Although numerous treatments are available to improve cerebral perfusion after acute stroke and prevent recurrent stroke, few rehabilitation treatments have been conclusively shown to improve neurologic recovery. The majority of stroke survivors with motor impairment do not recover to their functional baseline, and there remains a need for novel neurorehabilitation treatments to minimize long-term disability, maximize quality of life, and optimize psychosocial outcomes. In recent years, several novel therapies have emerged to restore motor function after stroke, and additional investigational treatments have also shown promise. Here, we familiarize the neurohospitalist with emerging treatments for poststroke motor rehabilitation. The rehabilitation treatments covered in this review will include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor medications, constraint-induced movement therapy, noninvasive brain stimulation, mirror therapy, and motor imagery or mental practice.
LaiSMStudenskiSDuncanPWPereraS. Persisting consequences of stroke measured by the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke. 2002;33
(7):1840–1844.
3.
KwakkelGKollenBJWagenaarRC. Long term effects of intensity of upper and lower limb training after stroke: a randomised trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;72
(4):473–479.
4.
NakayamaHJorgensenHSRaaschouHOOlsenTS. Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75
(4):394–398.
5.
Kolominsky-RabasPLWeberMGefellerONeundoerferBHeuschmannPU. Epidemiology of ischemic stroke subtypes according to TOAST criteria: incidence, recurrence, and long-term survival in ischemic stroke subtypes: a population-based study. Stroke. 2001;32
(12):2735–2740.
6.
WongDTHorngJSBymasterFPHauserKLMolloyBB. A selective inhibitor of serotonin uptake: Lilly 110140, 3-(p-trifluoromethylphenoxy)-N-methyl-3-phenylpropylamine. Life Sci. 1974;15
(3):471–479.
7.
BoyesonMGHarmonRLJonesJL. Comparative effects of fluoxetine, amitriptyline and serotonin on functional motor recovery after sensorimotor cortex injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;73
(2):76–83.
8.
SuttonRLFeeneyDM. Alpha-noradrenergic agonists and antagonists affect recovery and maintenance of beam-walking ability after sensorimotor cortex ablation in the rat. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 1992;4
(1):1–11.
9.
BrownKWSloanRLPentlandB. Fluoxetine as a treatment for post-stroke emotionalism. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1998;98
(6):455–458.
10.
WiartLPetitHJosephPAMazauxJMBaratM. Fluoxetine in early poststroke depression: a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Stroke. 2000;31
(8):1829–1832.
11.
RasmussenALundeMPoulsenDLSorensenKQvitzauSBechP. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of sertraline in the prevention of depression in stroke patients. Psychosomatics. 2003;44
(3):216–221.
12.
AlmeidaOPWaterreusAHankeyGJ. Preventing depression after stroke: results from a randomized placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67
(7):1104–1109.
13.
MurrayVvon ArbinMBartfaiA. Double-blind comparison of sertraline and placebo in stroke patients with minor depression and less severe major depression. J Clin Psychiatry. 2005;66
(6):708–716.
14.
AclerMRobolEFiaschiAManganottiP. A double blind placebo RCT to investigate the effects of serotonergic modulation on brain excitability and motor recovery in stroke patients. J Neurol. 2009;256
(7):1152–1158.
15.
RobinsonRGJorgeREMoserDJ. Escitalopram and problem-solving therapy for prevention of poststroke depression: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008;299
(20):2391–2400.
16.
AndersenGVestergaardKLauritzenL. Effective treatment of poststroke depression with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor citalopram. Stroke. 1994;25
(6):1099–1104.
17.
NarushimaKKosierJTRobinsonRG. Preventing poststroke depression: a 12-week double-blind randomized treatment trial and 21-month follow-up. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2002;190
(5):296–303.
18.
RobinsonRGSchultzSKCastilloC. Nortriptyline versus fluoxetine in the treatment of depression and in short-term recovery after stroke: a placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157
(3):351–359.
19.
DamMToninPDe BoniA. Effects of fluoxetine and maprotiline on functional recovery in poststroke hemiplegic patients undergoing rehabilitation therapy. Stroke. 1996;27
(7):1211–1214.
20.
MiyaiIRedingMJ. Effects of antidepressants on functional recovery following stroke: a double-blind study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 1998;12
(1):5–13.
21.
BeninatoMGill-BodyKMSallesSStarkPCBlack-SchafferRMSteinJ. Determination of the minimal clinically important difference in the FIM instrument in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87
(1):32–39.
