Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35911589›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2022

Toward an Adapted Neurofeedback for Post-stroke Motor Rehabilitation: State of the Art and Perspectives.

Salomé Le Franc, Gabriela Herrera Altamira, Maud Guillen, Simon Butet, Stéphanie Fleck, Anatole Lécuyer, Laurent Bougrain, Isabelle Bonan

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Brain-Computer Interfaces for Stroke Motor Rehabilitation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Salomé Le FrancRehabilitation Medicine Unit, University Hospital of Rennes, Rennes, France.
Gabriela Herrera AltamiraUniversité de Lorraine, CNRS, LORIA, Nancy, France.
Maud GuillenHybrid Team, Inria, University of Rennes, Irisa, UMR CNRS 6074, Rennes, France.
Simon ButetRehabilitation Medicine Unit, University Hospital of Rennes, Rennes, France.
Stéphanie FleckUniversité de Lorraine, CNRS, LORIA, Nancy, France.
Anatole LécuyerHybrid Team, Inria, University of Rennes, Irisa, UMR CNRS 6074, Rennes, France.
Laurent BougrainUniversité de Lorraine, CNRS, LORIA, Nancy, France.
Isabelle BonanRehabilitation Medicine Unit, University Hospital of Rennes, Rennes, France.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stroke is a severe health issue, and motor recovery after stroke remains an important challenge in the rehabilitation field. Neurofeedback (NFB), as part of a brain-computer interface, is a technique for modulating brain activity using on-line feedback that has proved to be useful in motor rehabilitation for the chronic stroke population in addition to traditional therapies. Nevertheless, its use and applications in the field still leave unresolved questions. The brain pathophysiological mechanisms after stroke remain partly unknown, and the possibilities for intervention on these mechanisms to promote cerebral plasticity are limited in clinical practice. In NFB motor rehabilitation, the aim is to adapt the therapy to the patient's clinical context using brain imaging, considering the time after stroke, the localization of brain lesions, and their clinical impact, while taking into account currently used biomarkers and technical limitations. These modern techniques also allow a better understanding of the physiopathology and neuroplasticity of the brain after stroke. We conducted a narrative literature review of studies using NFB for post-stroke motor rehabilitation. The main goal was to decompose all the elements that can be modified in NFB therapies, which can lead to their adaptation according to the patient's context and according to the current technological limits. Adaptation and individualization of care could derive from this analysis to better meet the patients' needs. We focused on and highlighted the various clinical and technological components considering the most recent experiments. The second goal was to propose general recommendations and enhance the limits and perspectives to improve our general knowledge in the field and allow clinical applications. We highlighted the multidisciplinary approach of this work by combining engineering abilities and medical experience. Engineering development is essential for the available technological tools and aims to increase neuroscience knowledge in the NFB topic. This technological development was born out of the real clinical need to provide complementary therapeutic solutions to a public health problem, considering the actual clinical context of the post-stroke patient and the practical limits resulting from it.

Indexed as

brain–computer interfacebrain plasticitymotor rehabilitationneurofeedbackstroke

Identifiers

PMID35911589
PMCPMC9332194
OpenAlexW4285387797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.