Repetitive Recovery and Rehabilitation

Modern clinical rehab research has confirmed what many rehabilitation clinicians have assumed to be true: Post-stroke motor recovery requires repetitive practice (RP). Many clinicians use RP as a tool to restore movement. But as is true with many core concepts in stroke recovery is also true with regard to RP. Namely, what rehab research reveals and what rehab clinicians use are two very different things. Bottom line: The fly in the ointment is the amount. Clinicians in rehab don't encourage enough repetitions.

The absolute minimum number of repetitions needed to drive cortical changes (brain rewiring) for a single joint movement is approximately 2,000. If it's a multiplanar, multi-joint movement, the numbers are in the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of repetitions. Researchers in neuroscience talk about more than that; often the number of repetitions needed for quality movement is in the millions.

How many repetitions do clinicians in rehabilitation typically ask stroke survivors to perform per session? Studies in which clinicians are observed as they work with stroke survivors show that patients typically attempt approximately 50 repetitions in the average therapy session. A stroke survivor would need 40 sessions to get enough RP for a single joint.

I strongly advocate offloading much of the work to the person who owns the nervous system in question-the survivor. That is, to get enough RP to provide robust enough brain rewiring to promote quality movement, much of the work must be done when the survivor is not with the clinician. And this is a problem because many clinicians believe that if stroke survivors are encouraged to move without proper guidance, they'll use the stereotypical patterns available (called synergistic movement). If used enough, so the thinking goes, these movement patterns will be ingrained and the "incorrect" movement will never be unlearned. This perspective, reduced, sounds weird: "The more you move, the worse you'll get." It sounds weird because it erodes a foundational belief of the therapies: Exercise helps the brain and body heal.

It is true that repetitive practice of wrong movement will lead to more wrong movement. In athletes the idea of "bad practice leads to bad performance" is well known. This is why athletes strive to practice with perfect form. Stroke survivors are no different. Unless there is a precise evaluation of movement deficits, there's no way to tell what should be practiced. When it comes to movement, quality matters. And quality matters for many reasons, because bad movement:

• Takes more energy than good movement;

• Takes more time than good movement;

• Can lead to injuries;

• Can lead to a lack of enjoyment of a wide range of activities;

• Looks bad, which has social implications.

So how does a stroke survivor reverse "bad practice leads to that movement?" That is, how do you do "good practice" that leads to "good movement?"

My lab work has focused on stroke-specific outcome measures testing post-stroke movement. I used a laundry list of these outcome measures. 

They are often complicated and require special equipment. We also use movement analysis laboratories that collect thousands of bits of data to determine whether movement is increasing or decreasing in quality. Finally, we use technologies like functional magnetic resonance imaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation to determine whether the part of the brain dedicated to movement is expanding.

But what of my earlier suggestion of offloading much of the work onto the survivor? Because it takes so many repetitions to drive robust change, they are to do much of the work. So stroke survivors must evaluate their own movement. And once they evaluate the movement, they must adjust according to the evaluation. For the stroke survivor trying to improve quality of movement, some of the simplest "data collection" works quite well.

• Using mirrors to provide real-time feedback can be helpful. Using a mirror at the end of a treadmill can provide insight into the quality of gait. 
• In the upper extremity, it is helpful to use the "good" side to remind yourself what "normal" looks like.
• Videotaping specific movements throughout the arc of recovery can be helpful as well. Video provides a chronological log of where you were and where you are now, and can suggest what to work on next.

It comes down to a lot of the right kind of practice. As Vince Lombardi put it, "Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect."

DIY Stroke Recovery

There is a common suggestion among many in the "alternative medicine" industry expressed in the question: "If it means less business, why would your doctor want you to be healthy?" A strict emphasis on healthy lifestyle including diet and exercise would be like the proverbial "apple a day" - keeping the doctor away.

Doctors who do this - who keep themselves away as much as they can - are the best doctors. And therapists who "keep themselves away" are the best therapists.

Many pathologies allow for a definitive discharge point. The patient who has had a knee replacement gets therapy, and then goes home to live the rest of his life. But neurological disorders are different. Many, from Parkinson's disease to multiple sclerosis, are progressive. But what of non-progressive neurological disorders like stroke and traumatic brain injury? Does this "apple a day" philosophy work? Is there a point at which these populations no longer need therapists?

Many patients with brain injury (including stroke) believe that they will always need therapists. Most see therapists as essential to the recovery process, no matter how long (months, years, decades) it takes for them to achieve their highest level of potential recovery. But this view is incorrect.

There is a point at which therapists are no longer the fulcrum for recovery. Nor should they be, for reasons that range from financial to practical. At discharge stroke survivors are, and should be, in complete control of their own recovery. During the chronic phase of recovery from stroke, the speed of recovery slows. The physiological action of recovery is based on a lot of self-directed hard work. Much of what is required is relatively simple, and revolves around the broad concept of repetitive practice. In order to take charge, stroke survivors need to be given the tools to initiate and follow an "upward spiral of recovery." This term is used to describe the path to the highest level of potential recovery. The "upward spiral of recovery" is driven by real-life demands for everything from coordination to cardiovascular strength.

Two Roads Diverged...

There are two ways to go after stroke: 
1. Compensation (technically: The compensatory approach)
2. Recovery (technically: The restorative approach)

Compensation involves getting on with your life by any means necessary. If your right hand doesn't work, you do everything with your left hand. If you can't walk because your foot drops, you put on an AFO. If you have trouble speaking, there's an app  for that.

Recovery involves using the intact part of the brain to take over for the "stroked" part of the brain.

It would be nice to say that the focus of clinical rehabilitation is on recovery. But for the most part, managed care only pays for compensation. Insurance companies want to get the survivor safe, functional, and out the door. Why do they want the survivor safe? Because an unsafe survivor will cost them more money down the road (think falls). Why do they want the survivor out the door? Because every day in any clinical setting costs a ton of money. But while survivors also want to be safe, and out the door, is it in their best interest to be "functional"?

On the face of it, sure, survivors want to be able to function. "Function" is a catchall word that means "getting on with your life." And it's seductive. Everyone wants to be functional. Everyone wants to be independent, and able to function.

But there is a problem with function. And it's not just a generalized idea that if you "focus on function" you'll ignore recovery. It's a very specific concept based in neuroscience.

It would make sense that if you focus on learning compensation, you would spend less time on recovery. And this would mean that you would become better at compensation, but less recovered. But it's more than just a time issue. It's a brain issue.

It turns out that something special happens to the brain after stroke. The brain is in an almost "infantile state" after stroke (in fact, after any brain injury). And "infantile state" is a good thing. The brain, through a release of special proteins is "primed" for learning— like an infant's brain. But what will it learn?

Well, it could learn to compensate. If you are right-handed and you have limited use of your right hand after stroke, the brain could learn to compensate. Your left hand would be doing a whole bunch of things never did before. The left hand is now handwriting, attempting to tie shoes, brushing the hair and teeth, and dressing. And it's doing it all alone — no right hand to help. So during this period in which the brain is "primed" for learning, the left hand does all the learning.

But if the focus is not compensation, but recovery, there will be more recovery. The brain is "primed" for learning, and it learns to recover.

Gotcha. Can't win, don't try.

Bill a stroke survivor has trouble putting on headphones. 

He is able to get the headphones on using just his "good" side. Here's how he does it: First an earpiece on the "good" side and then use the same hand to move the other over to his "bad" side ear. 

Now let's say instead of using only the "good side" he uses both sides. His "good side" hand picks up the headphones, and then his "bad side" hand grasps the other side of the headphones and he puts them on. But in order to get the "bad side" involved he has to do a bunch of weird movements. He hikes up his shoulder, pulls his arm away from his body, and uses an awkward grasp to put the headphone on his ear.

Which do you think would be better? Which would be better in the short run? Which would be better in the long run?

In the short run it may be better to do it with just the "good" arm. It might be quicker, and take less effort. 

But in the long run what would be the effect? First of all he'll never learn how to use both arms for that skill. Also, since he's only using the "good" side for that movement, all the other tasks that use similar movements would not be practiced. And a lot of things use that same movement (Brushing teeth and hair, shaving, feeding, etc.) So he'd have less practice specific to putting on headphones, and then less carryover of that task to other tasks.

But here's the funny part: There are a lot of therapists who believe that he should do it one-handed. The thinking is this: The movement needed to complete the task of both arms is "bad" movement. 

And, so the thinking goes, the more "bad" movement that you use, the more that "bad" movement will be "ingrained". Like a bad habit.

This idea, that "bad" movement should not be encouraged always struck me strange on the face of it. This is the thinking: "The more you move the worse you'll get." 

But everything we know about the brain suggests exactly the opposite. The more you practice something the better you get.

There is a weird assumption that is made: You will never try to move better, you will only use the "bad" movement forevermore. The idea is, survivors don't know what good movement is. Because survivors don't know what good movement is, you need a therapist there to correct you. Which... I don't know about you... sounds like it'll cost you a lot of money.

But let's say they're right. Let's say that if you do the task with both arms you would never do it "correctly." Now you have a decision to make. Do you do it "incorrectly" for the rest of your life, or do you not try to use the "bad" arm?

It was me, I would make the decision to use the "bad" arm. Why? Well first of all I stand a much better chance of learning to move the "bad" side better if I use it in every day tasks... every day. Second, movements from one task can feed forward to other tasks that used similar movements. So I might retrain not just for one task, but for a whole bunch of tasks. Third, I don't let the whole portion of my brain "lie fallow" and not do anything. The brain hates not doing anything. The brain goes through what's called "a pruning of the dendritic arbor." It's a fancy way of saying "use it or lose it." If a portion of the brain is not used, the neurons in that part of the brain start to shrink -- or "prune."

But there's another important reason to use any movement you have. Maybe, at the "end of the day" the task remains awkward and uncoordinated. So what? How many people play golf, enjoy it, but don't play perfectly (all of us)? How many people ski, and enjoy it, and don't have perfect form? What about music, or painting, or writing...

Bart: You make me sick, Homer. You're the one that told me I could do anything if I just put my mind to it.
Homer: Well now that you're a little bit older I can tell you that's a crock. No matter how good you are at something, there's always about a million people better than you.
Bart: Gotcha. Can't win, don't try.

 

 This is my suggestion: Continue trying to do everything. And every time you do it try to make it a little bit better.  

Everybody wants to be an expert before they start. But to become an expert involves a lot of hard work. May as well begin now...

 By: "stroke recovery blog" "stroke blog"