Table 1.
(A) Clinico-demographic information.
| I D |
Age/Gen der/ Handed ness |
Time since Strok e (mont hs) |
Side of Pare sis |
MM SE |
Lesi on volu me (cm3) |
Lesion location |
Stroke Subtype |
Mea n FA |
ME P |
UEFMTOT AL/ UEFMPRO XIMAL (max = 66/36) |
Baseline predictors | Baseline values (mean ± SEM) |
Correlation with change in RT performance associated with standard approach /cPMd facilitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||||
| 1 | 56/F/R | 24 | L | 29 | 245.8 | Cortical & subcortical | Ischemic | 0.268 | − | 7/7 | Demographics | ||
| 2 | 58/M/R | 264 | L | 29 | 199.2 | Cortical & subcortical | Ischemic | 0.290 | − | 21/12 | Age (years) [range] | 62.13 ± 2.33 | 0.29/−0.09 |
| 3 | 76/M/R | 24 | R | 28 | 0.9 | Subcortical | Ischemic | 0.493 | + | 24/11 | Gender (M/F) | 13M/2F | −0.33/−0.32 |
| 4 | 55/M/R | 45 | R | 30 | 1.4 | Subcortical | Ischemic | 0.415 | − | 25/13 | Handedness (L/R) | 0L/15R | NA |
| 5 | 55/M/R | 48 | R | 27 | 1.2 | Subcortical | Ischemic | 0.347 | − | 32/18 | Time since Stroke (months) [range] | 55.6 ± 15.69 | −0.32/−0.09 |
| 6 | 77/M/R | 84 | R | 30 | 1.0 | Subcortical | Ischemic | 0.325 | + | 42/21 | Side of Paresis (L/R) | 6L/9R | −0.13/−0.003 |
| 7 | 69/M/R | 48 | R | 30 | 1.2 | Subcortical | Hemorrhagic | 0.515 | − | 44/27 | Cognitive/mood | ||
| 8 | 53/M/R | 34 | R | 29 | NA | Subcortical | Ischemic | NA | − | 46/27 | MMSE | 28.6 ± 0.51 | −0.36/0.01 |
| 9 | 66/M/R | 19 | L | 24 | 9.4 | Cortical | Ischemic | 0.53 | + | 48/25 | Lesion | ||
| 10 | 54/M/R | 29 | R | 29 | 2.4 | Subcortical | Ischemic | 90.398 | + | 52/28 | Lesion location (cortical/subcortical/cortical & subcortical/pontine) | (1/12/2/2) | 0.25/−0.43 |
| 11 | 51/F/R | 23 | R | 29 | 0.6 | Subcortical | Ischemic | 0.492 | + | 52/29 | Lesion volume (cm3) | 33.14 ± 20.1 | −0.42/0.48 |
| 12 | 56/M/R | 13 | L | 28 | 0.3 | Subcortical | Ischemic | 0.564 | + | 60/33 | Impairment | ||
| 13 | 63/M/R | 45 | L | 28 | 0.5 | Pontine | Ischemic | 0.552 | + | 61/35 | UEFMTOTAL [range] | 42.53 ± 4.43 [7–63] | −0.42/0.81* |
| 14 | 62/M/R | 11 | R | 30 | 0.1 | Subcortical | Ischemic | 0.555 | + | 61/33 | uefmPROXIMAL [range] | 23.67 ± 2.44 [7–36] | −0.62*/0.90* |
| 15 | 72/M/R | 84 | L | 26 | 0.01 | Pontine | Ischemic | 0.577 | + | 63/36 | −0.40/0.79* | ||
| UEFMHAND [range] | 18.87 ± 2.06 [0–28] | ||||||||||||
| Damage | |||||||||||||
| MEP (+/−) | 9+/6− | −0.49#/0.46# | |||||||||||
| Mean FA | 0.42 ± 0.04 | −0.61*/0.72* | |||||||||||
Abbreviations: MMSE, Mini Mental State Examination; FA, fractional anisotropy; MEP, motor evoked potential; UEFM, Upper Limb Fugl-Meyer. Note: ID=Patient; order of patients is in ascending order of their UEFMTOTAL score; “+” represents “MEPPRESENT” and “−” represents “MEPABSENT”. (B) Distribution of baseline predictors and correlation with change in RT performance associated with standard approach and cPMd facilitation. Highlighted in bold are baseline predictors that showed significant relationship (P < 0.05, marked as *) or trend towards significance (P < 0.08, marked as #) with change in RT performance associated with standard approach (inhibition of cM1) and facilitation of cPMd. Note: UEFMTOTAL and UEFMHAND showed significant relationship with change in RT performance associated with cPMd facilitation but not with the standard approach. Since our goal was to identify what level of damage/impairment separated responders for standard approach vs. cPMd facilitation, we included only those predictors which showed significant correlation with change in RT performance associated with both techniques.