Dataset Information

A quantitative meta-analysis and review of motor learning in the human brain.

ABSTRACT: Neuroimaging studies have improved our understanding of which brain structures are involved in motor learning. Despite this, questions remain regarding the areas that contribute consistently across paradigms with different task demands. For instance, sensorimotor tasks focus on learning novel movement kinematics and dynamics, while serial response time task (SRTT) variants focus on sequence learning. These differing task demands are likely to elicit quantifiably different patterns of neural activity on top of a potentially consistent core network. The current study identified consistent activations across 70 motor learning experiments using activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analysis. A global analysis of all tasks revealed a bilateral cortical-subcortical network consistently underlying motor learning across tasks. Converging activations were revealed in the dorsal premotor cortex, supplementary motor cortex, primary motor cortex, primary somatosensory cortex, superior parietal lobule, thalamus, putamen and cerebellum. These activations were broadly consistent across task specific analyses that separated sensorimotor tasks and SRTT variants. Contrast analysis indicated that activity in the basal ganglia and cerebellum was significantly stronger for sensorimotor tasks, while activity in cortical structures and the thalamus was significantly stronger for SRTT variants. Additional conjunction analyses then indicated that the left dorsal premotor cortex was activated across all analyses considered, even when controlling for potential motor confounds. The highly consistent activation of the left dorsal premotor cortex suggests it is a critical node in the motor learning network.

SUBMITTER: Hardwick RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3555187 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A quantitative meta-analysis and review of motor learning in the human brain.

Hardwick Robert M RM Rottschy Claudia C Miall R Chris RC Eickhoff Simon B SB

NeuroImage 20121127

Neuroimaging studies have improved our understanding of which brain structures are involved in motor learning. Despite this, questions remain regarding the areas that contribute consistently across paradigms with different task demands. For instance, sensorimotor tasks focus on learning novel movement kinematics and dynamics, while serial response time task (SRTT) variants focus on sequence learning. These differing task demands are likely to elicit quantifiably different patterns of neural acti ...[more]

PMID: 23194819

Similar Datasets

Project description:Many stroke patients experience difficulty with performing dual-tasks. A promising intervention to target this issue is implicit motor learning, as it should enhance patients' automaticity of movement. Yet, although it is often thought that implicit motor learning is preserved post-stroke, evidence for this claim has not been systematically analysed yet. Therefore, we systematically reviewed whether implicit motor learning is preserved post-stroke, and whether patients benefit more from implicit than from explicit motor learning. We comprehensively searched conventional (MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, PEDro, PsycINFO) and grey literature databases (BIOSIS, Web of Science, OpenGrey, British Library, trial registries) for relevant reports. Two independent reviewers screened reports, extracted data, and performed a risk of bias assessment. Overall, we included 20 out of the 2177 identified reports that allow for a succinct evaluation of implicit motor learning. Of these, only 1 study investigated learning on a relatively complex, whole-body (balance board) task. All 19 other studies concerned variants of the serial-reaction time paradigm, with most of these focusing on learning with the unaffected hand (N = 13) rather than the affected hand or both hands (both: N = 4). Four of the 20 studies compared explicit and implicit motor learning post-stroke. Meta-analyses suggest that patients with stroke can learn implicitly with their unaffected side (mean difference (MD) = 69 ms, 95% CI[45.1, 92.9], p < .00001), but not with their affected side (standardized MD = -.11, 95% CI[-.45, .25], p = .56). Finally, implicit motor learning seemed equally effective as explicit motor learning post-stroke (SMD = -.54, 95% CI[-1.37, .29], p = .20). However, overall, the high risk of bias, small samples, and limited clinical relevance of most studies make it impossible to draw reliable conclusions regarding the effect of implicit motor learning strategies post-stroke. High quality studies with larger samples are warranted to test implicit motor learning in clinically relevant contexts.

Project description:BackgroundRecent studies have reported that machine learning (ML), with a relatively strong capacity for processing non-linear data and adaptive ability, could improve the accuracy and efficiency of prediction. The article summarizes the published studies on ML models that predict motor function 3-6 months post-stroke.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochorane and Web of Science as of April 3, 2023 for studies on ML prediction of motor function in stroke patients. The quality of the literature was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). A random-effects model was preferred for meta-analysis using R4.2.0 because of the different variables and parameters.ResultsA total of 44 studies were included in this meta-analysis, involving 72,368 patients and 136 models. Models were categorized into subgroups according to the predicted outcome Modified Rankin Scale cut-off value and whether they were constructed based on radiomics. C-statistics, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. The random-effects model showed that the C-statistics of all models were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.79; 0.83) in the training set and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.80; 0.85) in the validation set. According to different Modified Rankin Scale cut-off values, C-statistics of ML models predicting Modified Rankin Scale>2(used most widely) in stroke patients were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78; 0.84) in the training set, and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.81; 0.87) in the validation set. C-statistics of radiomics-based ML models in the training set and validation set were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78; 0.84) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83; 0.90), respectively.ConclusionML can be used as an assessment tool for predicting the motor function in patients with 3-6 months of post-stroke. Additionally, the study found that ML models with radiomics as a predictive variable were also demonstrated to have good predictive capabilities. This systematic review provides valuable guidance for the future optimization of ML prediction systems that predict poor motor outcomes in stroke patients.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022335260, identifier: CRD42022335260.

Project description:Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) can provide sensory feedback of ongoing brain oscillations, enabling stroke survivors to modulate their sensorimotor rhythms purposefully. A number of recent clinical studies indicate that repeated use of such BCIs might trigger neurological recovery and hence improvement in motor function. Here, we provide a first meta-analysis evaluating the clinical effectiveness of BCI-based post-stroke motor rehabilitation. Trials were identified using MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PEDro and by inspection of references in several review articles. We selected randomized controlled trials that used BCIs for post-stroke motor rehabilitation and provided motor impairment scores before and after the intervention. A random-effects inverse variance method was used to calculate the summary effect size. We initially identified 524 articles and, after removing duplicates, we screened titles and abstracts of 473 articles. We found 26 articles corresponding to BCI clinical trials, of these, there were nine studies that involved a total of 235 post-stroke survivors that fulfilled the inclusion criterion (randomized controlled trials that examined motor performance as an outcome measure) for the meta-analysis. Motor improvements, mostly quantified by the upper limb Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA-UE), exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID=5.25) in six BCI studies, while such improvement was reached only in three control groups. Overall, the BCI training was associated with a standardized mean difference of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.37 to 1.20) in FMA-UE compared to control conditions, which is in the range of medium to large summary effect size. In addition, several studies indicated BCI-induced functional and structural neuroplasticity at a subclinical level. This suggests that BCI technology could be an effective intervention for post-stroke upper limb rehabilitation. However, more studies with larger sample size are required to increase the reliability of these results.

Dataset Information

A quantitative meta-analysis and review of motor learning in the human brain.

Publications

A quantitative meta-analysis and review of motor learning in the human brain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets