Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T19:25:51.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Noninvasive brain stimulation in rehabilitation of hemispatial neglect after stroke

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2019

Jitka Veldema Open the ORCID record for Jitka Veldema [Opens in a new window] ,
Kathrin Bösl ,
Günter Neumann ,
Geert Verheyden  and
Dennis Alexander Nowak
Jitka Veldema*
Affiliation:
Motoriklabor, VAMED Klinik Kipfenberg, Kipfenberg, Germany Department of Psychology, Education and Sport Science, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
Kathrin Bösl
Affiliation:
Motoriklabor, VAMED Klinik Kipfenberg, Kipfenberg, Germany
Günter Neumann
Affiliation:
Motoriklabor, VAMED Klinik Kipfenberg, Kipfenberg, Germany
Geert Verheyden
Affiliation:
Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Dennis Alexander Nowak
Affiliation:
Motoriklabor, VAMED Klinik Kipfenberg, Kipfenberg, Germany Department of Neurology, University Hospital, Philipps-University, Marburg, Germany
*
*Address correspondence to: Jitka Veldema, VAMED Klinik Kipfenberg, Konrad-Regler-Straße 1, D-85110Kipfenberg, Germany. (Email: jpodubec@post.cz)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Noninvasive brain stimulation can modulate neural processing within the motor cortex and thereby might be beneficial in the rehabilitation of hemispatial neglect after stroke.

Methods

We review the pertinent literature regarding the use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial magnetic stimulation in order to facilitate recovery of hemispatial neglect after stroke.

Results

Twenty controlled trials (including 443 stroke patients) matched our inclusion criteria. Methodology and results of each study are presented in a comparative approach. Current data seem to indicate a better efficiency of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, compared to tDCS to ameliorate hemispatial neglect after stroke.

Conclusions

Noninvasive brain stimulation has the potential to facilitate recovery of hemispatial neglect after stroke, but until today, there are not enough data to claim its routine use.

Keywords

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulationtranscranial direct current stimulationstrokehemispatial neglect
Type
Original Research
Information
CNS Spectrums , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 38 - 49
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References:

Mozaffarian, D, Benjamin, EJ, Go, AS, et al.American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2015 update: A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015; 131:e29–322.Google Scholar
Heilman, KM, Valenstein, E, Watson, RT. Neglect and related disorders. Semin Neurol. 2000; 20:463–470.Google Scholar
Cherney, LR, Halper, AS, Kwasnica, CM, et al.Recovery of functional status after right hemisphere stroke: Relationship with unilateral neglect. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001; 82:322–328.Google Scholar
Di Monaco, M, Schintu, S, Dotta, M, et al.Severity of unilateral spatial neglect is an independent predictor of functional outcome after acute inpatient rehabilitation in individuals with right hemispheric stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92:1250–1256.Google Scholar
Wee, JY, Hopman, WM. Stroke impairment predictors of discharge function, length of stay, and discharge destination in stroke rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 84:604–612.Google Scholar
Giordano, J, Bikson, M, Kappenman, ES, et al.Mechanisms and effects of transcranial direct current stimulation. Dose Response. 2017; 15:1559325816685467.Google Scholar
Siebner, HR, Rothwell, J. Transcranial magnetic stimulation: New insights into representational cortical plasticity. Exp Brain Res. 2003; 148:1–16.Google Scholar
Jacquin-Courtois, S.Hemispatial neglect rehabilitation using noninvasive brain stimulation: Or how to modulate the disconnection syndrome? Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2015; 58 :251–258.Google Scholar
Arene, NU, Hillis, AE. Rehabilitation of unilateral spatial neglect and neuroimaging. Eura Medicophys. 2007; 43:255–269.Google Scholar
Pedersen, PM, Jørgensen, HS, Nakayama, H, et al.Hemineglect in acute stroke--incidence and prognostic implications. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1997; 76:122–127.Google Scholar
Stone, SP, Halligan, PW, Greenwood, RJ. The incidence of neglect phenomena and related disorders in patients with an acute right or left hemisphere stroke. Age Ageing. 1997; 22:46–52.Google Scholar
Ringman, JM, Saver, JL, Woolson, RF, et al.Frequency, risk factors, anatomy, and course of unilateral neglect in an acute stroke cohort. Neurology. 2004; 63:468–474.Google Scholar
Vallar, G, Bottini, G, Paulesu, E. Neglect syndromes: The role of the parietal cortex. Adv Neurol. 2003; 93:293–319.Google Scholar
Kinsbourne, M. Hemi-neglect and hemisphere rivalry. Adv Neurol. 1977; 18:41–49.Google Scholar
Hilgetag, CC, Kötter, R, Young, MP. Inter-hemispheric competition of sub-cortical structures is a crucial mechanism in paradoxical lesion effects and spatial neglect. Prog Brain Res. 1999; 121:121–141.Google Scholar
Karnath, HO. Spatial orientation and the representation of space with parietal lobe lesions. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1997; 352:1411–1419.Google Scholar
Corbetta, M, Kincade, MJ, Lewis, C, et al.Neural basis and recovery of spatial attention deficits in spatial neglect. Nat Neurosci. 2005; 8:1603–1610.Google Scholar
Koch, G, Oliveri, M, Cheeran, B, et al.Hyperexcitability of parietal-motor functional connections in the intact left-hemisphere of patients with neglect. Brain. 2008; 131:3147–3155.Google Scholar
Song, W, Du, B, Xu, Q, et al.Low-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation for visual spatial neglect: A pilot study. J Rehabil Med. 2009; 41:162–165.Google Scholar
Sunwoo, H, Kim, YH, Chang, WH, et al.Effects of dual transcranial direct current stimulation on post-stroke unilateral visuospatial neglect. Neurosci Lett. 2013; 554:94–98.Google Scholar
Takeuchi, N, Tada, T, Toshima, M, et al.Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over bilateral hemispheres enhances motor function and training effect of paretic hand in patients after stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2009; 41:1049–1054.Google Scholar
Turgut, N, Miranda, M, Kastrup, A, et al.tDCS combined with optokinetic drift reduces egocentric neglect in severely impaired post-acute patients. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2016; 5:1–12.Google Scholar
Nasseri, P, Nitsche, MA, Ekhtiari, H. A framework for categorizing electrode montages in transcranial direct current stimulation. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015; 9:54.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.Google Scholar
Lang, N, Siebner, HR. Repetitive transkranielle Magnetstimulation. In: Siebner, HR, Ziemann, U, eds. Das rTMS Buch. Heidelberg: Springer, 2007; 499–509.Google Scholar
Hamada, M, Murase, N, Hasan, A, et al.The role of interneuron networks in driving human motor cortical plasticity. Cereb Cortex. 2013; 23:1593–1605.Google Scholar
Wiethoff, S, Hamada, M, Rothwell, JC. Variability in response to transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex. Brain Stimul. 2014; 7:468–475.Google Scholar
Aarts, S, van den Akker, M, Winkens, B. The importance of effect sizes. Eur J Gen Pract. 2014; 20:61–64.Google Scholar
Bang, DH, Bong, SY. Effect of combination of transcranial direct current stimulation and feedback training on visuospatial neglect in patients with subacute stroke: A pilot randomized controlled trial. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015; 27:2759–2761.Google Scholar
Ko, MH, Han, SH, Park, SH, et al.Improvement of visual scanning after DC brain polarization of parietal cortex in stroke patients with spatial neglect. Neurosci Lett. 2008; 448:171–174.Google Scholar
Làdavas, E, Giulietti, S, Avenanti, A, et al.A-tDCS on the ipsilesional parietal cortex boosts the effects of prism adaptation treatment in neglect. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2015; 33:647–662.Google Scholar
Smit, M, Schutter, DJ, Nijboer, TC, et al.Transcranial direct current stimulation to the parietal cortex in hemispatial neglect: A feasibility study. Neuropsychologia. 2015; 74:152–161.Google Scholar
Sparing, R, Thimm, M, Hesse, MD, et al.Bidirectional alterations of interhemispheric parietal balance by noninvasive cortical stimulation. Brain. 2009; 132:3011–3020.Google Scholar
Yi, YG, Chun, MH, Do, KH, et al.The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on neglect syndrome in stroke patients. Ann Rehabil Med. 2016; 40:223–229.Google Scholar
Koch, G, Bonnì, S, Giacobbe, V, et al.θ-burst stimulation of the left hemisphere accelerates recovery of hemispatial neglect. Neurology. 2012; 78:24–30.Google Scholar
Cazzoli, D, Müri, RM, Schumacher, R, et al.Theta burst stimulation reduces disability during the activities of daily living in spatial neglect. Brain. 2012; 135:3426–3439.Google Scholar
Cha, HG, Kim, MK. Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on arm function and decreasing unilateral spatial neglect in subacute stroke: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2016; 30:649–656.Google Scholar
Fu, W, Song, W, Zhang, Y, et al.Long-term effects of continuous theta-burst stimulation in visuospatial neglect. J Int Med Res. 2015; 43:196–203.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.Google Scholar
Kim, BR, Chun, MH, Kim, DY, et al.Effect of high- and low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on visuospatial neglect in patients with acute stroke: A double-blind, sham-controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013; 94:803–807.Google Scholar
Lim, JY, Kang, EK, Paik, NJ. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to hemispatial neglect in patients after stroke: An open-label pilot study. J Rehabil Med. 2010; 42:447–452.Google Scholar
Nyffeler, T, Cazzoli, D, Hess, CW, et al.One session of repeated parietal theta burst stimulation trains induces long-lasting improvement of visual neglect. Stroke. 2009; 40:2791–2796.Google Scholar
Oliveri, M, Bisiach, E, Brighina, F, et al.rTMS of the unaffected hemisphere transiently reduces contralesional visuospatial hemineglect. Neurology. 2001; 57:1338–1340.Google Scholar
Yang, W, Liu, TT, Song, XB, 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.Google Scholar
Yang, NY, Fong, KN, Li-Tsang, CW, et al.Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with sensory cueing on unilateral neglect in subacute patients with right hemispheric stroke: A randomized controlled study. Clin Rehabil. 2017; 31:1154–1163.Google Scholar
Sung, WH, Wang, CP, Chou, CL, et al.Efficacy of coupling inhibitory and facilitatory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to enhance motor recovery in hemiplegic stroke patients. Stroke. 2013; 44:1375–1382.Google Scholar
Takeuchi, N, Tada, T, Matsuo, Y, et al.Low-frequency repetitive TMS plus anodal transcranial DCS prevents transient decline in bimanual movement induced by contralesional inhibitory rTMS after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012; 26:988–998.Google Scholar
Wang, CP, Tsai, PY, Yang, TF, et al.Differential effect of conditioning sequences in coupling inhibitory/facilitatory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for poststroke motor recovery. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2014; 20:355–363.Google Scholar