Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014 Dec 19;30(2):143–154. doi: 10.1177/1545968314562112

Enduring post-stroke motor functional improvements by a well-timed combination of motor rehabilitative training and cortical stimulation in rats

Amber J O’Bryant a,*, DeAnna L Adkins b,c,*, Austen A Sitko d, Hannah Combs d, Sarah K Nordquist a,d, Theresa A Jones a,d,
PMCID: PMC4474792  NIHMSID: NIHMS641850  PMID: 25527486

Abstract

Background

In animal stroke models, peri-infarct cortical stimulation (CS) combined with rehabilitative reach training (RT) enhances motor functional outcome and cortical reorganization, compared with RT alone. It was unknown whether the effects of CS+RT: 1) persist long after treatment, 2) can be enhanced by forcing greater use of the paretic limb and 3) vary with treatment onset time.

Objective

To test the endurance, time-sensitivity, and the potential for augmentation by forced forelimb use of CS+RT treatment effects following ischemic stroke.

Methods

Adult rats that were proficient in skilled reaching received unilateral ischemic motor cortical lesions. RT was delivered for 3 weeks alone or concurrently with 100Hz cathodal epidural CS, delivered at 50% of movement thresholds. In study 1, this treatment was initiated at 14 days postinfarct, with some subgroups receiving an overlapping period of continuous constraint of the nonparetic forelimb to force use of the paretic limb. The function of the paretic limb was assessed weekly for 9–10 mo post-treatment. In study 2, rats underwent CS, RT and the combination during the chronic post-infarct period.

Results

Early onset CS+RT resulted in greater functional improvements than RT alone. The CS-related gains persisted for 9–10 mo post-treatment and were not significantly influenced by forced-use of the paretic limb. When treatment onset was delayed until 3 mo post-infarct, RT alone improved function, but CS+RT was no more effective than RT alone.

Conclusion

CS can enhance the persistence, as well as the magnitude of RT-driven functional improvements, but its effectiveness in doing so may vary with time post-infarct.

Keywords: motor cortex, ischemia, recovery of function, motor skill learning, facilitative stimulation, constraint-induced movement therapy

Introduction

Stroke is a leading cause of long-term disability worldwide[1]. Rehabilitative training (RT) reduces impairments but is often insufficient to restore normal functionality. Cortical stimulation (CS) combined with RT (CS+RT) is promising for facilitating RT effects. In rats and monkeys, high frequency bipolar, cathodal or anodal CS delivered via epidural or subdural electrodes over peri-infarct motor cortex (MC) enhances RT-induced motor performance on skilled reaching tasks compared with RT alone28 and increases dendritic and synaptic densities3,4, forelimb movement representation area6,7 and motor cortical evoked potentials8 in peri-infarct MC. This CS approach appears to be particularly beneficial for improving behaviors that are practiced during its delivery.24 Non-invasive stimulation approaches, e.g., repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), also enhance motor learning in healthy individuals9,10 and improve behavioral outcomes and modulate brain reorganization after stroke.1113 Despite differences in effective delivery parameters and polarities between clinical transcranial CS approaches and the subcranial CS tested in animal studies, they converge in supporting that modulation of cortical activity can yield at least short lasting improvements in post-stroke motor function.

The persistence of, and potential time-dependency in, CS+RT effects have not been examined, and this was the focus of the present study. We also investigated whether CS+RT effects are enhanced by forced-use of the nonparetic limb outside of RT sessions, to model aspects of constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT), a clinical treatment combining forced use of the paretic upper extremity with intense RT.14 In study 1, we investigated whether CS+RT initiated 14 days after MC infarcts, with or without forced-use, yields enduring improvements in skilled motor function as assessed for 9–10 months post-treatment. In study 2, CS+RT was initiated ~3 months post-infarct to test whether delayed treatment promotes the functional improvements and dendritic plasticity observed after earlier treatment.24

Materials and Methods

Design Overview

Study 1 tested the persistence of functional improvements resulting from early onset CS+RT and the effects of combining it with forced-use of the paretic (contralesional) forelimb (Fig. 1A). On post-lesion Day 9, rats were placed into vests that either constrained the nonparetic forelimb (forced-use vests) or permitted unrestricted use of both forelimbs (control vests) for 14 days. This timing avoids an early period of vulnerability to excessive forced-use15 and enabled rats to become accustomed to the vests prior to RT onset (Day 14). The 2 week duration in the vests is one that is safe and well-tolerated.16 RT was performed in 19 sessions over 24 days.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Study Overviews. Both studies tested the effects of combining cortical stimulation (CS) with rehabilitative reach training (RT). (A) Study 1 tested the long-term persistence of CS+RT effects when treatment was initiated early (2 weeks) after ischemic lesions. Lesion groups received RT or CS+RT with or without forced use of the paretic limb (4 groups, n’s=12–13). Sham-operates (no ischemia) received the same reach training procedures with or without CS (2 groups, n’s = 5–6). (B) Study 2 tested the effects of treatment that was delayed in onset post-lesion (~3 months). Histological endpoints were at the end of each study time line, with the exception of a subset of study 1 lesions sampled in post-RT week 1 (n=4). Note the changes in time scales. In both studies, the single pellet retrieval task (C) was learned by all rats pre-operatively and used postoperatively to measure lesion and treatment effects on reaching function. The apparatus design enforces the use of the designated forelimb for reaching. The arrow points to a pellet. The tray reaching task (D) was used to provide RT. The arrow points to impaired limb. CS treated groups received current delivery concurrent with performance of the RT task or no-training control procedures. All other groups were connected to stimulating cables during the sessions, but received no current delivery. (E) Constraint vest (dashed outline) used in study 1 to force use of the paretic limb (arrow).

