006; 43:671–678.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luft AR, McCombe-Waller S, Whitall J, et al. Re-petitive bilateral arm training and motor cortex activation in chronic stroke: a randomized con-trolled trial. JAMA. 2004;292:1853–1861.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgar CG, Lum PS, Shor PC., Van der Loos HFM. Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: the Palo Alto VA/Stanford experience. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2000;37:663–673.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hesse S, Schulte-Tigges G, Konrad M, Bardeleben A, Werner C. Robot-assisted arm trainer for the passive and active practice of bilateral forearm and wrist movements in hemiparetic subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:915–920.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson MJ, Van der Loos HF, Burgar CG, Shor PC, Leifer L. Driver's SEAT: a car steering upper limb therapy device. Robotica. 2003; 21:13–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widman LM, McDonald CM, Abresch RT. Effec-tiveness of an upper extremity exercise device integrated with computer gaming for aerobic training in adolescents with spinal cord dysfunc-tion. J Spinal Cord Med. 2006;29:363–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celestino J, Krebs HI, Hogan N. A robot for wrist rehabilitation: characterization and intial results. Presented at: International Conference on Reha-bilitation Robotics; 2003; Daejeon, South Korea.
   Google Scholar
• Charles SK, Krebs HI, Volpe B, Lynch D, Hogan N. Wrist rehabilitation following stroke: initial clinical results. In: IEEE International Conference on Reha-bilitation Robotics. New York: IEEE; 2005:13–16.
   Google Scholar
• Colombo R, Pisano F, Micera S., et al. Robotic techniques for upper limb evaluation and rehabili-tation of stroke patients. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005;13: 311–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alberts IL, Iresilian JR, Stelmach GE. The co-ordi-nation and phasing of a bilateral prehension task. The influence of Parkinson's disease. Brain. 1998;121\(pt 4):725–742.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boian R, Sharma A, Han C, et al. Virtual reality-based post-stroke hand rehabilitation. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2002;85:64–70.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• PernaleteEdwards S, Gottipati R, Tipple J,Kolipakam V, Dubey RV. Eye-hand coordination assessment/therapy using a robotic haptic device. Presented at: International Conference on Reha-bilitation Robotics; 2002; Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Lambercy O, Dovat L, Johnson V, et al. Develop-ment of a robot-assisted rehabilitation therapy to train hand function for activities of daily living. In: IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. New York: IEEE; 2007:678–682.
   Google Scholar
• Taub E, Lum PS, Hardin P, Mark VW, Uswatte G. AutoCITE: automated delivery of CI therapy with reduced effort by therapists. Stroke. 2005;36: 1301–1304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo X, Kenyon RV, Kline T, Waldinger HC, Kamper DG. An augmented reality training environment for post-stroke finger extension rehabilitation. Pre-sented at: International Conference on Rehabilita-tion Robotics; 2005; Chicago, IL
   Google Scholar
• Takahashi CD, Der-Yeghiaian L, Le VH, Cramer SC. A robotic device for hand motor therapy after stroke. Presented at: International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; 2005; Chicago, IL
   Google Scholar
• Brewer BR, Klatzky R, Matsuoka Y. Initial therapeu-tic results of visual feedback manipulation in ro-botic rehabilitation. Presented at: International Workshop on Virtual Rehabilitation; 2006; New York.
   Google Scholar
• Adamovich S, Qiu Q, Talati B, Fluet G, Merians A. Design of a virtual reality-based system for hand and arm rehabilitation. In: IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. New York: IEEE; 2007:958–963.
   Google Scholar
• Mali U, Goljar N, Munih M. Application of haptic interface for finger exercise. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2006;14:352–360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worsnopp TT, Peshkin MA, Colgate JE, Kamper DG. An actuated finger exoskeleton for hand reha-bilitation following stroke. In: IEEE 10th Interna-tional Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. New York: IEEE; 2007:896–901.
   Google Scholar
• Kawasaki H, Ito S, Ishigure Y, et al. Development of a hand motion assist robot for rehabilitation therapy by patient self-motion control. In: IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Ro-botics. New York: IEEE; 2007: 234–240.
   Google Scholar
• Dovat L, Lambercy O, Johnson V, et al. A cable driven robotic system to train finger function after stroke. In: IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. New York: IEEE; 2007: 222–227.
   Google Scholar
• Masia L, Krebs HI, Cappa P, Hogan N. Design, characterization, and impedance limits of a hand robot. In: IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. New York: IEEE; 2007: 1085–1089.
   Google Scholar
• Loureiro R, Harwin W. Reach & grasp therapy: design and control of a 9-DOF robotic neuro-rehabilitation system. In: IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. New York: IEEE; 2007:757–763.
   Google Scholar
• Brewer BR, Fagan M, Klatzky R, Matsuoka Y. Per-ceptual limits for a robotic rehabilitation environ-ment using visual feedback distortion. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005;13:1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer BR, Klatzky R, Matsuoka Y. Visual-feedback distortion in a robotic rehabilitation environment. Proc IEEE. 2006;94:1739–1751.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei Y, Bajaj P, Scheidt R, Patton IL. A real-time haptic/graphic demonstration of how error aug-mentation can enhance learning. Presented at: IEEE-International Conference on Robotics and Automation; 2005; Barcelona, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Taub E, Uswatte G, Pidikiti R. Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy: a new family of techniques with broad application to physical rehabilitation-a clinical review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1999;36:237–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liepert J, Miltner WH, Bauder H, et al. Motor cortex plasticity during constraint-induced move-ment therapy in stroke patients. Neurosci Lett. 1998;250:5–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reinkensmeyer DJ, Pang CT, Nessler JA, Painter CC. Web-based telerehabilitation for the upper extremity after stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2002;10:102–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez RJ, Liu J, Rao S, et al. Automating arm movement training following severe stroke: func-tional exercises with quantitative feedback in a gravity-reduced environment. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2006;14: 378–389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson LM, Winters JM. Evaluation of tracking performance using joystick manipulators that en-gage different arm workspaces. In: International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. New York: IEEE; 2005:86–90.
   Google Scholar
• Zipfel E, Verkaaik JV, Gaukrodger S, King M. De-sign and development of an upper limb exerciser and game controller. Presented at: Rehabilitation Engineering Society of North America Confer-ence; 2006; Atlanta, GA.
   Google Scholar
• Carignan CR, Krebs HI. Telerehabilitation robotics: bright lights, big future? J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43:695-710.
   Google Scholar
• Popescu FC, Rymer WZ. End points of planar reaching movements are disrupted by small force pulses: an evaluation of the hypothesis of equifinality. J Neurophysiol. 2000;84:2670–2679.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrow K, Docan C, Burdea G, Merians A. Low-cost virtual rehabilitation of the hand for patients post-stroke. In: International Workshop on Virtual Rehabilitation. New York: IEEE; 2006:6–10.
   Google Scholar
• Amirabdollahian F, Gomes GT, Johnson GR. The peg-in-hole: a VR-based haptic assessment for quantifying upper limb performance and skills. In: International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. New York: IEEE; 2005:422–425.
   Google Scholar
• Memberg WD, Crago PE. Instrumented objects for quantitative evaluation of hand grasp. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1007;34:82–90.
   Google Scholar
• Inmann A, Haugland M. An instrumented object for evaluation of lateral hand grasp during func-tional tasks. J Med Enq Technol. 2001;25:207–211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy MA., Sunnerhagen KS, Johnels B, Willen C. Three-dimensional kinematic motion analysis of a daily activity drinking from a glass: a pilot study. Neuroengineering Rehabil. 2006;3:18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allin SJ. Machine perception for occupational therapy: toward prediction of post-stroke func-tional scores in the home. Presented at: Rehabilita-tion Engineering Society of North America (RESNA) Conference; 2006; Atlanta, GA.
   Google Scholar
• Bardorfer A, Munih M, Zupan A, Primozic A. Up-per limb motion analysis using haptic interface. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics. 2001;6:253–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bardorfer A, Munih M, Zupan A, Ceru B. Linear and circular tracking exercises in haptic virtual environments for hand control assessment. In: International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. New York: IEEE; 2005:66–69.
   Google Scholar
• Rohrer B, Fasoli S, Krebs HI, et al. Movement smoothness changes during stroke recovery. J Neurosci. 2002;22:8297–8304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan N, Krebs HI, Rohrer B, et al. Motions or muscles? Some behavioral factors underlying ro-botic assistance of motor recovery. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43:605–618.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reinkensmeyer DJ, Dewald JP, Rymer WZ. Guid-ance-based quantification of arm impairment fol-lowing brain injury: a pilot study. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 1999;7:1–11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reinkensmeyer DJ, Schmit BD, Rymer WZ. Assess-ment of active and passive restraint during guided reaching after chronic brain injury. Ann Biomed Eng. 1999;27:805–814.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iga, SJ, Gater DR, Bach YRP. Reconsidering the motor recovery plateau in stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 85: 1377–1381.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krebs HI, Palazzolo JJ, Dipietro L, et al. Rehabilita-tion robotics: performance-based progressive ro-bot-assisted therapy. Autonomous Robots. 2003;15:7–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radomski MV. Planning, guiding, and document-ing therapy. In: Trombly CA, Radomski MV, eds. Occupational Therapy for Physical Dysfunction. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams 61 Wilkins; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart JC, Yeh S, Jung Y, et al. Pilot trial results from a virtual reality system designed to enhance recovery of skilled arm and hand movements after stroke. In: International Workshop on Virtual Reha-bilitation. New York: IEEE; 2006: 11–17.
   Google Scholar
• Dewald JP, Beer RF. Abnormal joint torque pat-terns in the paretic upper limb of subjects with hemiparesis. Muscle Nerve. 2001;24:273–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krebs HI, Aisen ML, Volpe BT, Hogan N. Quantiza-tion of continuous arm movements in humans with brain injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999; 96:4645–4649.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkers MP, deBear PC, Erlandson RF, Kristy K, Geer DM, Nichols A. Patient and staff acceptance of robotic technology in occupational therapy: a pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1991;28:33–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Volpe BT, Krebs HI, Hogan N. Robot-aided sen-sorimotor training in stroke rehabilitation. Adv Neurol. 2003;92:429–433.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Glass K, Hall K. Occupational therapists' views about the use of robotic aids for people with disabilities. Am Occup Ther. 1987;41:745–747.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hidler J, Nichols D, Pellicao M, Brady K. Advances in the understanding and treatment of stroke im-pairment using robotic devices. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2005;12:22–35.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carr J, Shepard R. A Motor Relearning Programme for Stroke, 2nd ed. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Pub-lishers; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Patton J, Dawe G, Scharver C., Mussa-lvaldi F., Kenyon R.. Robotics and virtual reality: a perfect marriage for motor control research and rehabili-tation. Assist Technol. 2006;18:181–195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pantano P, Formisano R, Ricci M, et al. Prolonged muscular flaccidity after stroke. Morphological and functional brain alterations. Brain. 1995;118\(pt 5): 1329–1338.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chollet F, DiPiero V, Wise RJ, Brooks DJ, Dolan RJ, Frackowiak RS. The functional anatomy of motor recovery after stroke in humans: a study with positron emission tomography. Ann Neurol. 1991;29:63–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frackowiak RS, Weiller C, Chollet F. The functional anatomy of recovery from brain injury. Ciba Found Symp. 1991;163:235-244; discussion 244–249.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ward NS, Brown MM, Thompson AJ, Frackowiak RS. Neural correlates of motor recovery after stroke: a longitudinal fMRI study. Brain. 2003;126:2476–2496.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar