PTJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

PHYS THER
Vol. 84, No. 11, November 2004, pp. 1045-1054
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
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 arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sullivan, J. E
Right arrow Articles by Hedman, L. D
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sullivan, J. E
Right arrow Articles by Hedman, L. D

Case Reports

A Home Program of Sensory and Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation With Upper-Limb Task Practice in a Patient 5 Years After a Stroke

Jane E Sullivan and Lois D Hedman

JE Sullivan, PT, MS, is Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Therapy and Human Movement Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 645 N Michigan Ave, Suite 1100, Chicago, IL 60611 (USA) (j-sullivan{at}northwestern.edu)
LD Hedman, PT, MS, is Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Therapy and Human Movement Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University

Address all correspondence to Ms Sullivan


Submitted November 25, 2003; Accepted April 11, 2004


   Abstract
 
Background and Purpose. This case report describes a person with upper-extremity (UE) hemiparesis who participated in a home program that included sensory amplitude electrical stimulation (SES) to his involved arm and performance of task-specific exercises with the assistance of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES). Case Description. The patient was a 67-year-old man with stable sensory and motor deficits 5 years after a stroke. Sensory amplitude electrical stimulation was delivered for 2 hours per day. A daily, 15-minute course of NMES was used to help him perform UE tasks. This home program was carried out for 18 weeks and included 6 physical therapist home visits. Outcomes. The patient's UE score on the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM) improved from 10/20 to 17/20. The score on the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) improved from 27/57 to 42/57. The patient reported that he was now able to button buttons, use a knife and fork, and tie simple fishing knots. Discussion. A home program combining SES and NMES may be an effective method to increase UE function even 5 years after a stroke.

Key Words: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation • Sensory amplitude electrical stimulation • Stroke • Upper limb


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Case Description
 Intervention
 Outcomes
 References
 
Each year, an estimated 700,000 Americans have a stroke.1 Approximately 75% of them have weakness in their involved upper extremity (UE).2 More than half of those with severe UE paresis following a stroke learn to compensate by using the less-involved arm for function.3 Some physical therapists are concerned that shortened rehabilitation stays, combined with a focus on functional activities that are critical for a safe return home, may result in a de-emphasis on therapy for the involved UE.4 Improved function in the paretic UE recently has been reported in people with chronic stroke following an intervention that consisted of constraining the less-involved UE and intense practice of tasks with the involved UE.5–9 To date, success following this intervention has been limited to subjects who have moderately good initial UE function and engage in intense supervised practice.4–9 Although intense practice appears to be a critical element of successful interventions to improve function in the hemiparetic UE,10,11 active practice is sometimes not possible following a stroke due to the severity of motor and sensory deficits. Interventions are needed to enable active practice for people who demonstrate limited UE movement following a stroke.

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) may be an appropriate intervention to enable active practice following a stroke. Studies examining the use of NMES have demonstrated improvements in passive range of motion (PROM),12–15 active range of motion (AROM),16,17 force production,18 and electromyographic (EMG) output19 and reduction of abnormally high "muscle tone" (as measured by EMG stretch reflex latency and magnitude,20 Ashworth score21). In these studies, NMES was delivered in the context of single-segment exercise (eg, repetitive wrist extension). Studies22–24 also suggest that targeted functional practice is key to improving function following a stroke. Majsak25 suggested that "embedding" the movements to be trained into task practice improves the quality of those movements after a stroke. In addition, better performance—as measured by increased number of repetitions,26 increased joint range of motion (ROM),27,28 shorter movement time, less total limb displacement, smoother trajectory, and higher and earlier peak velocity29,30—was seen during training that incorporated a purposeful activity including everyday objects. Recently, NMES was used to help a subject to practice reaching and moving everyday objects such as plates, utensils, and cans.31 The subject reported increased ability to participate in homemaking activities and was reported to have improved selective shoulder flexion with elbow extension.31

Impaired motor function following a stroke may result from deficits in the sensory system as well as the motor systems.32,33 For example, a patient with a lesion in the somatosensory cortex may not be able to accurately interpret afferent inputs. Diminished function in the sensory systems may further reduce motor output.32 Reduced use of an extremity may result in a decline in the quality and quantity of afferent inputs to the primary sensory cortex. Cortical representation areas are constantly modified by experience-induced afferent input.34–37 Following a cortical lesion, the cortical representation of the hand was reported to shrink in primates that did not receive training or encouragement to use the involved limb.38 In contrast, cortical representation areas can be increased by training that is specific, requires attention, and is repeated over time.39 Neuromuscular electrical stimulation can be used to enable such practice.

