Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Apr 30:13:402.
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00402. eCollection 2019.

Does Sensory Retraining Improve Sensation and Sensorimotor Function Following Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ines Serrada  1 , Brenton Hordacre  1 , Susan L Hillier  1   2
Affiliations

Does Sensory Retraining Improve Sensation and Sensorimotor Function Following Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ines Serrada et al. Front Neurosci. .

Abstract

Background: Reduced sensation is experienced by one in two individuals following stroke, impacting both the ability to function independently and overall quality of life. Repetitive activation of sensory input using active and passive sensory-based interventions have been shown to enhance adaptive motor cortical plasticity, indicating a potential mechanism which may mediate recovery. However, rehabilitation specifically focusing on somatosensory function receives little attention. Objectives: To investigate sensory-based interventions reported in the literature and determine the effectiveness to improve sensation and sensorimotor function of individuals following stroke. Methods: Electronic databases and trial registries were searched from inception until November 2018, in addition to hand searching systematic reviews. Study selection included randomized controlled trials for adults of any stroke type with an upper and/or lower limb sensorimotor impairment. Participants all received a sensory-based intervention designed to improve activity levels or impairment, which could be compared with usual care, sham, or another intervention. The primary outcomes were change in activity levels related to sensorimotor function. Secondary outcomes were measures of impairment, participation or quality of life. Results: A total of 38 study trials were included (n = 1,093 participants); 29 explored passive sensory training (somatosensory; peripheral nerve; afferent; thermal; sensory amplitude electrical stimulation), 6 active (sensory discrimination; perceptual learning; sensory retraining) and 3 hybrid (haptic-based augmented reality; sensory-based feedback devices). Meta-analyses (13 comparisons; 385 participants) demonstrated a moderate effect in favor of passive sensory training on improving a range of upper and lower limb activity measures following stroke. Narrative syntheses were completed for studies unable to be pooled due to heterogeneity of measures or insufficient data, evidence for active sensory training is limited however does show promise in improving sensorimotor function following stroke. Conclusions: Findings from the meta-analyses and single studies highlight some support for the effectiveness of passive sensory training in relation to sensory impairment and motor function. However, evidence for active sensory training continues to be limited. Further high-quality research with rigorous methods (adequately powered with consistent outcome measures) is required to determine the effectiveness of sensory retraining in stroke rehabilitation, particularly for active sensory training.

Keywords: occupational therapy; physiotherapy; recovery of function; rehabilitation; sensory; stroke.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram of the review process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Assessment of risk of bias presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Risk of bias summary for each included study.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Byl N., Roderick J., Mohamed O., Hanny M., Kotler J., Smith A., et al. . (2003). Effectiveness of sensory and motor rehabilitation of the upper limb following the principles of neuroplasticity: patients stable poststroke. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair. 17, 176–191. 10.1177/0888439003257137 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cambier D. C., De Corte E., Danneels L. A., Witvrouw E. E. (2003). Treating sensory impairments in the post-stroke upper limb with intermittent pneumatic compression. Results of a preliminary trial. Clin. Rehabil. 17, 14–20. 10.1191/0269215503cr580oa - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cameirão M. S., Badia S. B., Duarte E., Frisoli A., Verschure P. F. (2012). The combined impact of virtual reality neurorehabilitation and its interfaces on upper extremity functional recovery in patients with chronic stroke. Stroke 43, 2720–2728. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.653196 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carey L. (2014). Core concepts in sensory impairment and recovery after stroke, in Stroke: Interventions to Support Occupational Performance, eds Wolf T. J. and Giles G. M. (Annapolis, MD: AOTA Press; ), 95–118.
    1. Carey L. M. (1995). Somatosensory loss after stroke. Crit. Rev. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 7, 51–91. 10.1615/CritRevPhysRehabilMed.v7.i1.40 - DOI

Publication types