http://nnr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/08/22/1545968314546134.short?rss=1&ssource=mfr
- Frederik J. A. Deconinck, PhD1,2
- Ana R. P. Smorenburg, PhD3
- Alex Benham, PhD4
- Annick Ledebt, PhD5
- Max G. Feltham, PhD6
- Geert J. P. Savelsbergh, PhD5
- 1Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
- 2Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK
- 3Burke-Cornell Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY, USA
- 4Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK
- 5VU University, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- 6University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Frederik J. A. Deconinck, Ghent University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Watersportlaan 2, Gent 9000, Belgium. Email: Frederik.Deconinck@UGent.be
Abstract
Background. Mirror visual
feedback (MVF), a phenomenon where movement of one limb is perceived as
movement of the other limb, has the
capacity to alleviate phantom limb pain or promote
motor recovery of the upper limbs after stroke. The tool has received
great
interest from health professionals; however, a
clear understanding of the mechanisms underlying the neural recovery
owing
to MVF is lacking. Objective. We performed a systematic review to assess the effect of MVF on brain activation during a motor task. Methods. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases for neuroimaging studies investigating the effect of MVF on the brain.
Key details for each study regarding participants, imaging methods, and results were extracted. Results.
The database search yielded 347 article, of which we identified 33
suitable for inclusion. Compared with a control condition,
MVF increases neural activity in areas involved
with allocation of attention and cognitive control (dorsolateral
prefrontal
cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, S1 and S2,
precuneus). Apart from activation in the superior temporal gyrus and
premotor
cortex, there is little evidence that MVF activates
the mirror neuron system. MVF increases the excitability of the
ipsilateral
primary motor cortex (M1) that projects to the
“untrained” hand/arm. There is also evidence for ipsilateral projections
from
the contralateral M1 to the untrained/affected hand
as a consequence of training with MVF. Conclusion. MVF can
exert a strong influence on the motor network, mainly through increased
cognitive penetration in action control,
though the variance in methodology and the lack of
studies that shed light on the functional connectivity between areas
still
limit insight into the actual underlying
mechanisms.
No comments:
Post a Comment