ArticleExperimental brain research2021
Explicit motor sequence learning after stroke: a neuropsychological study.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sequential gait interventions reveal non-reciprocal transfer between instructional and sensorimotor adaptation mechanisms.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Rest the brain to learn new gait patterns after stroke.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Rest the Brain to Learn New Gait Patterns after Stroke.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- The use of machine learning and deep learning techniques to assess proprioceptive impairments of the upper limb after stroke.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Visuomotor Tracking Task for Enhancing Activity in Motor Areas of Stroke Patients.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Article
- Physical function varies according to characteristics of executive dysfunction in patients with stroke.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motor learning interacts with and shapes experience-dependent cerebral plasticity. In stroke patients with paresis of the upper limb, motor recovery was proposed to reflect a process of re-learning the lost/impaired skill, which interacts with rehabilitation. However, to what extent stroke patients with hemiparesis may retain the ability of learning with their affected limb remains an unsolved issue, that was addressed by this study. Nineteen patients, with a cerebrovascular lesion affecting the right or the left hemisphere, underwent an explicit motor learning task (finger tapping task, FTT), which was performed with the paretic hand. Eighteen age-matched healthy participants served as controls. Motor performance was assessed during the learning phase (i.e., online learning), as well as immediately at the end of practice, and after 90 min and 24 h (i.e., retention). Results show that overall, as compared to the control group, stroke patients, regardless of the side (left/right) of the hemispheric lesion, do not show a reliable practice-dependent improvement; consequently, no retention could be detected in the long-term (after 90 min and 24 h). The motor learning impairment was associated with subcortical damage, predominantly affecting the basal ganglia; conversely, it was not associated with age, time elapsed from stroke, severity of upper-limb motor and sensory deficits, and the general neurological condition. This evidence expands our understanding regarding the potential of post-stroke motor recovery through motor practice, suggesting a potential key role of basal ganglia, not only in implicit motor learning as previously pointed out, but also in explicit finger tapping motor tasks.
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.