Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25488186›Full record

Trial reportBrain : a journal of neurology2015

Neural substrates underlying stimulation-enhanced motor skill learning after stroke.

Stéphanie Lefebvre, Laurence Dricot, Patrice Laloux, Wojciech Gradkowski, Philippe Desfontaines, Frédéric Evrard, André Peeters, Jacques Jamart, Yves Vandermeeren

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Brain : a journal of neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Neural synchrony links sensorimotor cortices in a network for facial motor control.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Stéphanie Lefebvre1 Université catholique de Louvain (UcL), CHU Dinant Godinne UcL Namur, Neurology Department, Avenue Dr G. Therasse, Yvoir 5530, Belgium 2 UcL, Institute of NeuroScience (IoNS), Brussels 1200, Belgium.
Laurence Dricot2 UcL, Institute of NeuroScience (IoNS), Brussels 1200, Belgium.
Patrice Laloux1 Université catholique de Louvain (UcL), CHU Dinant Godinne UcL Namur, Neurology Department, Avenue Dr G. Therasse, Yvoir 5530, Belgium 2 UcL, Institute of NeuroScience (IoNS), Brussels 1200, Belgium.
Wojciech Gradkowski3 Imagilys, Brussels, Belgium 4 Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Radioelectronics, Faculty of Electronics and Information Technology, Poland.
Philippe Desfontaines5 Centre Hospitalier Chrétien (CHC), Site Saint-Joseph, Neurology Department, 4000 Liège, Belgium.
Frédéric Evrard6 Clinique Saint-Pierre, Neurology Department, 1340 Ottignies, Belgium.
André Peeters7 UcL, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Unité neuro-vasculaire, Service de Neurologie, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200 Brussels, Belgium.
Jacques Jamart8 UcL, CHU Dinant Godinne UcL Namur, Scientific Support Unit, Avenue Dr G. Therasse, Yvoir 5530, Belgium.
Yves Vandermeeren1 Université catholique de Louvain (UcL), CHU Dinant Godinne UcL Namur, Neurology Department, Avenue Dr G. Therasse, Yvoir 5530, Belgium 2 UcL, Institute of NeuroScience (IoNS), Brussels 1200, Belgium 9 UcL, Louvain Bionics, Louvain-la-Neuve 1348, Belgium yves.vandermeeren@uclouvain.be.
CHU Dinant Godinne UCL Namur · BECentre Hospitalier Chrétien · BEClinique Saint Pierre · BECliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc · BEWarsaw University of Technology · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motor skill learning is one of the key components of motor function recovery after stroke, especially recovery driven by neurorehabilitation. Transcranial direct current stimulation can enhance neurorehabilitation and motor skill learning in stroke patients. However, the neural mechanisms underlying the retention of stimulation-enhanced motor skill learning involving a paretic upper limb have not been resolved. These neural substrates were explored by means of functional magnetic resonance imaging. Nineteen chronic hemiparetic stroke patients participated in a double-blind, cross-over randomized, sham-controlled experiment with two series. Each series consisted of two sessions: (i) an intervention session during which dual transcranial direct current stimulation or sham was applied during motor skill learning with the paretic upper limb; and (ii) an imaging session 1 week later, during which the patients performed the learned motor skill. The motor skill learning task, called the 'circuit game', involves a speed/accuracy trade-off and consists of moving a pointer controlled by a computer mouse along a complex circuit as quickly and accurately as possible. Relative to the sham series, dual transcranial direct current stimulation applied bilaterally over the primary motor cortex during motor skill learning with the paretic upper limb resulted in (i) enhanced online motor skill learning; (ii) enhanced 1-week retention; and (iii) superior transfer of performance improvement to an untrained task. The 1-week retention's enhancement driven by the intervention was associated with a trend towards normalization of the brain activation pattern during performance of the learned motor skill relative to the sham series. A similar trend towards normalization relative to sham was observed during performance of a simple, untrained task without a speed/accuracy constraint, despite a lack of behavioural difference between the dual transcranial direct current stimulation and sham series. Finally, dual transcranial direct current stimulation applied during the first session enhanced continued learning with the paretic limb 1 week later, relative to the sham series. This lasting behavioural enhancement was associated with more efficient recruitment of the motor skill learning network, that is, focused activation on the motor-premotor areas in the damaged hemisphere, especially on the dorsal premotor cortex. Dual transcranial direct current stimulation applied during motor skill learning with a paretic upper limb resulted in prolonged shaping of brain activation, which supported behavioural enhancements in stroke patients.

Indexed as

Brain MappingStrokeAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnalysis of VarianceCross-Over StudiesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLearningMaleMiddle AgedMotor CortexOxygenfMRImotor skill learningneurorehabilitationstroketDCS

Identifiers

PMID25488186
PMCPMC4441084
OpenAlexW1972232718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.