Study 2 tested effects of delayed CS+RT treatment compared to RT alone (Fig. 1B). Electrodes were implanted 10 days prior to RT (to ensure their viability). No-treatment and CS-alone groups were included to determine the effects of delayed RT, which can wane in efficacy over time after injury.17,18 A slightly greater quantity of RT was used (24 sessions over 24 days) to probe for late emergence of treatment effects. Finally, immunolabeling with microtubule-associated protein 2 (MAP2) was used to visualize and quantify cortical dendrites to test whether, as with early onset CS+RT4, delayed CS+RT increases dendritic densities in peri-infarct MC.

In both studies, a highly sensitive measure of fine motor function, the single pellet retrieval task19 (SPR; Fig. 1C) was the primary behavioral measure. Rats were pre-operatively trained to proficiency on the SPR with their preferred-for-reaching limb to maximize sensitivity in detecting lesion and treatment effects on this skill. The similarity of postoperative impairment levels across conditions and effectiveness of the forced-use procedure were also verified with other sensorimotor tests (see Suppl. Materials). Lesions and electrode implantations were contralateral to the preoperatively trained forelimb. RT consisted of daily practice with the paretic limb on a tray-reaching task (Fig. 1D). This task provides a less sensitive measure of reaching function than the SPR, but encourages practice by requiring less precise reach-to-grasp movements.20 During the RT period, rats received 1 session per day of RT or no-RT control procedures with or without concurrent CS.

Animals

Male Long-Evans rats (N=102, Charles Rivers Laboratories) were housed in pairs or triplets on a 12:12h light:dark cycle with water ad libitum, in cages with standardized supplements (PVC and cardboard tubes, wooden objects and a complex food mixture). Rats were tamed by handling and maintained on scheduled feeding (15g chow/day, gradually increased to permit normal age-related weight gain). Lesion and sham surgeries were performed at 3.5–4 months old. Animals were assigned randomly to treatment conditions with the exception that they were carefully matched for initial severity of lesion-induced impairments (Suppl. Table 2). In study 1, the first batch of rats examined at the 12–13 month postoperative histological endpoint were found to have pockets of infection surrounding the electrodes, with evident morphological shifts of underlying cortex (n’s=2–4 per lesion group, 1 per sham group, 11 total). This was linked with a single electrode batch and was not found subsequently. The infections appeared to be fully encapsulated by skin and dura, did not invade brain tissue, there was no indication of poor health, and all behavioral measures were similar to other animals in the same conditions. Therefore, these animals were kept in the behavioral analyses but were omitted from anatomical analyses. All animal procedures were approved by the University of Texas Animal Care and Use Committee.

Surgical Procedures

Focal ischemia of the caudal forelimb area of MC was created with endothelin-1 (ET-1), a vasoconstricting peptide21,22 (see Suppl. Methods). Sham-operates received all procedures except ET-1 application.

Electrodes consisted of two 0.4×2 mm platinum epidural contacts, a skull mounted connector pedestal (9-pin ABS plug, Ginder Scientific, Inc., Ottawa, ON) and a 3 mm diameter platinum disk return electrode inserted subcutaneously caudal to Lambda. For study 1, 10 minutes after ET-1 application (or skull opening in sham-operates), the craniotomy was enlarged ~1 mm rostrally and medially to expose perilesion MC. The epidural contacts were positioned parallel to midline over remaining forelimb and surrounding regions of MC, a position that reliably elicits contralateral forelimb and/or face movements when current is delivered.24 Electrode implantation was identical in study 2 except that it was performed in a separate surgery (post-infarct Day 92).

Single-Pellet Retrieval Task (SPR)

The SPR has been described in detail previously.2325 After shaping to determine limb preferences, animals were trained to reach with the preferred limb through a narrow window to retrieve a banana flavored food pellet (45mg, Bio-Serve, Frenchtown, NJ) from a well 1 cm from the opening (Fig. 1C). Per trial, up to 5 reach attempts were permitted to retrieve a single pellet. Preoperatively, rats were trained to approximately the end of the “rapid acquisition” phase of task learning, after which time further performance improvements are typically subtle.26,27 (See Suppl. Methods.) This quantity of pre-training enables highly sensitive detection of post-lesion impairments and treatment effects.2,3,20,28 Post-lesion probes of reaching performance were analyzed as the change from pre-lesion in the % success (grasping, retrieving and eating the pellet) per reach attempt. Frame-by-frame analysis of reaching movements was also performed using a quantitative adaptation of Whishaw’s Movement Analysis2931 (Suppl. Materials).

Cortical Stimulation (CS) and Rehabilitative Training (RT)

During RT sessions, rats reached with the paretic limb for 100 pellets, delivered 50 at a time in two 5-minute increments on a 25° inclined tray (Fig. 1D). No-RT groups received 100 pellets on the chamber floor. CS consisted of 100Hz cathodal current (2s trains of 100μs pulses at 50% movement threshold) delivered for the entire RT session or no-RT control procedure. Cathodal CS was used because it tends to yield greater effects than anodal CS in this model.2,6 All animals were connected to stimulator cables during RT, but no current was delivered to No-CS and RT-only groups. Movement thresholds were defined weekly by the minimum current needed to evoke forelimb or head/neck movement. Consistent with previous findings28, movement thresholds declined over time, similarly across treatment conditions (Suppl. Table 1).

Forced-Use

On post-lesion Day 9 of study 1, animals were anesthetized with ketamine (100 mg/kg) and xylazine (10 mg/kg) and fitted in customized vests that forced reliance on the paretic forelimb (Fig. 1E) or allowed free movement of both forelimbs (Suppl. Methods). The forced-use vests allowed limited movements of the ipsilesional/nonparetic forelimb, while largely preventing its use for postural support. Vests were removed on post-lesion Day 25.

Histology

After pentobarbital overdose, rats were transcardially perfused with 0.1M phosphate buffer and fixative (2.5% glutaradehyde and 2% paraformaldehyde in study 1; 4% paraformaldehyde in study 2). Coronal serial sections (50 μm) created with a vibratome were Nissl stained with toluidine blue for volume measures and lesion reconstructions. In study 2, an adjacent section series was used for MAP2 labeling. One RT (study 1) and one CS+RT (study 2) brain were excluded from the anatomical analyses due to sectioning errors. Anatomical samples were coded to blind for experimental condition.

Sensorimotor cortical volumes were measured using the Cavalieri method32, and lesion placements were reconstructed using cytoarchitectonics33 (Suppl. Methods). Volume measures were expected to be sensitive to treatment effects on surviving cortex, rather than differences in initial infarct size. The use of volume measures to infer infarct size is complicated by other morphological changes, and these were likely in the present studies given the long time spans and the propensity of CS and reach training to promote neuronal growth in cortex24, which can increase its volume. The potential for group differences in initial infarct size was minimized by the highly reproducible infarct induction method21 and by matching for pre-treatment behavioral impairment levels (Suppl. Table 2) on measures established to be sensitive to variations in sizes of these lesions.3436; see also 3739 In study 1, we also used cytoarchitectonics to delineate and measure volumes of sensorimotor cortical subregions: the medial agranular (AGm), lateral agranular (AGl), and forelimb (FlOL) and hindlimb (HlOL) sensorimotor overlap zones (Suppl. Methods).

In study 2, sections were immunostained for the dendritic cytoskeletal protein, MAP2, using a free-floating section method21. The cycloid grid intersection method was used to quantify the surface density of MAP2 labeled dendrites in peri-infarct MC21 (Suppl. Methods).

Statistical Analyses

Both studies were designed to use a priori planned comparisons for the primary analyses, using SPSS (SPSS, Inc.) or SAS (SAS Institute, Inc.) general linear models procedures for analysis of variance (ANOVA), with posthoc T-tests as warranted by ANOVA. In study 1, repeated measures ANOVAs tested whether RT effects were influenced by (1) CS (CS+RT vs. RT alone) or (2) Forced-Use (RT+Forced-Use vs. RT alone) and whether (3) Forced-Use altered CS+RT effects (CS+RT+Forced-Use vs. CS+RT). Additionally, we tested whether CS affected sham-operates (Sham-CS+RT vs. Sham-RT). Data from the RT period and chronic period were analyzed separately to investigate the persistence of CS effects. In study 2, planned comparisons tested effects of delayed-onset of (1) RT alone (RT alone vs. No-CS/No-RT) or (2) CS alone (CS vs. No-CS/No-RT) and whether (3) CS alters RT effects (CS+RT vs. RT). Volume data were analyzed with ANOVA using the same planned comparisons. Secondary analyses compared cortical volumes of lesion groups with sham-operates (Study 1), ipsi to contra hemisphere volumes within groups, and pre- vs. postoperative reaching performance. Data are reported as means (M) and standard errors (SE).

Results

Behavior during the Early Treatment Period

Lesions impaired reaching performance, as probed on the SPR prior to RT (Days 6 and 13; Fig. 2A, B; see also Suppl. Fig. 1). During treatment, CS+RT significantly improved reaching performance on the SPR compared to RT alone (Group×Day interaction: F(7,140)=2.80, P=.009). In post-hoc analyses, groups were not significantly different on any individual probe day, although the CS+RT group tended to perform best near the end of treatment. Forced-Use did not further improve effects of CS+RT (vs. CS+RT+Forced-Use, Group×Day: F(7,154)=.87, P=.54) nor RT-alone (vs. RT+Forced-Use, Group×Day: F(7,141)=1.43, P=.18, Fig. 2B). In sham-operates, CS did not significantly affect reaching performance (Group×Day: F(6,54)=.95, P>.05, Fig. 2C), though performance transiently surpassed pre-operative baseline performance (possibly due to motivational influences of the more rewarding RT task, as described in Suppl. Results). The modest transient declines in performance early post-operatively in sham-operates may be due to craniectomies40 and/or electrode implants. There were no significant main effects of Group in any of the planned comparisons (P’s>.05). All analyses indicated significant effects of Day (F’s=12.5–31.5, P’s<.001), reflecting performance improvements in all groups over the RT period. In the RT (tray-reaching) task, rats with SMC infarcts initially retrieved fewer pellets than did sham-operates, but by the ninth training day, all groups retrieved most pellets (Suppl. Fig. 2A).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Reaching performance on the single pellet retrieval task in Study 1 (early treatment onset). (A) During the RT period, animals receiving CS+RT had improved reaching performance compared to RT alone (P<.01). The improved relative performance was maintained over the following 9–10 months (P=.01). Forced use did not alter CS+RT effects. (B) The effects of forced use without CS (RT+Forced-Use) also failed to reach significance compared with RT alone (P=.06 in the posttreatment period). The same data from the RT group are plotted in A and B to facilitate comparisons. (C) In the Sham (no-lesion) groups reaching performance was similar with and without CS during the RT period and not significantly different in the posttreatment period (P=.13). Data are M±SE % change in reaching success rates relative to pre-operative baseline (%(postoperative-preoperative)/preoperative). Baseline is the M of the last 3 days of pre-operative training, which was lower than the peak pre-operative performance due to day-to-day variability after this proficiency level was achieved.

Behavior in the Chronic Period after Early Treatment

Over the 9–10 months after treatment, the CS+RT group maintained SPR performance improvements relative to RT-alone (Fig. 2A, Group: F(1,20)=8.06, P=.01). This effect did not significantly vary over time (Group×Week, P>0.05) or with prior forced-use condition (CS+RT vs. CS+RT+Forced-Use, Group: F(1,22)=.29, P=.59). Effects of RT+Forced-Use compared with RT-alone (Fig. 2B) failed to reach significance (Group: (F(1,21)=3.96, P=.060). In sham-operates, there were no significant CS effects (Fig. 2C; Group: F(1,9)=2.79, P=.13). All analyses indicated significant main effects of Day (F’s=4.22–5.32, P’s<.001), reflecting declines in reaching performance in all groups with time (and age). However, reaching movement abnormalities also diminished over the first 12 weeks after RT in lesion versus sham groups (Suppl. Fig. 3A).

Behavioral Effects of Delayed Treatment Onset

Prior to treatment onset in study 2, reaching performance in each group remained impaired compared with pre-injury performance (Days 0 vs. 100: P’s<.05, Fig. 3). RT beginning at ~ 3 months post-lesion significantly improved SPR performance compared to No-CS/No-RT controls (Group×Day: F(8,160)=6.37, P<.001). In contrast to the earlier treatment, CS did not improve RT effects (CS+RT vs. RT, F(8,168)=.42, P=.92). CS alone also had no significant influence on reaching performance (CS vs. No-CS/No-RT, F(8,144)=0.94, P=.48). There was also a non-significant (P>.05) drop in performance in the CS+RT and RT group one week after CS and RT were discontinued. Groups performed similarly on the RT task (Suppl. Fig. 2B).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Performance on the single pellet retrieval task in study 2 (delayed treatment onset). When initiated ~ 3 months after ischemic lesion induction, RT alone (P<.05), but not CS alone, improved performance compared to animals with neither treatment (No-CS/No-RT). In contrast to its effects earlier after the lesion, CS+RT did not significantly improve performance compared to RT alone. Data are M±SE % change fro pre-operative performance in reaching success rates.

Anatomical Results 9–10 Months after Early Treatment

Reconstruction of cortical damage relative to cytoarchitectural subregions revealed lesion placements that were similar between groups (Fig. 4A, B). Damage was centered in the FlOL and extended into AGm and AGl subregions, with the HlOL relatively spared, as intended (Fig. 4C). Most animals had superficial damage to the corpus callosum. Eight animals (from RT, RT+Forced-Use and CS+RT+Forced-Use groups) had deeper white matter damage; however direct damage to the striatum was not evident. Lesion placements were similar in the brains (n=4) examined immediately after the RT period.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Lesion placement and cortical volume measures as assessed 9–10 months after the early treatments of study 1. (A–C) Representative coronal sections (A) and reconstructions (B) based on cytoarchitectonics (C) of the cortical damage in each of the lesion groups. The reconstructions indicated similar lesion extents across treatment conditions. (D) Volumes of sensorimotor cortical subregions. Compared to RT groups, CS+RT groups had significantly greater volumes of cortical subregions surrounding the infarct (and near the focus of stimulation). This included the medial agranular cortex (AGm), lateral agranular cortex (AGl) and forelimb overlap zone (FLOL). The volumes of the same subregions were significantly reduced in RT, but not in CS+RT, lesion groups compared with Sham. There were no group differences in the hindlimb overlap zone (HLOL), which is posterior to the infarct and more remote from the focus of CS than the other regions. Data are M±SE. *P<.02, **P<.005.

Cortical volumes did not differ between the two sham nor the forced-use vs. control vest subgroups (P’s>.05). These groups were therefore combined for subsequent analyses. As shown in Table 1, each lesion group had significantly reduced ipsilesional versus contralesional cortical volumes. The interhemispheric volume difference (contra minus ipsi) in the RT groups (−17.5±3.1) was significantly different than Shams (−4.6±2.8, F(1,23)=8.80, P=.007) as well as CS+RT (−6.3±2.6, F(1,34)=8.02, P=.008). CS+RT was not different from Sham (F(1,29)=0.15, P=.69). As discussed below, these volume effects are unlikely to reflect differences in initial infarct size and are likely to reflect CS+RT treatment effects.

TABLE 1.

Sensorimotor cortical volumes (mm3) of the injured (Ipsi) and intact (Contra) hemispheres.

Study 1
Study 2
Ipsi Contra Ipsi Contra


Lesion-RT 69.6 ± 3.4* 84.2 ± 2 RT 70.1 ± 2.6* 80.2 ± 1.5
Lesion-CS+RT 77.8 ± 2.6* 83.0 ± 1.6 CS 69.6 ± 2.4* 83.1 ± 1.4
Sham 79.3 ± 3.2 83.0 ± 1.6 CS+RT 68.3 ± 3.6* 79.9 ± 1.4

Lesion-Early 74.9 ± 5.9* 88.2 ± 2.3 No-CS/No-RT 70.0 ± 1.6* 81.5 ± 1.5

Note: The histological endpoints were 1.5 months (Lesion-Early), 12–13.5 months (remaining study 1 groups) and 5 months (study 2) after ischemic lesion or sham operations. Data are M±SE.

*

P<.05 vs. contra hemisphere volume

As shown in Figure 4D, CS+RT groups also had significantly greater volumes in the cytoarchitecturally defined AGl, AGm and FlOL of peri-infarct cortex compared with RT. Volumes of these subregions were not significantly different between CS+RT and Shams. In contrast, RT groups had reduced volume compared with Sham in these same areas. In the subset of lesions examined 1 week post- RT, remaining ipsilesional cortical volume was more similar to CS+RT than to RT, consistent with continued atrophy of peri-lesion cortex over the longer post-lesion period. HlOL volumes were not significantly different between groups (P’s>.05). In CS+RT, reaching performance during the RT period was significantly correlated with the volumes of AGl and AGm (combined: R2=.33, P=.011), but not the other subregions (FlOL: P=.68, HlOL: P=.87), whereas these correlations were nonsignificant in the RT group (P’s=.31–.51).

Anatomical Results after Delayed Treatment

The placement of lesions in study 2 was generally similar to that described for study 1 (Fig. 5A, B). In contrast to study 1, volume measurements of remaining SMC revealed no differences among conditions (F’s(1,18–20)=.01–.97, P’s=.97–.43, Table 1).

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Lesion placement and MAP2 analysis after delayed treatment in study 2. Representative coronal sections (A) and reconstructions (B) based on cytoarchitectonics in delayed treatment groups of study 2. Representative images of MAP2 labeled dendrites in peri-infarct layer V of RT (C) and No-CS/No-RT (D) groups. After the delayed onset of RT, there was a greater surface density of dendrites in layer V than found in No-CS/No-RT (E). Dendritic densities in CS+RT were not significantly different from those of RT (scale bar = 50μm). Data are M±SE. *P<.05.

As shown in Figure 5C–E, animals receiving delayed onset RT had significantly greater surface density of MAP2 labeled dendritic processes in layer V of peri-infarct cortex compared with No-CS/No-RT (F(1,20)=6.74, P=.017). Dendritic densities in CS+RT tended to be lower but were not significantly different from RT F(1,21)=2.88, P=.11), in contrast to previous findings that early CS+RT increases dendritic densities relative to RT[4]. There were no differences between CS alone and No-CS/No-RT (P=.93). There also were no significant differences in layers II/III.

Discussion

During the early, but not late, phase of post-infarct recovery, delivery of epidural cortical stimulation (CS+RT) during motor rehabilitative training (RT) on a reaching task significantly and persistently improved reaching performance compared to RT-alone. Rats receiving CS+RT beginning 2 weeks after the infarcts maintained improved performance relative to RT-alone over the 9–10 months post-treatment period, although reaching performance declined in all groups with time. When treatment was delayed until 3 months post-infarct, RT-alone improved performance, but there was no further improvement resulting from CS.

CS combined with RT enhances functional activity patterns and neuronal structural plasticity in peri-infarct MC and improves reaching performance of the paretic limb, as assessed during and shortly after treatment.28 This CS-facilitated plasticity likely contributed both to the long-term functional gains and the increased volume of MC subregions, as observed 9–10 months after CS+RT compared to RT-alone. It is unlikely that the volume differences were due to differences in initial infarct sizes, as groups were matched for initial post-operative impairment levels on behavioral tests that are sensitive to lesion size3439 and cytoarchitectural reconstructions indicated similar injury extents. Furthermore, previous studies have revealed no influence of CS+RT on injury extent or cortical volumes, as assessed shortly after early treatment24. This is not surprising given that even the earliest treatment onsets of previous studies, as with the present, were well past sensitive windows for either neuroprotective41 or neurotoxic15,42 effects on infarct evolution. Comparisons with a small subset of infarcts analyzed immediately after the early RT period suggest that there may be atrophy of peri-infarct cortex over the long post-treatment period, which was countered by CS+RT.2 Although a thorough time-course analysis of cortical volume would be useful for verifying this, the possibility is consistent with findings of continued atrophy of surviving tissue long after the initial ischemic event in animals43 and humans.44,45

It is also possible that early CS+RT promotes an expansion of residual tissue. In intact animals, neuronal growth and synapse addition in neocortex is often accompanied by expanded cortical volume.46 Early CS+RT increases densities of dendrites and synapses in peri-infarct MC.3,4 This has not been linked with increased cortical volume as assessed shortly after the end of treatment, but it remains possible that these observations reflect a stage of structural plasticity that later contribute to volume increases. It is also possible that the neuronal structural plasticity protects against gradual atrophy of residual cortex in the posttreatment period.

We did not find that constraint of the nonparetic limb further improved CS+RT effects. In humans, CIMT improves motor function,47,48 enhances cortical activity49,50 and reduces grey matter atrophy.51 In rats with striatal hemorrhage, forced-use of the paretic forelimb combined with RT improves motor deficits and decreases tissue loss.52 There was no indication of an additive effect of forced-use and CS+RT in the present study. However, there was a nonsignificant (P=.06) tendency for forced-use to improve the efficacy of RT without CS, raising the possibility that variations in the forced-use approach, including a more complete overlap in treatment periods, would have had a more robust effect. Furthermore, given that CS+RT and RT alone are less effective in animals with more severe initial impairments,3,36 forced-use of the paretic limb is potentially more effective in combination with CS+RT in more severely impaired animals. It should also be noted that, though the two weeks of forced-use in this study was on par in duration with human CIMT studies, our manipulation is dissimilar from CIMT in numerous ways,48,53 e.g., rats spend more time per day with the nonparetic forelimb constrained, but less in RT, and it seems reasonable to assume that the complexity of manual skill activities outside of RT is more limited in laboratory rats.

A striking behavioral pattern was the gradual decay in reaching performance over the chronic post-treatment period, which diminished performance improvements gained during RT in all groups. The decline may have been due to a lack of task practice, age, or both. The ~1 year period of observation spanned young adulthood to late-middle age in rats of study 1. Age-related declines in manual function are well established27,54. However, reaching movement abnormalities also partially recovered in all lesion groups in the post-treatment period, which seems contrary to the idea that the performance decrements purely reflect age-related motor impairments. A similar tendency for performance to decline after RT was also seen in study 2. These data may indicate the need for skills that have been improved by RT to continue to be practiced after treatment ends. The rats had limited opportunity to do so outside of the testing environment. Even in the context of this decline, the early CS+RT group maintained relative performance improvements over RT-alone. This could reflect the promotion of more useful compensatory strategies in CS+RT than RT, as opposed to more true “recovery”, given that movement abnormalities recovered similarly in these groups. However, it is also possible for CS+RT to partially normalize movements when it is combined with task-specific training.3

Another novel finding is that the effects of CS+RT vary with its timing after the injury. Because CS can facilitate skill acquisition even in healthy humans55, we predicted that CS might vary in potency but would nevertheless facilitate RT efficacy at delayed time points. Instead, we found no further improvements as a result of CS+RT versus RT-alone. The sensitivity in detecting these effects may have been limited by the magnitude of RT-only effects and the minor degree of spontaneous recovery. Thus, it is possible that delayed CS+RT would be more effective in animals with more severe persisting impairments. However, delayed CS+RT also failed to increase dendritic densities in peri-infarct cortex compared with RT, in contrast to early CS+RT effects4, suggesting that the delay diminished its capacity to facilitate RT-driven plasticity.