Electrical stimulation may enhance afferent input to the cortex in multiple ways. Traditionally, in rehabilitation for patients following stroke, NMES has been used to increase voluntary muscle contractions. The subsequent movement may enhance afferent information. Cutaneous input is delivered during electrical stimulation, whether at a motor or sensory threshold, even though there are no specific sensory receptors for electrical stimuli. Perhaps this afferent input could contribute to heightened sensory information and adaptation of cortical representation.

One way to maximize the amount of sensory input is via sensory amplitude electrical stimulation (SES), which, unlike NMES, is not limited by muscle fatigue. In one study,40 when SES was delivered to the hand of subjects without neurological impairments, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) showed increased blood flow in the areas of the primary and secondary motor cortices as well as the primary sensory cortex. In other studies, the application of SES to patients following a stroke resulted in improvements in skin sensation and somatosensory evoked potential normality classification,41 a reduction in abnormally high "muscle tone" (as measured by joint stiffness,42 reflex torque onset,43 and modified Ashworth Scale44), and reduced inattention and neglect.45–47 Sensory amplitude electrical stimulation also has been incorporated as part of a comprehensive program for UE sensory re-education following a stroke.48 Utilizing both sensory amplitude electrical stimulation and task-specific practice with NMES training could potentially have a greater cumulative benefit than with either intervention alone.

The purpose of this case report is to describe the use of a home program of SES and task-assisted NMES for a patient whose UE hemiparesis was stable following a stroke. We expected that a sensory and motor electrical stimulation program combined with task practice would decrease the patient's impairment and improve function of the upper limb.


   Case Description
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Case Description
Intervention
 Outcomes
 References
 
Patient Description

Informational flyers about our intervention were sent to groups for patients with stroke and to physical therapists and physicians practicing in neurology in the metropolitan Chicago area. Inclusion criteria included chronic stroke (more than 6 months) with UE dysfunction. Volunteers were excluded if they had acute stroke (less than 6 months), bilateral hemiparesis, diabetes, Parkinson disease, an open wound on the involved UE, cardiac arrhythmia, or a cardiac pacemaker. One person was selected from 10 volunteers. This person was chosen because he was the first volunteer who had clinically meaningful sensory and motor deficits and appeared willing and able to carry out the home program. Before participating in the intervention, the patient was informed about the intervention and signed an informed consent form approved by the Institutional Review Board, Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, at Northwestern University.

The patient was a 67-year-old, right-handed, Caucasian man who was otherwise healthy until he had a stroke with left-sided (nondominant) hemiparesis 5 years ago. The stroke was caused by an infarct to the middle cerebral artery resulting in a moderate-sized lesion involving the posterior frontal, anterior-superior temporal, and anterior parietal regions. The patient was medically and neurologically stable and took no medication aside from one 81-mg aspirin per day for stroke prophylaxis. He was not involved in formal rehabilitative therapy, but he participated in a weekly aquatics program for senior citizens and used an overhead pulley daily at home. The patient was independent in activities of daily living with the help of equipment (small-base quad cane, tub bench) and reported that he rarely used his involved UE for functional activities. Movement in that extremity was characterized by a flexor synergy pattern. He had increased resistance to passive stretch in the distal flexor musculature. Tactile sensation was severely impaired throughout the UE.

Measurements

Two primary outcome measures were used: the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM). The ARAT was used to measure UE function. This test was designed for use with people following a stroke.49 The test comprises 4 subscales, (grasp, grip, pinch, and gross movement). Each of the 19 test items is scored on a 4-point ordinal scale (0=can perform no part of the test, 1=performs the test partially, 2=completes the test but takes an abnormally long time or has great difficulty, and 3=performs the test normally). The total possible score is 57. The ARAT has been correlated with the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale (r=.94).50 In a study using the ARAT with people following a stroke, intrarater reliability was r=.99 and interrater reliability was r=.98.50 We chose this test as an outcome measure because the validity and reliability of data obtained with the test had been studied and it could be administered in the patient's home.

The STREAM examines voluntary movement and mobility after a stroke.51 The test has 3 subscales: upper extremity, lower extremity, and basic mobility. A 3-point scale is used to score movement quality (0=unable to perform the movement, 1a=able to complete only part of the movement with marked deviation from the normal pattern, 1b=able to perform only part of the movement but in a manner that is comparable to the unaffected side, 1c=able to complete the movement but only with a marked deviation from the normal pattern, and 2=fully able to complete the movement in a manner comparable to the unaffected side). When calculating the total score, items scored as 1a, 1b, and 1c have a value of 1. Intrarater reliability of data for the STREAM with patients following a stroke was reported to be .995 using direct observation and .999 using videotaped observation. Internal consistency was reported to be .984, as demonstrated by Cronbach alphas.51,52 The STREAM score was reported to be associated with the score of the Barthel Index of Activities of Daily Living (rho=.67) and Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale (rho=.95).53 We used the UE scale of the STREAM to examine voluntary movement because its reliability and validity have been studied.

Secondary outcome measures included PROM, tactile sensation, and resistance to passive muscle stretch. Passive range of motion was examined using standardized goniometric technique.54 Sensory examination was performed with the patient's eyes closed. The examiner provided fingertip tactile stimuli to various UE sites, both proximal and distal, in a random pattern. The patient was asked to identify and localize the stimuli by pointing with the uninvolved UE to the site where the stimulus was delivered. Tactile sensation was scored as the number of correct responses divided by the total number of sites tested. Resistance to passive muscle stretch was examined by passively moving each UE joint at slow speeds and then at progressively more rapid speeds. This resistance to passive muscle stretch was graded in each muscle group as minimal, moderate, or severe based on the amount of resistance. We did not estimate the reliability of data for any of our secondary outcome measures.

Measurement Procedures

All tests were administered in the patient's home. Two baseline testing sessions were conducted to determine the stability of the patient's sensory, motor, and functional status. Testing during the intervention phase was done after 3 days, 6 weeks, and 18 weeks. The baseline sessions were conducted by a physical therapist student supervised by both authors, whereas the intervention and posttest outcome measures were administered by one of the authors (LDH).


   Intervention
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Case Description
 Intervention
Outcomes
 References
 
The intervention consisted of 2 concurrent components: (1) sensory stimulation (stimulation to sensory threshold without motor contraction) and (2) NMES during the assisted task practice. The intervention was initiated during the second visit (following the second baseline test). Sensory stimulation was carried out for 2 hours per day, and NMES was carried out for 15 minutes twice a day. All intervention was performed by the patient in his home.

During pretesting, the patient performed all UE manipulation tasks with his wrist in a flexed position. When the wrist and finger flexors are maximally shortened, a state of active insufficiency is created and the ability to generate force is compromised. Increased wrist extension increases the length of the wrist and finger flexors and is associated with increased force generation.55 We believed that increasing the patient's active wrist extension would increase his grip effectiveness; therefore, practice should involve active wrist extension while gripping objects.

The patient was seated at a table with his forearm supported on a book in an initial position of wrist flexion. The NMES was delivered to the wrist extensor muscles while the patient grasped an empty, 17-cm, 250-mL aluminum can and lifted it from the tabletop as he extended his wrist (Fig. 1). He practiced the lifting task for 15 minutes, twice a day. A narrow can as used to accommodate the reduction in finger opening when the wrist was extended.


Figure 1
View larger version (112K):
[in this window]
[in a new window] 		Figure 1. The patient used a hand switch to activate neuromuscular electrical stimulation while lifting a 250-mL can.

 
We used a Rehabilicare EMS+2 muscle stimulator with Stimcare Plus electrodes.* Electrodes (6.38 cm [1.25 in] in diameter) that were placed on the motor point of the common wrist extensors and approximately 2.54 cm (1 in) distally (Fig. 1). A symmetrical biphasic current with a phase duration of 250 microseconds and a ramp/fall time of 2 seconds was delivered at a frequency of 35 Hz. The patient used a hand switch to trigger stimulation when he determined that he needed assistance with the task. He adjusted the NMES amplitude each session to provide only as much assistance as was necessary to accomplish the task.

Because of our patient's severe sensory deficit, we believed that the additional application of sensory input might enhance his abilities to manipulate objects. The SES was delivered for 2 hours daily. The same electrode placement was used for SES and NMES to minimize complexity for the patient. Stimulation parameters for SES were identical to those for NMES with 2 exceptions. Stimulation amplitude was adjusted at each session to the point where the patient could just perceive the stimuli, but below an observable or palpable muscle contraction. A duty cycle of 10 seconds on and 10 seconds off was used to minimize sensory habituation.

We reviewed the intervention with the patient, and he demonstrated that he could independently perform the procedures. Videotapes of the instructional session, photographs of electrode placement, and written instructions were given to him. We instructed the patient to judge the success of his performance by comparing it with the instructional materials. He was instructed to replace the electrodes weekly or when they ceased to adhere consistently at the edges. He was instructed to replace the batteries biweekly or when responses to stimulation were less than in previous sessions regardless of amplitude setting.

After 3 days, stimulation was discontinued because the patient developed a superficial purplish discoloration at the electrode sites on the dorsum of the forearm. Three potential causes of this reaction were ruled out. Equipment malfunction was ruled out by testing the stimulator on an oscilloscope, which indicated that the stimulator was delivering the appropriate type of current. An allergic reaction to the electrodes was ruled out by applying them to other body areas, which did not produce a skin reaction. Finally, a clotting disorder was ruled out because of the normal values on the patient's blood tests.

A condition called senile purpura could not be ruled out. This is a skin condition common in fair-skinned, light-eyed people whose skin is more easily damaged by lifetime exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Radiation causes damage to the structural collagen that supports the walls of the skin's blood vessels, which makes these blood vessels more fragile. When combined with the thinning of the skin that occurs with aging, people with this condition are more likely to rupture vessels following a slight impact. The skin discoloration seen with senile purpura is purplish and appears superficial.56 The patient met the criteria for this condition because of his age and coloring, and we observed that he applied excessive pressure over the electrodes to ensure that they were secure.

The skin discoloration resolved in 10 days without stimulation. Stimulation was then reinitiated with several modifications. The patient was reinstructed in electrode and skin care. The patient's NMES-assisted task practice was reduced from 2 to 1 daily 15-minute session. Finally, electrode placement for SES was changed to the volar surface of the forearm. This was done because senile purpura is more commonly seen on the dorsum of the forearms and hands. Electrode placement on the dorsum of the forearm was necessary during NMES, however, to activate the wrist extensors. No further skin discoloration recurred following the treatment modifications.

Outcome measurements were repeated after 6 weeks of intervention. The ARAT score improved from 27/57 to 35/57 (Fig. 2), and the STREAM score improved from 10/20 to 12/20 (Fig. 3). We believed that the increased resistance to passive stretch initially noted in the finger flexor muscles was reduced and the active wrist extension movement observed to be comparable to that of the less involved side. A different NMES-assisted task was used during the second phase of the intervention. The patient was seated, with his arm supported on a table and grasping an empty 2-L plastic bottle. The NMES was delivered to the finger extensor muscles while the patient released the bottle. It was possible to use a larger size object in NMES task practice because of an increase in finger opening with the wrist extended.


Figure 2
View larger version (49K):
[in this window]
[in a new window] 		Figure 2. Scores on the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (66K):
[in this window]
[in a new window] 		Figure 3. Scores on the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM) Upper Extremity (UE) Subscale.

 

   Outcomes
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Case Description
 Intervention
 Outcomes
References
 
Following 18 weeks of home exercise that included 6 physical therapist home visits, outcome measures were repeated. The ARAT score improved from 27/57 to 42/57 (Fig. 2), with improvements in all 4 subscales (Tab. 1). The STREAM UE subscale score had improved from 10/20 to 17/20 (Fig. 3). Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the change in performance on the ARAT and STREAM. Tactile sensation improved from 2/19 to 11/18 correct responses to tactile stimuli. Correct responses were observed only in the left upper arm at pretest, whereas correct responses were at the upper arm down to the wrist at posttest. Passive range of motion improved at the shoulder and elbow (Tab. 2). At pretest, minimally increased resistance to passive stretch was noted in the left shoulder adductors and extensors, elbow, and finger flexors. At posttest, this remained unchanged at the shoulder and elbow, whereas in the finger flexor muscles, there was decreased resistance during passive stretch. The patient reported that he was pleased because he could now button buttons, use a knife and fork, and tie simple fishing knots.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window] 		Table 1. Pretest and Posttest Scores on the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) Subscale Tests

 

Figure 4
View larger version (95K):
[in this window]
[in a new window] 		Figure 4. (Top) Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) pretest. The patient attempts to lift a block; his wrist remains flexed. (Bottom) ARAT posttest. The patient lifts a block with his wrist in neutral position.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (100K):
[in this window]
[in a new window] 		Figure 5. (Top) Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM) pretest. The patient attempts to oppose his thumb and index finger; the hand remains in a fist. (Bottom) STREAM posttest. The patient opposes his thumb and index finger successfully.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window] 		Table 2. Passive Range of Motion Results (in Degrees)

 
Discussion

Rapid initial improvements in the outcome measures following a stable baseline may have resulted from the patient's renewed attention to his arm. Continued improvements throughout the intervention period suggest the changes could have resulted from the intervention. The individual contributions of NMES and SES to the outcome, if any, could not be determined. Use of NMES might have resulted in improvements in PROM and AROM, resistance to passive stretch, and isolated movement. The inclusion of SES provided additional sensory input that may have been beneficial.

Changes in the primary outcome measures of ARAT and STREAM scores were consistent with our expectation that attended, repetitive, progressive practice of demanding tasks could improve the patient's ability to use his arm. This outcome is consistent with previous work that demonstrated the benefits of UE functional training incorporating objects.26,27,29,30

We believe that the patient's active participation was a key element of the intervention. Better outcomes were reported in subjects following a stroke who trained using electromyograph biofeedback-triggered NMES (EMGBF-triggered NMES) compared with NMES,57,58 possibly because of the active participation required when using EMGBF-triggered NMES. In an attempt to maximize active participation, we instructed the patient to use the hand switch to trigger NMES only when he needed assistance with the task. In addition, he was instructed to adjust NMES amplitude to provide only as much assistance as was necessary for task completion.

The SES was provided in an attempt to increase the afferent input to the sensorimotor cortex. We theorized that this additional input might contribute to enhanced function. Limited information is available from previous studies of sensory training following a stroke upon which to base specific characteristics of the intervention (eg, the amount of active attention given to the sensory stimulus and associated tasks). Future studies should attempt to determine the most effective electrode placement, treatment duration, and the amount of active subject participation required to produce individually meaningful and measurable changes in performance.

Improvements in the secondary outcome measures of PROM and resistance to passive muscle stretch also are consistent with previous reports of use of NMES use following stroke.12–15,20,21 Furthermore, the change in the patient's sensation is consistent with recent reports of sensory improvement following SES in patients with stroke.41 The relationship of secondary outcome measure changes to improvements in the primary outcome measures is not clear. It is possible that sensation would have improved simply with increased use of the UE without use of SES.

This case report has several limitations. The patient's sensory status was examined as is typically done in the clinic.59–61 Several authors59–61 have discussed the flaws in traditional sensory testing and concluded that a reliable, multimodal, user-friendly test of sensory deficits for use with individuals following stroke is not available. A standardized test of resistance to passive muscle stretch, such as the Modified Ashworth Scale,62 might have provided more reliable information on this outcome. Another limitation was that the patient used a logbook to record actual stimulation time. Unfortunately, the logbook was collected for analysis at the time of the skin reaction and not returned to the patient. Follow-up testing after the intervention would have provided information on retention of the improvements. The examiners were not masked to the patient's participation in the intervention, and having an examiner consistently administer the outcome measures at all testing sessions might have strengthened the reliability of the measurements.

Because this is a case report, the results cannot be generalized and the intervention strategies must be evaluated using experimental research designs, including designs that will separate the effects of SES from NMES and task practice. We believe, however, that this case report does contribute to clinical knowledge. It describes the combined application of SES and NMES with an object-based, task-specific NMES activity. A description of an intervention that enabled active practice where practice previously was not possible is provided. The report also documents the occurrence of apparent senile purpura during electrical stimulation that resolved with treatment modification. Finally, this case report provides an example of an independent home program of electrical stimulation and exercise for a patient with UE hemiparesis, which required minimal physical therapist involvement.


   Footnotes
 
Both authors provided concept/project design, writing, data collection, project management, facilities/equipment, and patient. The authors thank Jane W Schneider, Marjorie Johnson, and Judy Carmick for their thoughtful review of the manuscript. They also acknowledge the contributions of the physical therapist students: Jen Nelson, Ginger Perez, Endia Smith, and Kelley Munson.

This project was approved by the Institutional Review Board, Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, Northwestern University.

This work was presented, in part, at the Combined Section Meeting of the American Physical Therapy Association; Boston, Mass; February 20-24, 2002.

* Rehabilicare, 1811 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112. Back


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Case Description
 Intervention
 Outcomes
 References
 

  1. American Heart Association. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2004 Update. Available at: http://www.americanheart.org/downloadable/heart/1079736729696HDSStats2004UpdateREV3-19-04.pdf. Accessed March 27,2004 .
  2. Lawrence ES, Coshall C, Dundas R, et al. Estimates of the prevalence of acute stroke impairments and disability in a multiethnic population. Stroke.2001; 32:1279–1284.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Nakayama H, Jorgensen HS, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Compensation in recovery of upper extremity function after stroke: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1994; 75:852–857.[ISI][Medline]
  4. Blanton S, Wolf SL. An application of upper-extremity constraint-induced movement therapy in a patient with subacute stroke. Phys Ther.1999; 79:847–853.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Taub E, Miller NE, Novack TA, et al. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1993; 74:347–354.[ISI][Medline]
  6. Kunkel A, Kopp B, Müller G, et al. Constraint-induced movement therapy for motor recovery in chronic stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1999; 80:624–628.[ISI][Medline]
  7. Miltner WHR, Bauder H, Sommer M, et al. Effects of constraint-induced movement therapy on patients with chronic motor deficits after stroke: a replication. Stroke.1999; 30:586–592.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. van der Lee JH, Wagenaar RC, Lankhorst GJ, et al. Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients: results from a single-blind randomized clinical trial. Stroke.1999; 30:2369–2375.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Wolf SL, Lecraw DE, Barton LA, et al. Forced use of hemiplegic upper extremities to reverse the effect of learned nonuse among chronic stroke and head-injured patients. Exp Neurol.1989; 104:125–132.[ISI][Medline]
  10. Butefisch C, Hummelsheim H, Denzler P, Mauritz KH. Repetitive training of isolated movements improves the outcome of motor rehabilitation of the centrally paretic hand. J Neurol Sci.1995; 130:59–68.[ISI][Medline]
  11. van der Lee JH, Snels IA, Beckerman H, et al. Exercise therapy for arm function in stroke patients: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Clin Rehabil.2001; 15:20–31.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Baker LL, Yeh D, Wilson D, Waters RL. Electrical stimulation of wrist and fingers for hemiplegic patients. Phys Ther.1979; 59:1495–1498.[ISI][Medline]
  13. Pandyan AD, Powell J, Futter C, et al. Effects of electrical stimulation on the wrist of hemiplegic subjects. Physiotherapy.1996; 82:184–188.
  14. Faghri PD, Rodgers MM, Glaser RM, et al. The effects of functional electrical stimulation on shoulder subluxation, arm function recovery, and shoulder pain in hemiplegic stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1994; 75:73–79.[ISI][Medline]
  15. Pandyan AD, Granat MH, Stott DJ. Effects of electrical stimulation on flexion contractures in the hemiplegic wrist. Clin Rehabil.1997; 11:123–130.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Merletti R, Zelaschi F, Latella D, et al. A control study of muscle force recovery in hemiparetic patients during treatment with functional electrical stimulation. Scand J Rehabil Med.1978; 10:147–154.[ISI][Medline]
  17. Chae J, Bethoux F, Bohinc T, et al. Neuromuscular stimulation for upper extremity motor functional recovery in acute hemiplegia. Stroke.1998; 29:975–979.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Powell J, Pandyan AD, Granat M, et al. Electrical stimulation of wrist extensors in poststroke hemiplegia. Stroke.1999; 30:1384–1389.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Dimitrijevic MM, Stokic DS, Wawro AW, Wyn CC. Modification of motor control of wrist extension by mesh-glove electrical afferent stimulation in stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1996; 77:252–258.[ISI][Medline]
