Key result
Noninvasive brain stimulation shows inconsistent benefits for motor recovery after stroke.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Targeted application of noninvasive brain stimulation using deeper brain modulation and prognostic biomarkers like motor evoked potential status may improve motor recovery after stroke.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review highlights recent developments in noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques and applications for improving motor outcomes after stroke. Two promising areas of development relate to deep brain neuromodulation and the use of single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) within a prediction tool for predicting upper limb outcome for individual patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Systematic reviews highlight the inconsistent effect sizes of interventional NIBS for motor outcome after stroke, as well as limited evidence supporting the interhemispheric competition model. To improve the therapeutic efficacy of NIBS, studies have leveraged metaplasticity and priming approaches. Transcranial temporal interference stimulation (tTIS) and low-intensity focused ultrasound stimulation (LIFUS) are emerging NIBS techniques with potential for modulating deeper brain structures, which may hold promise for stroke neurorehabilitation. Additionally, motor evoked potential (MEP) status obtained with single-pulse TMS is a prognostic biomarker that could be used to tailor NIBS for individual patients. SUMMARY: Trials of interventional NIBS to improve stroke outcomes may be improved by applying NIBS in a more targeted manner. This could be achieved by taking advantage of NIBS techniques that can be targeted to deeper brain structures, using biomarkers of structural and functional reserve to stratify patients, and recruiting patients in more homogeneous time windows.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Savelon et al. (2024) conducted a review in Stroke. Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) was evaluated. Noninvasive brain stimulation techniques show potential for improving motor outcomes after stroke, though systematic reviews highlight inconsistent effect sizes.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: