What TMS can tell us about Stroke Recovery According to the World Health Organisation (2004) stroke is the second most common cause of adult mortality and the third most common cause of chronic disabilities in adults. Di Pino, Pellegrin, Assenza and Copone et al (2014) discussed stroke affects to the blood-oxygen supply to the brain disrupted synaptic transmission, observed as the lack of electrical activity in the penumbra after the stroke. More research has focused on how the rehabilitation of of stroke can be better improved. De Pino et al (2014) described the changes in synaptic activity over the days to weeks post stoke, that by roughly three months there is enough synaptic recovery which corresponds with the behaviour recovery. However,
…show more content…
They performed a reaction time task in which the patients used their paretic hand and the controls used their right hand and both groups were asks to make index finger movements when they were heard a beep (stimulus). Murase et al (2004) used a duel-coil protocol, one on each motor cortex (M1) with the ipsilesional M1 being stimulated while the contralesional M1 was conditioned. The results showed controls responses were typical. Overall there was more inhibition in the patient sample compared to control as the patients failed to release the inhibition when they attempted to initiate the finger movement. Murase et al (2004) concluded a negative relationship between the amount of inhibition coming from the good side to the affected side, and the movement function of the paretic hand. The more inhibition there was the worse the movement of the affected hand will be. This suggested the more the contralesional side of the brain actively suppressed activity on the ipsilesional side, the worse the affected hand would be. The results from this study changed the way people approached what was going on in the brain after a stroke; and strengthened the IHI model. The sample size consisted of only nine patients and eight controls however, and the participants chosen also may not be an accurate sample population of stroke patients. Only patients that could generate clear MEPs were chosen, therefore the results may not be applicable to stroke survivors that have bigger
They performed a reaction time task in which the patients used their paretic hand and the controls used their right hand and both groups were asks to make index finger movements when they were heard a beep (stimulus). Murase et al (2004) used a duel-coil protocol, one on each motor cortex (M1) with the ipsilesional M1 being stimulated while the contralesional M1 was conditioned. The results showed controls responses were typical. Overall there was more inhibition in the patient sample compared to control as the patients failed to release the inhibition when they attempted to initiate the finger movement. Murase et al (2004) concluded a negative relationship between the amount of inhibition coming from the good side to the affected side, and the movement function of the paretic hand. The more inhibition there was the worse the movement of the affected hand will be. This suggested the more the contralesional side of the brain actively suppressed activity on the ipsilesional side, the worse the affected hand would be. The results from this study changed the way people approached what was going on in the brain after a stroke; and strengthened the IHI model. The sample size consisted of only nine patients and eight controls however, and the participants chosen also may not be an accurate sample population of stroke patients. Only patients that could generate clear MEPs were chosen, therefore the results may not be applicable to stroke survivors that have bigger