Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Published Online
on December 24, 2008

Stroke. 2008
Published online before print December 24, 2008, doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.528760
A more recent version of this article appeared on February 1, 2009
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
40/2/551    most recent
STROKEAHA.108.528760v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Page, S. J.
Right arrow Articles by Khoury, J. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Page, S. J.
Right arrow Articles by Khoury, J. C.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Stroke
Related Collections
Right arrow Rehabilitation, Stroke
Right arrow Other Stroke Treatment - Medical

Submitted on June 18, 2008
Accepted on July 4, 2008

Modified Constraint-Induced Therapy Combined With Mental Practice. Thinking Through Better Motor Outcomes

Stephen J. Page PhD*; Peter Levine BA, PTA; and Jane C. Khoury MD, PhD

From the University of Cincinnati Academic Medical Center (S.J.P., P.L.), Ohio; and the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (J.C.K.), Ohio.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: stephen.page{at}uc.edu.

Background and Purpose—Modified constraint-induced therapy (mCIT) is an outpatient therapy encouraging repetitive, task-specific practice with the affected arm. mCIT has shown efficacy in all stages poststroke. Given its efficacy when combined with other therapy regimens, the current study examined the efficacy of mental practice when combined with mCIT versus mCIT only using randomized, controlled methods.

Method—Ten patients with chronic stroke (7 males; mean age, 61.4±3.02 years; age range, 48 to 79 years; mean time since stroke, 28.5 months; range, 13 to 42 months) exhibiting stable, affected arm motor deficits were administered mCIT, consisting of: (1) structured therapy emphasizing affected arm use in functional activities 3 days/week for 10 weeks; and (2) less affected arm restraint 5 days/week for 5 hours. Both of these components were administered during a 10-week period. Subjects randomly assigned to the mCIT+mental practice experimental condition also received 30-minute mental practice sessions provided directly after therapy sessions. These mental practice sessions required daily cognitive rehearsal of the activities of daily living practiced during mCIT clinical sessions.

Results—No pre-existing differences were found between groups on any demographic variable or movement scale. All subjects exhibited marked reductions in affected arm impairment and functional limitation. However, subjects in the mCIT+mental practice group exhibited significantly larger changes on both movement measures after intervention: Action Research Arm Test, +15.4-point change versus +8.4-point change for mCIT only subjects (P<0.001); Fugl-Meyer, +7.8-point change versus +4.1-point change for the mCIT only subjects (P=0.01). These changes were sustained 3 months after intervention.

Conclusions—mCIT remains a promising motor intervention. However, its efficacy appears to be enhanced by use of mental practice provided directly after mCIT clinical sessions.


Key words: hemiplegia • mental practice • motor imagery • physical therapy • stroke