22.
ParienteJLoubinouxICarelC. Fluoxetine modulates motor performance and cerebral activation of patients recovering from stroke. Ann Neurol. 2001;50
(6):718–729.
23.
LoubinouxIBoulanouarKRanjevaJP. Cerebral functional magnetic resonance imaging activation modulated by a single dose of the monoamine neurotransmission enhancers fluoxetine and fenozolone during hand sensorimotor tasks. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1999;19
(12):1365–1375.
AclerMFiaschiAManganottiP. Long-term levodopa administration in chronic stroke patients. A clinical and neurophysiologic single-blind placebo-controlled cross-over pilot study. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2009;27
(4):277–283.
26.
CholletFTardyJAlbucherJF. Fluoxetine for motor recovery after acute ischaemic stroke (FLAME): a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2011;10
(2):123–130.
27.
SheltonFDVolpeBTRedingM. Motor impairment as a predictor of functional recovery and guide to rehabilitation treatment after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2001;15
(3):229–237.
HackamDGMrkobradaM. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and brain hemorrhage: a meta-analysis. Neurology. 2012;79
(18):1862–1865.
30.
MortensenJKLarssonHJohnsenSPAndersenG. Post stroke use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and clinical outcome among patients with ischemic stroke: a nationwide propensity score-matched follow-up study. Stroke. 2013;44
(2):420–426.
31.
TaubE. Movement in nonhuman primates deprived of somatosensory feedback. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1976;4:335–374.
32.
TaubEMillerNENovackTA. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74
(4):347–354.
33.
TaubEUswatteGElbertT. New treatments in neurorehabilitation founded on basic research. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3
(3):228–236.
34.
TaubEUswatteGKingDKMorrisDCragoJEChatterjeeA. A placebo-controlled trial of constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremity after stroke. Stroke. 2006;37
(4):1045–1049.
35.
MiltnerWHRBauderHSommerMDettmersCTaubE. Effects of constraint-induced movement therapy on patients with chronic motor deficits after stroke: a replication. Stroke. 1999;30
(3):586–592.
36.
van der LeeJHWagenaarRCLankhorstGJVogelaarTWDevilleWLBouterLM. Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients: results from a single-blind randomized clinical trial. Stroke. 1999;30
(11):2369–2375.
37.
DromerickAWEdwardsDFHahnM. Does the application of constraint-induced movement therapy during acute rehabilitation reduce arm impairment after ischemic stroke?Stroke. 2000;31
(12):2984–2988.
38.
SterrAElbertTBertholdIKölbelSRockstrohBTaubE. Longer versus shorter daily constraint-induced movement therapy of chronic hemiparesis: an exploratory study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83
(10):1374–1377.
39.
WittenbergGFChenRIshiiK. Constraint-Induced therapy in stroke: magnetic-stimulation motor maps and cerebral activation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2003;17
(1):48–57.
40.
WolfSLWinsteinCJMillerJP. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2006;296
(17):2095–2104.
41.
SirtoriVCorbettaDMojaLGattiR. Constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremities in stroke patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(4):CD004433.
42.
BrogardhCVestlingMSjolundBH. Shortened constraint-induced movement therapy in subacute stroke—no effect of using a restraint: a randomized controlled study with independent observers. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41
(4):231–236.
43.
BoakeCNoserEARoT. Constraint-induced movement therapy during early stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21
(1):14–24.
44.
DromerickAWLangCEBirkenmeierRL. Very Early Constraint-Induced Movement during Stroke Rehabilitation (VECTORS): a single-center RCT. Neurology. 2009;73
(3):195–201.
45.
CorbettaDSirtoriVMojaLGattiR. Constraint-induced movement therapy in stroke patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2010;46
(4):537–544.
46.
McIntyreAVianaRJanzenSMehtaSPereiraSTeasellR. Systematic review and meta-analysis of constraint-induced movement therapy in the hemiparetic upper extremity more than six months post stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2012;19
(6):499–513.
47.
PageSJLevinePSistoSBondQJohnstonMV. Stroke patients' and therapists' opinions of constraint-induced movement therapy. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16
(1):55–60.
48.
PageSJSistoSJohnstonMVLevineP. Modified constraint-induced therapy after subacute stroke: a preliminary study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002;16
(3):290–295.
49.
PageSJLevinePLeonardASzaflarskiJPKisselaBM. Modified constraint-induced therapy in chronic stroke: results of a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2008;88
(3):333–340.
50.
LumPSUswatteGTaubEHardinPMarkVW. A telerehabilitation approach to delivery of constraint-induced movement therapy. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43
(3):391–400.
51.
LinKCHsiehYWWuCYChenCLJangYLiuJS. Minimal detectable change and clinically important difference of the Wolf Motor Function Test in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23
(5):429–434.
52.
GrottaJCNoserEARoT. Constraint-induced movement therapy. Stroke. 2004;35(11 suppl 1):2699–2701.
53.
FritzSLChiuYPMalcolmMPPattersonTSLightKE. Feasibility of electromyography-triggered neuromuscular stimulation as an adjunct to constraint-induced movement therapy. Phys Ther. 2005;85
(5):428–442.
54.
PageSJLevineP. Back from the brink: electromyography-triggered stimulation combined with modified constraint-induced movement therapy in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87
(1):27–31.
55.
NitscheMAPaulusW. Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J Physiol. 2000;527(pt 3):633–639.
56.
MillsKRMurrayNMHessCW. Magnetic and electrical transcranial brain stimulation: physiological mechanisms and clinical applications. Neurosurgery. 1987;20
(1):164–168.
57.
BarkerATFreestonILJalinousRJarrattJA. Magnetic stimulation of the human brain and peripheral nervous system: an introduction and the results of an initial clinical evaluation. Neurosurgery. 1987;20
(1):100–109.
58.
BarkerATJalinousRFreestonIL. Non-invasive magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex. Lancet. 1985;1
(8437):1106–1107.
59.
KrishnanCDhaherY. Corticospinal responses of quadriceps are abnormally coupled with hip adductors in chronic stroke survivors. Exp Neurol. 2012;233
(1):400–407.
60.
MadhavanSKrishnanCJayaramanARymerWZStinearJW. Corticospinal tract integrity correlates with knee extensor weakness in chronic stroke survivors. Clin Neurophysiol. 2011;122
(8):1588–1594.
61.
Pascual-LeoneAWalshVRothwellJ. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in cognitive neuroscience—virtual lesion, chronometry, and functional connectivity. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2000;10
(2):232–237.
62.
SiebnerHRRothwellJ. Transcranial magnetic stimulation: new insights into representational cortical plasticity. Exp Brain Res. 2003;148
(1):1–16.
63.
WebsterBRCelnikPACohenLG. Noninvasive brain stimulation in stroke rehabilitation. NeuroRx. 2006;3
(4):474–481.
64.
FreitasCMondragon-LlorcaHPascual-LeoneA. Noninvasive brain stimulation in Alzheimer's disease: systematic review and perspectives for the future. Exp Gerontol. 2011;46
(8):611–627.
65.
BenningerDHLomarevMLopezG. Transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of Parkinson's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2010;81
(10):1105–1111.
66.
BelciMCatleyMHusainMFrankelHLDaveyNJ. Magnetic brain stimulation can improve clinical outcome in incomplete spinal cord injured patients. Spinal Cord. 2004;42
(7):417–419.
67.
ReisJRobertsonEMKrakauerJW. Consensus: can transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation enhance motor learning and memory formation?Brain Stimul. 2008;1
(4):363–369.
68.
NitscheMAPaulusW. Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology. 2001;57
(10):1899–1901.
69.
FregniFBoggioPSMansurCG. Transcranial direct current stimulation of the unaffected hemisphere in stroke patients. Neuroreport. 2005;16
(14):1551–1555.
70.
TakeuchiNOouchidaYIzumiS. Motor control and neural plasticity through interhemispheric interactions. Neural Plast. 2012;2012:823285.
71.
KimYHYouSHKoMH. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced corticomotor excitability and associated motor skill acquisition in chronic stroke. Stroke. 2006;37
(6):1471–1476.
72.
TakeuchiNTadaTToshimaMChumaTMatsuoYIkomaK. Inhibition of the unaffected motor cortex by 1 Hz repetitive transcranical magnetic stimulation enhances motor performance and training effect of the paretic hand in patients with chronic stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40
(4):298–303.
73.
TretriluxanaJKantakSTretriluxanaSWuADFisherBE. Low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to the non-lesioned hemisphere improves paretic arm reach-to-grasp performance after chronic stroke. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8
(2):121–124.
74.
PoreiszCBorosKAntalAPaulusW. Safety aspects of transcranial direct current stimulation concerning healthy subjects and patients. Brain Res Bull. 2007;72(4-6):208–214.
75.
WassermannEM. Risk and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: report and suggested guidelines from the International Workshop on the Safety of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, June 5-7, 1996. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1998;108
(1):1–16.
76.
AdeyemoBOSimisMMaceaDDFregniF. Systematic review of parameters of stimulation, clinical trial design characteristics, and motor outcomes in non-invasive brain stimulation in stroke. Front Psychiatry. 2012;3:88.
77.
HaoZWangDZengYLiuM. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for improving function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;5:CD008862.
78.
ButlerAJShusterMO'HaraEHurleyKMiddlebrooksDGuilkeyK. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation for upper limb motor recovery in stroke survivors. J Hand Ther. 2013;26(2):162–170; quiz 171.
79.
KakudaWAboMWatanabeS. High-frequency rTMS applied over bilateral leg motor areas combined with mobility training for gait disturbance after stroke: a preliminary study. Brain Inj. 2013;27
(9):1080–1086.
80.
WangRYTsengHYLiaoKKWangCJLaiKLYangYR. rTMS combined with task-oriented training to improve symmetry of interhemispheric corticomotor excitability and gait performance after stroke: a randomized trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26
(3):222–230.
81.
DanzlMMCheletteKCLeeKLykinsDSawakiL. Brain stimulation paired with novel locomotor training with robotic gait orthosis in chronic stroke: a feasibility study. Neurorehabilitation. 2013;33
(1):67–76.
82.
SchabrunSMChipchaseLSZipfNThickbroomGWHodgesPW. Interaction between simultaneously applied neuromodulatory interventions in humans. Brain Stimul. 2013;6
(4):624–630.
83.
ThirugnanasambandamNSparingRDafotakisM. Isometric contraction interferes with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) induced plasticity: evidence of state-dependent neuromodulation in human motor cortex. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2011;29
(5):311–320.
84.
CheeranBTalelliPMoriF. A common polymorphism in the brain-derived neurotrophic factor gene (BDNF) modulates human cortical plasticity and the response to rTMS. J Physiol. 2008;586(pt 23):5717–5725.
85.
HorvathJCCarterOForteJD. Transcranial direct current stimulation: five important issues we aren't discussing (but probably should be). Front Syst Neurosci. 2014;8:2.
86.
RamachandranVSRogers-RamachandranDCobbS. Touching the phantom limb. Nature. 1995;377
(6549):489–490.
87.
FlorHNikolajsenLStaehelin JensenT. Phantom limb pain: a case of maladaptive CNS plasticity?Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006;7
(11):873–881.
88.
RamachandranVS. Phantom limbs, neglect syndromes, repressed memories, and Freudian psychology. Int Rev Neurobiol. 1994;37:291–333; discussion 369-272.
89.
AltschulerELWisdomSBStoneL. Rehabilitation of hemiparesis after stroke with a mirror. Lancet. 1999;353
(9169): 2035–2036.
90.
SathianKGreenspanAIWolfSL. Doing it with mirrors: a case study of a novel approach to neurorehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2000;14
(1):73–76.
91.
StevensJAStoykovMEP. Using motor imagery in the rehabilitation of hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84
(7):1090–1092.
92.
SutbeyazSYavuzerGSezerNKoseogluBF. Mirror therapy enhances lower-extremity motor recovery and motor functioning after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88
(5):555–559.
93.
MichielsenMESellesRWvan der GeestJN. Motor recovery and cortical reorganization after mirror therapy in chronic stroke patients: a phase II randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25
(3):223–233.
94.
LeeMMChoHYSongCH. The mirror therapy program enhances upper-limb motor recovery and motor function in acute stroke patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91(8):689–696, quiz697–700.
95.
ThiemeHMehrholzJPohlMBehrensJDohleC. Mirror therapy for improving motor function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;3:Cd008449.
96.
WuCYHuangPCChenYTLinKCYangHW. Effects of mirror therapy on motor and sensory recovery in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94
(6):1023–1030.
97.
InvernizziMNegriniSCardaSLanzottiLCisariCBaricichA. The value of adding mirror therapy for upper limb motor recovery of subacute stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2013;49
(3):311–317.
98.
ThiemeHBaynMWurgMZangeCPohlMBehrensJ. Mirror therapy for patients with severe arm paresis after stroke—a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2013;27
(4):314–324.
99.
ErteltDHemmelmannCDettmersCZieglerABinkofskiF. Observation and execution of upper-limb movements as a tool for rehabilitation of motor deficits in paretic stroke patients: protocol of a randomized clinical trial. BMC Neurol. 2012;12:42.
100.
SackettRS. The influence of symbolic rehearsal upon the retention of a maze habit. J Gen Psychol. 1934;10:376–395.
101.
DriskelJCCopperCMoranA. Does mental practice enhance performance?J Appl Psychol. 1994;79(4):481–492.
102.
MulderT. Motor imagery and action observation: cognitive tools for rehabilitation. J Neural Transm. 2007;114
(10):1265–1278.
103.
LafleurMFJacksonPLMalouinFRichardsCLEvansACDoyonJ. Motor learning produces parallel dynamic functional changes during the execution and imagination of sequential foot movements. NeuroImage. 2002;16
(1):142–157.
104.
LacourseMGTurnerJARandolph-OrrESchandlerSLCohenMJ. Cerebral and cerebellar sensorimotor plasticity following motor imagery-based mental practice of a sequential movement. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004;41
(4):505–524.
105.
GrezesJDecetyJ. Functional anatomy of execution, mental simulation, observation, and verb generation of actions: a meta-analysis. Hum Brain Mapp. 2001;12
(1):1–19.
106.
RizzolattiG. The mirror neuron system and its function in humans. Anat Embryol (Berl). 2005;210(5-6):419–421.
107.
ButlerAJCazeauxJFidlerA. The Movement Imagery Questionnaire-Revised, Second Edition (MIQ-RS) is a reliable and valid tool for evaluating motor imagery in stroke populations. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2012;2012:497289.
108.
ChoHYKimJSLeeGC. Effects of motor imagery training on balance and gait abilities in post-stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2013;27
(8):675–680.
109.
DijkermanHCIetswaartMJohnstonMMacWalterRS. Does motor imagery training improve hand function in chronic stroke patients? A pilot study. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18
(5):538–549.
110.
HosseiniSAFallahpourMSayadiMGharibMHaghgooH. The impact of mental practice on stroke patients' postural balance. J Neurol Sci. 2012;322(1-2):263–267.
111.
HwangSJeonHSYiCHKwonOYChoSHYouSH. Locomotor imagery training improves gait performance in people with chronic hemiparetic stroke: a controlled clinical trial. Clin Rehabil. 2010;24
(6):514–522.
112.
IetswaartMJohnstonMDijkermanHC. Mental practice with motor imagery in stroke recovery: randomized controlled trial of efficacy. Brain. 2011;134(pt 5):1373–1386.
113.
LiuKPChanCCLeeTMHui-ChanCW. Mental imagery for promoting relearning for people after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85
(9):1403–1408.
114.
PageSJLevinePLeonardA. Mental practice in chronic stroke: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Stroke. 2007;38
(4):1293–1297.
115.
PageSJLevinePLeonardAC. Effects of mental practice on affected limb use and function in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86
(3):399–402.
116.
BraunSMBeurskensAJKleynenMOudelaarBScholsJMWadeDT. A multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare subacute ‘treatment as usual’ with and without mental practice among persons with stroke in Dutch nursing homes. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012;13(1):85. e81–e87.
117.
van der LeeJHBeckermanHLankhorstGJBouterLM. The responsiveness of the Action Research Arm test and the Fugl-Meyer Assessment scale in chronic stroke patients. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33
(3):110–113.
118.
Barclay-GoddardREStevensonTJPoluhaWThalmanL. Mental practice for treating upper extremity deficits in individuals with hemiparesis after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(5):Cd005950.
119.
VerbuntJASeelenHARamosFPMichielsenBHWetzelaerWLMoennekensM. Mental practice-based rehabilitation training to improve arm function and daily activity performance in stroke patients: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Neurol. 2008;8:7.
120.
NilsenDMDirussoT. Using mirror therapy in the home environment: a case report. Am J Occup Ther. 2014;68
(3):e84–e89.
121.
BraunSKleynenMScholsJSchackTBeurskensAWadeD. Using mental practice in stroke rehabilitation: a framework. Clin Rehabil. 2008;22
(7):579–591.
122.
CholletFCramerSCStinearC. Pharmacological therapies in post stroke recovery: recommendations for future clinical trials. J Neurol. 2014;261
(8):1461–1468.
