JNNP

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bracewell, R M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bracewell, R M
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article
Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 2003;74:1465
© 2003 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd


EDITORIAL COMMENTARY

Neuroplasticity and rehabilitation

Stroke: neuroplasticity and recent approaches to rehabilitation

R M Bracewell

Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, School of Psychology, University of Wales, Bangor LL57 2AS and Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Liverpool L9 7LJ, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
R M Bracewell;
m.bracewell@bangor.ac.uk

Received 7 May 2003

Accepted for publication 1 July 2003

Keywords: neuroplasticity; rehabilitation; stroke

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

It is good to see that stroke, and in particular stroke rehabilitation, is losing its Cinderella status in the world of neurology. In this issue, Cauraugh and Kim (p 000) present the results of some recent work on the rehabilitation of arm function in chronic stroke patients.1 This work touches on several areas of interest to both clinicians and basic scientists.

Their work was in part motivated by suggestions in the motor learning literature that the repetitive practice of the same action ("blocked" practice) may be inferior to practising different actions ("random" practice). If this were so, then it would have important implications for everyday clinical practice, in which patients are typically required to perform the same action time and again (the equivalent of blocked practice). With the particular training schemes used, however, no difference was found between the two groups.

A more positive result came . . . [Full text of this article]


Related Article

Stroke motor recovery: active neuromuscular stimulation and repetitive practice schedules
J H Cauraugh and S B Kim
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2003 74: 1562-1566. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2003 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.