↓ Skip to main content

Repetitive reaching training combined with transcranial Random Noise Stimulation in stroke survivors with chronic and severe arm paresis is feasible: a pilot, triple-blind, randomised case series

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
199 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Repetitive reaching training combined with transcranial Random Noise Stimulation in stroke survivors with chronic and severe arm paresis is feasible: a pilot, triple-blind, randomised case series
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12984-017-0253-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn S. Hayward, Sandra G. Brauer, Kathy L. Ruddy, David Lloyd, Richard G. Carson

Abstract

Therapy that combines repetitive training with non-invasive brain stimulation is a potential avenue to enhance upper limb recovery after stroke. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of transcranial Random Noise Stimulation (tRNS), timed to coincide with the generation of voluntary motor commands, during reaching training. A triple-blind pilot RCT was completed. Four stroke survivors with chronic (6-months to 5-years) and severe arm paresis, not taking any medications that had the potential to alter cortical excitability, and no contraindications to tRNS or MRI were recruited. Participants were randomly allocated to 12 sessions of reaching training over 4-weeks with active or sham tRNS delivered over the lesioned hemisphere motor representation. tRNS was triggered to coincide with a voluntary movement attempt, ceasing after 5-s. At this point, peripheral nerve stimulation enabled full range reaching. To determine feasibility, we considered adverse events, training outcomes, clinical outcomes, corticospinal tract (CST) structural integrity, and reflections on training through in-depth interviews from each individual case. Two participants received active and two sham tRNS. There were no adverse events. All training sessions were completed, repetitive practice performed and clinically relevant improvements across motor outcomes demonstrated. The amount of improvement varied across individuals and appeared to be independent of group allocation and CST integrity. Reaching training that includes tRNS timed to coincide with generation of voluntary motor commands is feasible. Clinical improvements were possible even in the most severely affected individuals as evidenced by CST integrity. This study was registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12614000952640.aspx . Registration date 4 September 2014, first participant date 9 September 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 199 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 37 19%
Student > Master 27 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Researcher 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 67 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 42 21%
Neuroscience 24 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 10%
Engineering 10 5%
Psychology 8 4%
Other 21 11%
Unknown 75 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,349,470
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#733
of 1,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,696
of 316,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#15
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,289 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.