We did find that the delayed onset of RT was very effective in improving reaching performance, and this was linked with greater densities of dendrites in peri-infarct MC. Study 1 and 2 were not intended to be directly compared, but the pattern of results across them do not strongly suggest a major difference in RT efficacy with the delay. Previous studies indicate that RT is particularly potent when initiated early (<1 week) after stroke.56,57 The present results do not contradict this idea, because even our earlier treatment onset (2 weeks) was delayed compared with these prior studies.

The mechanisms of the functional improvements resulting from CS+RT are likely to involve its plasticity-promoting effects.36 Though it has yet to be demonstrated in our model, these effects may depend on up-regulation of neurotropic factors. Direct current stimulation in rodent tissue slices is NMDA receptor dependent and, when combined with repetitive, low-frequency synaptic activation, enhances secretion of BDNF and TrkB activation.58 Anodal tDCS over MC induces long-lasting LTP like effects that are NMDA and calcium dependent in healthy human cortex.59 Epidural CS may work through similar mechanisms to facilitate RT-driven plasticity and improve its efficacy.

In conclusion, these findings support the usefulness of CS in improving both the short-term and enduring benefits of RT. They also suggest that the influence of CS on RT efficacy can diminish with time after stroke. Forced-use of the paretic forelimb did not further improve early CS+RT effects, but it remains possible that an alternative combination of forced-use with CS could do so. The present findings also support the continued efficacy of RT in enhancing functional outcome and promoting cortical plasticity in the chronic period after ischemic stroke. One timing issue that was not addressed is that of age. RT is effective after similar infarcts even in much older animals60, but the generalization of CS+RT effects after older-onset stroke remains to be tested.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments

Supported by NIH/NINDS R21NS063332, U54NS048126 and NS056839. We thank Dr. R. J. Nudo for advice on the study designs.

Abbreviations

AGl

lateral agranular cortex

AGm

agranular cortex

CIMT

constraint-induced movement therapy

CS

cortical stimulation

CS+RT

cortical stimulation during rehabilitative training

ET-1

endothelin-1

FlOL

forelimb sensory-motor overlap zone

HlOL

hindlimb sensory-motor overlap zone

MAP2

microtubule associated protein 2

rTMS

repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation

tDCS

transcranial direct current stimulation

SPR

single pellet retrieval task

References

  • 1.Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, Benjamin EJ, Berry JD, Borden WB, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics--2012 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;125:e2–e220. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e31823ac046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Adkins DL, Campos P, Quach D, Borromeo M, Schallert K, Jones TA. Epidural cortical stimulation enhances motor function after sensorimotor cortical infarcts in rats. Exp Neurol. 2006;200:356–370. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2006.02.131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Adkins DL, Hsu JE, Jones TA. Motor cortical stimulation promotes synaptic plasticity and behavioral improvements following sensorimotor cortex lesions. Exp Neurol. 2008;212:14–28. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2008.01.031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Adkins-Muir DL, Jones TA. Cortical electrical stimulation combined with rehabilitative training: enhanced functional recovery and dendritic plasticity following focal cortical ischemia in rats. Neurol Res. 2003;25:780–788. doi: 10.1179/016164103771953853. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Boychuk JA, Adkins DL, Kleim JA. Distributed versus focal cortical stimulation to enhance motor function and motor map plasticity in a rodent model of ischemia. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25:88–97. doi: 10.1177/1545968310385126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kleim JA, Bruneau R, VandenBerg P, MacDonald E, Mulrooney R, Pocock D. Motor cortex stimulation enhances motor recovery and reduces peri-infarct dysfunction following ischemic insult. Neurol Res. 2003;25:789–93. doi: 10.1179/016164103771953862. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Plautz EJ, Barbay S, Frost SB, Friel KM, Dancause N, Zoubina EV, et al. Post-infarct cortical plasticity and behavioral recovery using concurrent cortical stimulation and rehabilitative training: a feasibility study in primates. Neurol Res. 2003;25:801–810. doi: 10.1179/016164103771953880. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Teskey GC, Flynn C, Goertzen CD, Monfils MH, Young NA. Cortical stimulation improves skilled forelimb use following a focal ischemic infarct in the rat. Neurol Res. 2003;25:794–800. doi: 10.1179/016164103771953871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Reis J, Fritsch B. Modulation of motor performance and motor learning by transcranial direct current stimulation. Curr Opin Neurol. 2011;24:590–596. doi: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e32834c3db0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tanaka S, Sandrini M, Cohen LG. Modulation of motor learning and memory formation by non-invasive cortical stimulation of the primary motor cortex. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2011;21:650–675. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2011.605589. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jiang T, Xu RX, Zhang AW, Di W, Xiao ZJ, Miao JY, et al. Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on hemichannel pannexin-1 and neural plasticity in rat model of cerebral infarction. Neuroscience. 2012;226:421–426. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2012.09.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Volz LJ, Benali A, Mix A, Neubacher U, Funke K. Dose-dependence of changes in cortical protein expression induced with repeated transcranial magnetic theta-burst stimulation in the rat. Brain Stimul. 2013;6:598–606. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2013.01.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sandrini M, Cohen LG. Noninvasive brain stimulation in neurorehabilitation. Handb Clin Neurol. 2013;116:499–524. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53497-2.00040-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.McIntyre AVR, Janzen S, Mehta S, Pereira S, Teasell R. Systematic review and meta-analysis of constraint-induced movement therapy in the hemiparetic upper extremity more than six months post stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2012;19:499–513. doi: 10.1310/tsr1906-499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kozlowski DA, James DC, Schallert T. Use-dependent exaggeration of neuronal injury after unilateral sensorimotor cortex lesions. J Neurosci. 1996;16:4776–4786. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.16-15-04776.1996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Adkins DL, Bury SD, Jones TA. Laminar-dependent dendritic spine alterations in the motor cortex of adult rats following callosal transection and forced forelimb use. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2002;78:35–52. doi: 10.1006/nlme.2001.4045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Biernaskie J, Corbett D. Enriched rehabilitative training promotes improved forelimb motor function and enhanced dendritic growth after focal ischemic injury. J Neurosci. 2001;21:5272–5280. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-14-05272.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Norrie BA, Nevett-Duchcherer JM, Gorassini MA. Reduced functional recovery by delaying motor training after spinal cord injury. J of Neurophys. 2005;94:255–264. doi: 10.1152/jn.00970.2004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Cenci MA, Whishaw IQ, Schallert T. Animal models of neurological deficits: how relevant is the rat? Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3:574–579. doi: 10.1038/nrn877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Maldonado MA, Allred RP, Felthauser EL, Jones TA. Motor skill training, but not voluntary exercise, improves skilled reaching after unilateral ischemic lesions of the sensorimotor cortex in rats. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22:250–261. doi: 10.1177/1545968307308551. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Adkins DL, Voorhies AC, Jones TA. Behavioral and neuroplastic effects of focal endothelin-1 induced sensorimotor cortex lesions. Neuroscience. 2004;12:473–486. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2004.07.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Fuxe K, Bjelke B, Andbjer B, Grahn H, Rimondini R, Agnati LF. Endothelin-1 induced lesions of the frontoparietal cortex of the rat. A possible model of focal cortical ischemia. Neuroreport. 1997;8:2623–2629. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199707280-00040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bury SD, Jones TA. Unilateral sensorimotor cortex lesions in adult rats facilitate motor skill learning with the “unaffected” forelimb and training-induced dendritic structural plasticity in the motor cortex. J Neurosci. 2002;22:8597–8606. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-19-08597.2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.O’Bryant A, Bernier B, Jones TA. Abnormalities in skilled reaching movements are improved by peripheral anesthetization of the less-affected forelimb after sensorimotor cortical infarcts in rats. Behav Brain Res. 2007;177:298–307. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2006.11.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.O’Bryant AJ, Allred RP, Maldonado MA, Cormack LK, Jones TA. Breeder and batch-dependent variability in the acquisition and performance of a motor skill in adult Long-Evans rats. Behav Brain Res. 2011;224:112–120. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2011.05.028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kleim JA, Hogg TM, VandenBerg PM, Cooper NR, Bruneau R, Remple M. Cortical synaptogenesis and motor map reorganization occur during late, but not early, phase of motor skill learning. J Neurosci. 2004;24:628–633. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3440-03.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tennant KA, Adkins DL, Scalco MD, Donlan NA, Asay AL, Thomas N, et al. Skill learning induced plasticity of motor cortical representations is time and age-dependent. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2012;98:291–302. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2012.09.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Adkins DL, Jones TA. D-amphetamine enhances skilled reaching after ischemic cortical lesions in rats. Neurosci Lett. 2005;38:214–218. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2005.01.