The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evolution of Cortical Activation During Recovery From Corticospinal Tract Infarction
Open accessAbstract
Background and Purpose —Recovery from hemiparesis due to corticospinal tract infarction is well documented, but the mechanism of recovery is unknown. Functional MRI (fMRI) provides a means of identifying focal brain activity related to movement of a paretic hand. Although prior studies have suggested that supplementary motor regions in the ipsilesional and contralesional hemisphere play a role in recovery, little is known about the time course of cortical activation in these regions as recovery proceeds. Methods —Eight patients with first-ever corticospinal tract lacunes causing hemiparesis had serial fMRIs within the first few days after stroke and at 3 to 6 months. Six healthy subjects were used as controls. Statistically significant voxels during a finger-thumb opposition task were identified with an automated image processing program. An index of ipsilateral versus contralateral activity was used to compare relative contributions of the 2 hemispheres to motor function in the acute and chronic phases after stroke. Results —Controls showed expected activation in the contralateral sensorimotor cortex (SMC), premotor, and supplementary motor areas. Stroke patients differed from control patients in showing greater activation in the ipsilateral SMC, ipsilateral posterior parietal, and bilateral prefrontal regions. Compared with the nonparetic hand, the ratio of contralateral to ipsilateral SMC activity during movement of the paretic hand increased significantly over time as the paretic hand regained function. Conclusions —The evolution of activation in the SMC from early contralesional activity to late ipsilesional activity suggests that a dynamic bihemispheric reorganization of motor networks occurs during recovery from hemiparesis.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Neural Correlates of Motor Memory Consolidation
Shadmehr, R., & Holcomb, H. H. (1997) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.277.5327.821 · Cited by 1,022
Cited by
Brain–computer interfaces in neurological rehabilitation
Daly, J. J., & Wolpaw, J. R. (2008) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(08)70223-0 · Cited by 1,149
Repairing the human brain after stroke: I. Mechanisms of spontaneous recovery
Cramer, S. C. (2008) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.21393 · Cited by 875
Neuroplasticity in the context of motor rehabilitation after stroke
Dimyan, M. A., & Cohen, L. G. (2011) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2010.200 · Cited by 732
Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: Facts and theories
Kwakkel, G., Kollen, B., & Lindeman, E. (2004) · Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience · doi:10.3233/rnn-2004-00282 · Cited by 727
Neural correlates of outcome after stroke: a cross‐sectional fMRI study
Ward, N. S., Brown, M. M., Thompson, A. J., & Frackowiak, R. S. J. (2003) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awg145 · Cited by 649
Metadata
- Authors
- Marshall, R. S., Perera, G. M., Lazar, R. M., Krakauer, J. W., Constantine, R. C., & DeLaPaz, R. L.
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 2000-03
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 656-661
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2048437429
- Cited by
- 616
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 30.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evolution of Cortical Activation During Recovery From Corticospinal Tract Infarction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.31.3.656
- The paper
- Marshall, R. S., Perera, G. M., Lazar, R. M., Krakauer, J. W., Constantine, R. C., & DeLaPaz, R. L. (2000). Evolution of Cortical Activation During Recovery From Corticospinal Tract Infarction. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.31.3.656
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.