Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 372

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Lesion Location on Upper Limb Motor Recovery After Stroke

Open access
Shelton, Fátima de N. A. P., Reding, Michael J.·2001·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose —The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of stroke involvement of primary and secondary hemispheric motor systems and corticofugal tracts on arm and hand recovery. Methods —Forty-one patients participating in an inpatient stroke rehabilitation database, admitted 17±2 (SEM) days after initial unilateral hemispheric ischemic stroke, with neuroimaging studies performed >48 hours after stroke and with minimal upper limb (UL) movement (admission Fugl-Meyer UL motor scores ≤9; normal score, 58) were studied. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to their UL discharge Fugl-Meyer score: 0 to 9, no/poor recovery; 10 to 18, well-defined flexion-extension synergies; and >18, synergies+isolated movements. Lesions affecting the following structures were recorded: primary motor cortex, premotor area, supplementary motor area, anterior half of the middle third of corona radiata (secondary motor efferents), posterior half of the middle third of corona radiata (primary motor efferents), genu, anterior and posterior limbs of the internal capsule (PLIC), basal ganglia, and thalamus. χ 2 Analysis and ANOVA were used to study the significance of stroke location on UL motor recovery. Results —The effect of involvement of primary, premotor, or supplementary motor areas on motor recovery did not reach statistical significance. Patients with purely cortical stroke were likely to recover UL isolated movement (3 of 4) compared with purely subcortical (1 of 17) or mixed cortical-subcortical stroke location (2 of 20) ( P =0.009). Of those with cortical, subcortical, or mixed cortical plus subcortical lesions sparing the PLIC, 5 of 13 recovered isolated UL movement ( P =0.01). Only 1 of 28 patients with involvement of the PLIC plus adjacent corona radiata, basal ganglia, or thalamus recovered isolated UL movement ( P =0.01). Patients with small lacunar strokes affecting only the PLIC did not have sufficient motor deficits 2 weeks after stroke to meet inclusion criteria. Conclusions —The probability of recovery of isolated UL movement decreases progressively with lesion location as follows: cortex, corona radiata, and PLIC. This is consistent with our current understanding of redundant cortical motor representation and convergence of corticofugal motor efferents as they pass through the corona radiata to the PLIC.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.str.32.1.107

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 372

Metadata

Authors
Shelton, F. D. N. A. P., & Reding, M. J.
Venue
Stroke
Published
2001-01
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
107-112
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2092917330
Cited by
372
References
2
FWCI
6.07
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: Effect of Lesion Location on Upper Limb Motor Recovery After Stroke. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.32.1.107
The paper
Shelton, F. D. N. A. P., & Reding, M. J. (2001). Effect of Lesion Location on Upper Limb Motor Recovery After Stroke. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.32.1.107

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.