Abstract
Functional electrical stimulation (FES) can support functional restoration of a paretic limb post-stroke. Hebbian plasticity depends on temporally coinciding pre- and post-synaptic activity. A tight temporal relationship between motor cortical (MC) activity associated with attempted movement and FES-generated visuo-proprioceptive feedback is hypothesized to enhance motor recovery. Using a brain–computer interface (BCI) to classify MC spectral power in electroencephalographic (EEG) signals to trigger FES-delivery with detection of movement attempts improved motor outcomes in chronic stroke patients. We hypothesized that heightened neural plasticity earlier post-stroke would further enhance corticomuscular functional connectivity and motor recovery. We compared subcortical non-dominant hemisphere stroke patients in BCI-FES and Random-FES (FES temporally independent of MC movement attempt detection) groups. The primary outcome measure was the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Upper Extremity (FMA-UE). We recorded high-density EEG and transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced motor evoked potentials before and after treatment. The BCI group showed greater: FMA-UE improvement; motor evoked potential amplitude; beta oscillatory power and long-range temporal correlation reduction over contralateral MC; and corticomuscular coherence with contralateral MC. These changes are consistent with enhanced post-stroke motor improvement when movement is synchronized with MC activity reflecting attempted movement.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00007832 and DRKS00011522
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any external funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Ethics Committee of the University Hospital, Magdeburg, Germany gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
With respect to the sample size, we have: 1) added individual data points to every figure; 2) provided means, standard deviations, and effect sizes for the clinical outcome measures to allow the data to be used in meta-analyses; 3) added a paragraph regarding the application of ANOVAs to small samples including references to simulation studies supporting their validity in small samples; 4) added permutation tests as Supplementary Information; 5) emphasized the small sample size and the requirement for future work, including meta-analyses, that integrate data from the small patient groups typical in rehabilitation studies in the early phase post-stroke; 6) cited other studies examining BCI-based stroke rehabilitation with similarly small numbers, which have already contributed useful data to meta-analyses; 7) added details regarding the reasons for small sample sizes in these sorts of studies; 8) added a flow diagram showing the numbers of participants at each stage; 9) emphasized the strength that our study includes a homogenous patient group, which resulted in the small sample size. Regarding the TMS targeting approach, we have: 1) added explanation to emphasize that TMS was performed as a part of routine clinical monitoring of motor recovery, where targeting C4 is the standard approach used in the clinic; 2) described current advancements in TMS, particularly when TMS is applied as an intervention itself to enhance post-stroke motor recovery, recommending hotspot targeting in future studies evaluating motor recovery. We have also renamed the study groups BCI-FES and Random-FES; defined corticomuscular functional connectivity; added further considerations relating to starting rehabilitation in the early period post-stroke; shortened the Introduction and Methods sections.
