ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2011
Combining BMI Stimulation and Mathematical Modeling for Acute Stroke Recovery and Neural Repair.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Narrative Review of Pharmacologic and Non-pharmacologic Interventions for Disorders of Consciousness Following Brain Injury in the Pediatric Population.Current physical medicine and rehabilitation reports · 2016Article
- Neuroelectronics and Biooptics: Closed-Loop Technologies in Neurological Disorders.JAMA neurology · 2015Review
- Finding an optimal rehabilitation paradigm after stroke: enhancing fiber growth and training of the brain at the right moment.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rehabilitation is a neural plasticity-exploiting approach that forces undamaged neural circuits to undertake the functionality of other circuits damaged by stroke. It aims to partial restoration of the neural functions by circuit remodeling rather than by the regeneration of damaged circuits. The core hypothesis of the present paper is that - in stroke - brain machine interfaces (BMIs) can be designed to target neural repair instead of rehabilitation. To support this hypothesis we first review existing evidence on the role of endogenous or externally applied electric fields on all processes involved in CNS repair. We then describe our own results to illustrate the neuroprotective and neuroregenerative effects of BMI-electrical stimulation on sensory deprivation-related degenerative processes of the CNS. Finally, we discuss three of the crucial issues involved in the design of neural repair-oriented BMIs: when to stimulate, where to stimulate and - the particularly important but unsolved issue of - how to stimulate. We argue that optimal parameters for the electrical stimulation can be determined from studying and modeling the dynamics of the electric fields that naturally emerge at the central and peripheral nervous system during spontaneous healing in both, experimental animals and human patients. We conclude that a closed-loop BMI that defines the optimal stimulation parameters from a priori developed experimental models of the dynamics of spontaneous repair and the on-line monitoring of neural activity might place BMIs as an alternative or complement to stem-cell transplantation or pharmacological approaches, intensively pursued nowadays.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.