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Whishaw IQ, Pellis SM, Gorny BP, Pellis VC. The impairments in reaching and the movements of compensation in rats with motor cortex lesions: an endpoint, videorecording, and movement notation analysis. Behav Brain Res. 1991;42:77–91. doi: 10.1016/s0166-4328(05)80042-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Whishaw IQ, Suchowersky O, Davis L, Sarna J, Metz GA, Pellis SM. Impairment of pronation, supination, and body co-ordination in reach-to-grasp tasks in human Parkinson’s disease (PD) reveals homology to deficits in animal models. Behav Brain Res. 2002;133:165–1. doi: 10.1016/s0166-4328(01)00479-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Gonzalez CL, Gharbawie OA, Williams PT, Kleim JA, Kolb B, Whishaw IQ. Evidence for bilateral control of skilled movements: ipsilateral skilled forelimb reaching deficits and functional recovery in rats follow motor cortex and lateral frontal cortex lesions. Eur J Neurosci. 2004;20:3442–3452. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2004.03751.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gundersen HJ, Bendtsen TF, Korbo L, Marcussen N, Moller A, Nielsen K, et al. Some new, simple and efficient stereological methods and their use in pathological research and diagnosis. Apmis. 1988;96:379–394. doi: 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1988.tb05320.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Chu CJ, Jones TA. Experience-dependent structural plasticity in cortex heterotopic to focal sensorimotor cortical damage. Exp Neurol. 2000;166:403–414. doi: 10.1006/exnr.2000.7509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Allred RP, Jones TA. Unilateral ischemic sensorimotor cortical damage in female rats: forelimb behavioral effects and dendritic structural plasticity in the contralateral homotopic cortex. Exp Neurol. 2004;190:433–445. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2004.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Allred RP, Maldonado MA, Hsu JE, Jones TA. Training the “less-affected” forelimb after unilateral cortical infarcts interferes with functional recovery of the impaired forelimb in rats. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2005;23:297–302. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hsu JE, Jones TA. Contralesional neural plasticity and functional changes in the less-affected forelimb after large and small cortical infarcts in rats. Exp Neurol. 2006;201:479–494. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2006.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Grabowski M, Brundin P, Johansson BB. Paw-reaching, sensorimotor, and rotational behavior after brain infarction in rats. Stroke. 1993;24:889–895. doi: 10.1161/01.str.24.6.889. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lindner MD, Gribkoff VK, Donlan NA, Jones TA. Long-lasting functional disabilities in middle-aged rats with small cerebral infarcts. J Neurosci. 2003;23:10913–10922. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-34-10913.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Schallert T, Fleming SM, Leasure JL, Tillerson JL, Bland ST. CNS plasticity and assessment of forelimb sensorimotor outcome in unilateral rat models of stroke, cortical ablation, parkinsonism and spinal cord injury. Neuropharm. 2000;39:777–787. doi: 10.1016/s0028-3908(00)00005-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Adams FS, Schwarting RK, Huston JP. Behavioral and neurochemical asymmetries following unilateral trephination of the rat skull: is this control operation always appropriate? Physiology & Beh. 1994;55:947–952. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(94)90084-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Chavez JC, Hurko O, Barone FC, Feuerstein GZ. Pharmacologic interventions for stroke: looking beyond the thrombolysis time window into the penumbra with biomarkers, not a stopwatch. Stroke. 2009;40:e558–e563. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.559914. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Humm JL, Kozlowski DA, James DC, Gotts JE, Schallert T. Use-dependent exacerbation of brain damage occurs during an early post-lesion vulnerable period. Brain Res. 1998;783:286–292. doi: 10.1016/s0006-8993(97)01356-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Karl JM, Alaverdashvili M, Cross AR, Whishaw IQ. Thinning, movement, and volume loss of residual cortical tissue occurs after stroke in the adult rat as identified by histological and magnetic resonance imaging analysis. Neurosci. 2010;170:123–37. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.06.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Gaudinski MR, Henning EC, Miracle A, Luby M, Warach S, Latour LL. Establishing final infarct volume: stroke lesion evolution past 30 days is insignificant. Stroke. 2008;39:2765–2768. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.512269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Gauthier LV, Taub E, Mark VW, Barghi A, Uswatte G. Atrophy of spared gray matter tissue predicts poorer motor recovery and rehabilitation response in chronic stroke. Stroke. 2012;43:453–247. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.633255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Anderson BJ. Plasticity of gray matter volume: the cellular and synaptic plasticity that underlies volumetric change. Dev Psychobiol. 2011;53:456–465. doi: 10.1002/dev.20563. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Mark VW, Taub E. Constraint-induced movement therapy for chronic stroke hemiparesis and other disabilities. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2004;22:317–336. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Wolf SL, Miller WC, Taub JP, Uswatte E, Morris G, Giuliani D, Light C, Nichols-Larsen KE DEXCITE Investigators. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2006:296. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.17.2095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Schaechter JD, Kraft E, Hilliard TS, Dijkhuizen RM, Benner T, Finklestein SP, et al. Motor recovery and cortical reorganization after constraint-induced movement therapy in stroke patients: a preliminary study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002;16:326–338. doi: 10.1177/154596830201600403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Wittenberg GF, Chen R, Ishii K, Bushara KO, Eckloff S, Croarkin E, Taub E, Gerber LH, Hallett M, Cohen LG. Constraint-induced therapy in stroke: magnetic-stimulation motor maps and cerebral activation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2003;17:48–57. doi: 10.1177/0888439002250456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Gauthier LV, Taub E, Perkins C, Ortmann M, Mark VW, Uswatte G. Remodeling the brain: plastic structural brain changes produced by different motor therapies after stroke. Stroke; a journal of cerebral circulation. 2008;39:1520–1525. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.502229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.DeBow SB, Davies ML, Clarke HL, Colbourne F. Constraint-induced movement therapy and rehabilitation exercises lessen motor deficits and volume of brain injury after striatal hemorrhagic stroke in rats. Stroke. 2003;34:1021–1026. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000063374.89732.9F. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Wolf SLWC, Miller JP, Thompson PA, Taub E, Uswatte G, Morris D, Blanton S, Nichols-Larsen D, Clark PC. Retention of upper limb function in stroke survivors who have received constraint-induced movement therapy: the EXCITE randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. 2008;7:33–40. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70294-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Alaverdashvili M, Whishaw IQ. Compensation aids skilled reaching in aging and in recovery from forelimb motor cortex stroke in the rat. Neuroscience. 2010;167:21–30. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Reis J, Robertson E, Krakauer JW, Rothwell J, Marshall L, Gerloff C, et al. Consensus: “Can tDCS and TMS enhance motor learning and memory formation?”. Brain Stimul. 2008;1:363–369. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2008.08.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Barbay S, Plautz EJ, Friel KM, Frost SB, Dancause N, Stowe AM, et al. Behavioral and neurophysiological effects of delayed training following a small ischemic infarct in primary motor cortex of squirrel monkeys. Exp Brain Res. 2006;169:106–116. doi: 10.1007/s00221-005-0129-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Biernaskie J, Chernenko G, Corbett D. Efficacy of rehabilitative experience declines with time after focal ischemic brain injury. J Neurosci. 2004;24:1245–1254. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3834-03.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Fritsch B, Reis J, Martinowich K, Schambra HM, Ji Y, Cohen LG, et al. Direct current stimulation promotes BDNF-dependent synaptic plasticity: potential implications for motor learning. Neuron. 2010;66:198–204. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Monte-Silva K, Kuo MF, Hessenthaler S, Fresnoza S, Liebetanz D, Paulus W, et al. Induction of late LTP-like plasticity in the human motor cortex by repeated non-invasive brain stimulation. Brain Stimul. 2013;6:424–432. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2012.04.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Tennant KA, Kerr AL, Adkins DL, Donlan N, Thomas N, Kleim JA, et al. Age-Dependent Reorganization of Peri-Infarct “Premotor” Cortex With Task-Specific Rehabilitative Training in Mice. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014 Jul 8; doi: 10.1177/1545968314541329. pii:1545968314541329 Epub ahead of print. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

RESOURCES