This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 37/7/1941    most recent 01.STR.0000226902.43357.fcv1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sharma, N. Articles by Baron, J.-C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sharma, N. Articles by Baron, J.-C. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Stroke Related Collections Computerized tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Rehabilitation, Stroke

(Stroke. 2006;37:1941.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.

Progress Reviews

Motor Imagery

A Backdoor to the Motor System After Stroke?

From the Department of Clinical Neurosciences (N.S., J.-C.B.), University of Cambridge, England; and the Centre for Rehabilitation and Ageing (V.M.P.), St George’s, University of London, England.

Correspondence to Prof Jean-Claude Baron, University of Cambridge, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Addenbrooke’s Hospital Box 83, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK. E-mail jcb54{at}cam.ac.uk

Background and Purpose— Understanding brain plasticity after stroke is important in developing rehabilitation strategies. Active movement therapies show considerable promise but depend on motor performance, excluding many otherwise eligible patients. Motor imagery is widely used in sport to improve performance, which raises the possibility of applying it both as a rehabilitation method and to access the motor network independently of recovery. Specifically, whether the primary motor cortex (M1), considered a prime target of poststroke rehabilitation, is involved in motor imagery is unresolved.

Summary of Review— We review methodological considerations when applying motor imagery to healthy subjects and in patients with stroke, which may disrupt the motor imagery network. We then review firstly the motor imagery training literature focusing on upper-limb recovery, and secondly the functional imaging literature in healthy subjects and in patients with stroke.

Conclusions— The review highlights the difficulty in addressing cognitive screening and compliance in motor imagery studies, particularly with regards to patients with stroke. Despite this, the literature suggests the encouraging effect of motor imagery training on motor recovery after stroke. Based on the available literature in healthy volunteers, robust activation of the nonprimary motor structures, but only weak and inconsistent activation of M1, occurs during motor imagery. In patients with stroke, the cortical activation patterns are essentially unexplored as is the underlying mechanism of motor imagery training. Provided appropriate methodology is implemented, motor imagery may provide a valuable tool to access the motor network and improve outcome after stroke.

Key Words: magnetic resonance imaging, functional • recovery of function • rehabilitation • stroke • tomography, emission computed

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Cacchio, E. De Blasis, V. De Blasis, V. Santilli, and G. Spacca Mirror Therapy in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type 1 of the Upper Limb in Stroke Patients Neurorehabil Neural Repair, October 1, 2009; 23(8): 792 - 799. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. Malouin, C. L. Richards, A. Durand, M. Descent, D. Poire, P. Fremont, S. Pelet, J. Gresset, and J. Doyon Effects of Practice, Visual Loss, Limb Amputation, and Disuse on Motor Imagery Vividness Neurorehabil Neural Repair, June 1, 2009; 23(5): 449 - 463. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. Sharma, L. H. Simmons, P. S. Jones, D. J. Day, T. A. Carpenter, V. M. Pomeroy, E. A. Warburton, and J.-C. Baron Motor Imagery After Subcortical Stroke: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study Stroke, April 1, 2009; 40(4): 1315 - 1324. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Simmons, N. Sharma, J.-C. Baron, and V. M. Pomeroy Motor Imagery to Enhance Recovery After Subcortical Stroke: Who Might Benefit, Daily Dose, and Potential Effects Neurorehabil Neural Repair, September 1, 2008; 22(5): 458 - 467. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Braun, M. Kleynen, J. Schols, T. Schack, A. Beurskens, and D. Wade Using mental practice in stroke rehabilitation: a framework Clinical Rehabilitation, July 1, 2008; 22(7): 579 - 591. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. Malouin, C. L. Richards, A. Durand, and J. Doyon Clinical Assessment of Motor Imagery After Stroke Neurorehabil Neural Repair, July 1, 2008; 22(4): 330 - 340. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. Buch, C. Weber, L. G. Cohen, C. Braun, M. A. Dimyan, T. Ard, J. Mellinger, A. Caria, S. Soekadar, A. Fourkas, et al. Think to Move: a Neuromagnetic Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) System for Chronic Stroke Stroke, March 1, 2008; 39(3): 910 - 917. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Gregg, C. Hall, and A. Butler The MIQ-RS: A Suitable Option for Examining Movement Imagery Ability Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med., December 26, 2007; (2007) nem170v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Dickstein and J. E Deutsch Motor Imagery in Physical Therapist Practice Physical Therapy, July 1, 2007; 87(7): 942 - 953. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Tecchio, C. Porcaro, G. Barbati, and F. Zappasodi Functional source separation and hand cortical representation for a brain-computer interface feature extraction J. Physiol., May 1, 2007; 580(3): 703 - 721. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Kalra and R. Ratan Recent Advances in Stroke Rehabilitation 2006 Stroke, February 1, 2007; 38(2): 235 - 237. [Full Text] [PDF]