  20. Levin MF, Hui-Chan CW. Relief of hemiparetic spasticity by TENS is associated with improvement in reflex and voluntary motor functions. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol.1992; 85:131–142.[ISI][Medline]
  21. Alfieri V. Electrical treatment of spasticity: reflex tonic activity in hemiplegic patients and selected specific electrostimulation. Scand J Rehabil Med.1982; 14:177–182.[ISI][Medline]
  22. Dean CM, Shepherd RB. Task-related training improves performance of seated reaching tasks after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Stroke.1997; 28:722–728.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Richards CL, Malouin F, Wood-Dauphinee S, et al. Task-specific physical therapy for optimization of gait recovery in acute stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1993; 74:612–620.[ISI][Medline]
  24. Kwakkel G, Wagenaar RC, Twisk JW, et al. Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: a randomized trial. Lancet.1999; 354:191–196.[ISI][Medline]
  25. Majsak MJ. Application of motor learning principles to the stroke population. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation.1996; 3(2):27–59.[Medline]
  26. Hsieh CL, Nelson DL, Smith DA, Peterson CQ. A comparison of performance in added-purpose occupations and rote exercise for dynamic standing balance in persons with hemiplegia. Am J Occup Ther.1996; 50:10–16.[ISI][Medline]
  27. Nelson DL, Konosky K, Fleharty K, et al. The effects of an occupationally embedded exercise on bilaterally assisted supination in persons with hemiplegia. Am J Occup Ther.1996; 50:639–646.[ISI][Medline]
  28. Sietsema JM, Nelson DL, Mulder RM, et al. The use of a game to promote arm reach in persons with traumatic brain injury. Am J Occup Ther.1993; 47:19–24.[ISI][Medline]
  29. Trombly CA, Wu CY. Effect of rehabilitation tasks on organization of movement after stroke. Am J Occup Ther.1999; 53:333–344.[ISI][Medline]
  30. Wu CY, Trombly CA, Lin KC, Tickle-Degnon L. A kinematic study of contextual effects on reaching performance in persons with and without stroke: influences of object availability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.2000; 81:95–101.[ISI][Medline]
  31. Brown DM, Cullers CM, McMonigal LL, et al. The use of neuromuscular electrical stimulation for facilitation of task-oriented exercise in the upper extremity to achieve functional improvement in an individual with chronic post-stroke hemiparesis: a case study. Neurology Report.2000; 24:198–199.
  32. Jeannerod M, Michel F, Prablanc C. The control of hand movements in a case of hemianaesthesia following a parietal lesion. Brain.1984; 107(pt 3):899–920.
  33. Asanuma H, Arissian K. Experiments on functional role of peripheral input to motor cortex during voluntary movements in the monkey. J Neurophysiol.1984; 52:212–227.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Gandevia SC, Macefield G, Burke D, McKenzie DK. Voluntary activation of human motor axons in the absence of muscle afferent feedback: the control of the deafferented hand. Brain.1990; 113(pt 5):1563–1581.
  35. Nudo RJ, Plautz EJ, Frost SB. Role of adaptive plasticity in recovery of function after damage to motor cortex. Muscle Nerve.2001; 24:1000–1019.[ISI][Medline]
  36. Liepert J, Miltner WH, Bauder H, et al. Motor cortex plasticity during constraint-induced movement therapy in stroke patients. Neurosci Lett.1998; 250:5–8.[ISI][Medline]
  37. Liepert J, Bauder H, Miltner WH, et al. Treatment-induced cortical reorganization after stroke in humans. Stroke.2000; 31:1210–1222.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Nudo RJ, Milliken GW. Reorganization of movement representations in primary motor cortex following focal ischemic infarcts in adult squirrel monkeys. J Neurophysiol.1996; 75:2144–2149.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Byl N, Roderick J, Mohamed O, et al. Effectiveness of sensory and motor rehabilitation of the upper limb following the principles of neuroplasticity: patients stable poststroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair.2003; 17:176–191.[Abstract]
  40. Golaszewski S, Kremser C, Wagner M, et al. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the human motor cortex before and after whole-hand afferent electrical stimulation. Scand J Rehabil Med.1999; 31:165–173.[ISI][Medline]
