Cited by 732Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesMotor Control and Adaptation

Neuroplasticity in the context of motor rehabilitation after stroke

Open access
Dimyan, Michael A., Cohen, Leonardo G.·2011·Nature Reviews Neurology

Abstract

Approximately one-third of patients with stroke exhibit persistent disability after the initial cerebrovascular episode, with motor impairments accounting for most poststroke disability. Exercise and training have long been used to restore motor function after stroke. Better training strategies and therapies to enhance the effects of these rehabilitative protocols are currently being developed for poststroke disability. The advancement of our understanding of the neuroplastic changes associated with poststroke motor impairment and the innate mechanisms of repair is crucial to this endeavor. Pharmaceutical, biological and electrophysiological treatments that augment neuroplasticity are being explored to further extend the boundaries of poststroke rehabilitation. Potential motor rehabilitation therapies, such as stem cell therapy, exogenous tissue engineering and brain-computer interface technologies, could be integral in helping patients with stroke regain motor control. As the methods for providing motor rehabilitation change, the primary goals of poststroke rehabilitation will be driven by the activity and quality of life needs of individual patients. This Review aims to provide a focused overview of neuroplasticity associated with poststroke motor impairment, and the latest experimental interventions being developed to manipulate neuroplasticity to enhance motor rehabilitation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrneurol.2010.200

Cites

184 of 185 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dimyan, M. A., & Cohen, L. G.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Cohen, Leonardo G.
Venue
Nature Reviews Neurology
Published
2011-01-18
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
76-85
ISSN
  • 1759-4758 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-4766
OpenAlex
W2053281035
Cited by
732
References
183
Citations by year
2026: 56 · 2025: 77 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 22
FWCI
3.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (ZIANS002978)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
neuroplasticity, stroke, motor rehabilitation, motor recovery, exercise therapy, stem cell therapy, brain-computer interface, motor control
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Exercise Therapy, Persons with Disabilities, Humans, Motor Activity, Neuronal Plasticity, Recovery of Function, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review