Rosemary Ann Bosnell

University of Oxford, Oxford, ENG, United Kingdom

Are you Rosemary Ann Bosnell?

Claim your profile

Publications (2)14.5 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Transcranial direct current stimulation, a form of non-invasive brain stimulation, is showing increasing promise as an adjunct therapy in rehabilitation following stroke. However, although significant behavioural improvements have been reported in proof-of-principle studies, the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. The rationale for transcranial direct current stimulation as therapy for stroke is that therapeutic stimulation paradigms increase activity in ipsilesional motor cortical areas, but this has not previously been directly tested for conventional electrode placements. This study was performed to test directly whether increases in ipsilesional cortical activation with transcranial direct current stimulation are associated with behavioural improvements in chronic stroke patients. Patients at least 6 months post-first stroke participated in a behavioural experiment (n = 13) or a functional magnetic resonance imaging experiment (n = 11), each investigating the effects of three stimulation conditions in separate sessions: anodal stimulation to the ipsilesional hemisphere; cathodal stimulation to the contralesional hemisphere; and sham stimulation. Anodal (facilitatory) stimulation to the ipsilesional hemisphere led to significant improvements (5-10%) in response times with the affected hand in both experiments. This improvement was associated with an increase in movement-related cortical activity in the stimulated primary motor cortex and functionally interconnected regions. Cathodal (inhibitory) stimulation to the contralesional hemisphere led to a functional improvement only when compared with sham stimulation. We show for the first time that the significant behavioural improvements produced by anodal stimulation to the ipsilesional hemisphere are associated with a functionally relevant increase in activity within the ipsilesional primary motor cortex in patients with a wide range of disabilities following stroke.
    Brain 12/2011; 135(Pt 1):276-84. · 10.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Motor practice is an important component of neurorehabilitation. Imaging studies in healthy individuals show that dynamic brain activation changes with practice. Defining patterns of functional brain plasticity associated with motor practice following stroke could guide rehabilitation. The authors aimed to test whether practice-related changes in brain activity differ after stroke and to explore spatial relationships between activity changes and patterns of structural degeneration. They studied 10 patients at least 6 months after left-hemisphere subcortical strokes and 18 healthy controls. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was acquired at baseline, and functional MRI (fMRI) was acquired during performance of a visuomotor tracking task before and after a 15-day period of practice of the same task. Smaller short-term practice effects at baseline correlated with lower fractional anisotropy in the posterior limbs of the internal capsule (PLIC) bilaterally in patients (t > 3; cluster P < .05). After 15 days of motor practice a Group × Time interaction (z > 2.3; cluster P < .05) was found in the basal ganglia, thalamus, inferior frontal gyrus, superior temporal gyrus, and insula. In these regions, healthy controls showed decreases and patients showed increases in activity with practice. Some regions of interest had a loss of white matter connectivity at baseline. Performance gains with motor practice can be associated with increased activity in regions that have been either directly or indirectly impaired by loss of connectivity. These results suggest that neurorehabilitation interventions may be associated with compensatory adaptation of intact brain regions as well as enhanced activity in regions with impaired structural connectivity.
    Neurorehabilitation and neural repair 06/2011; 25(7):607-16. · 4.28 Impact Factor