  41. Peurala SH, Pitklinen K, Sivenius J, Tarkka IM. Cutaneous electrical stimulation may enhance sensorimotor recovery in chronic stroke. Clin Rehabil.2002; 16:709–716.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Seib TP, Price R, Reyes MR, Lehmann JF. The quantitative measurement of spasticity: effect of cutaneous electrical stimulation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1994; 75:746–750.[ISI][Medline]
  43. Dewald JP, Given JD, Rymer WZ. Long-lasting reductions of spasticity induced by skin electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng.1996; 4:231–242.[Medline]
  44. Sonde L, Kalimo H, Viitanen M. Stimulation with high-frequency TENS: effects on lower limb spasticity after stroke. Advances in Physiotherapy.2000; 2:183–187.
  45. Vallar G, Rusconi ML, Bernardini B. Modulation of neglect hemianesthesia by transcutaneous electrical stimulation. J Int Neuropsychol Soc.1996; 2:452–459.[Medline]
  46. Prada G, Tallis R. Treatment of neglect syndrome in stroke patients using a contingency electrical stimulator. Clin Rehabil.1995; 9:304–313.
  47. Mackenzie-Knapp M. Electrical stimulation in early stroke rehabilitation of the upper limb with inattention. Aust J Physiother.1999; 45:223–227.[ISI][Medline]
  48. Dannenbaum RM, Dykes RW. Sensory loss in the hand after sensory stroke: therapeutic rationale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1988; 69:833–839.[ISI][Medline]
  49. Lyle RC. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res.1981; 4:483–492.[ISI][Medline]
  50. DeWeerdt WJG, Harrison MA. Measuring recovery of arm-hand function in stroke patients: a comparison of the Brunnstrom-Fugl-Meyer test and the Action Research Arm Test. Physiother Can.1985; 37:65–70.
  51. Daley K, Mayo N, Danys I, et al. The Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement: refining and validating content. Physiother Can.1997; 49:269–278.
  52. Daley K, Mayo N, Wood-Dauphinee S. Reliability scores on the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM) measure. Phys Ther.1999; 79:8–23.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Wang CH, Hsieh CL, Dai MH, et al. Inter-rater reliability and validity of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM) instrument. J Rehabil Med.2002; 34:20–24.[ISI][Medline]
  54. Norkin CC, White DJ. Measurement of Joint Motion: A Guide to Goniometry. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: FA Davis Co;1995 .
  55. Neumann DA. Kinesiology of the Musculoskeletal System: Foundations for Physical Rehabilitation. St Louis, Mo: Mosby;2002 .
  56. Beers MH, Berkow R, eds. The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy. 17th ed. Whitehous Station, NJ: Merck;1999 .
  57. Cozean CD, Pease WS, Hubbell SL. Biofeedback and functional electrical stimulation in stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1988; 69:401–405.[ISI][Medline]
  58. Kraft GH, Fitts SS, Hammond MC. Techniques to improve function of the arm and hand in chronic hemiplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.1992; 73:220–227.[ISI][Medline]
  59. Carey M. Somatosensory loss after stroke. Critical Reviews in Physical Rehabilitation Medicine.1995; 7:51–91.
  60. Winward CE, Halligan PW, Wade DT. Current practice and clinical relevance of somatosensory assessment after stroke. Clin Rehabil.1999; 13:48–55.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. Winward CE, Halligan PW, Wade DT. Somatosensory assessment after central nerve damage: the need for standardized clinical measures. Physical Therapy Reviews.1999; 4(1):21–28.
  62. Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther.1987; 67:206–207.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Neurorehabil Neural RepairHome page
G. Alon, A. F. Levitt, and P. A. McCarthy
Functional Electrical Stimulation Enhancement of Upper Extremity Functional Recovery During Stroke Rehabilitation: A Pilot Study
Neurorehabil Neural Repair, May 1, 2007; 21(3): 207 - 215.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin RehabilHome page
J. E Sullivan and L. D Hedman
Effects of home-based sensory and motor amplitude electrical stimulation on arm dysfunction in chronic stroke
Clinical Rehabilitation, February 1, 2007; 21(2): 142 - 150.
[Abstract] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
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 arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sullivan, J. E
Right arrow Articles by Hedman, L. D
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sullivan, J. E
Right arrow Articles by Hedman, L. D

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Physical Therapy Association.