Kari Dunning, Ashley Berberich, Bethany Albers, Kelly Mortellite, Peter G Levine, Valerie A Hill Hermann, Stephen J Page

Case Report A Four-Week, Task-Specific Neuroprosthesis Program for a Person With No Active Wrist or Finger Movement Because of Chronic Stroke Kari Dunning, Ashley Berberich, Bethany Albers, Kelly Mortellite, Peter G Levine, Valerie A Hill Hermann, Stephen J Page Background and Purpose This case report describes a task-specific training protocol incorporating functional electrical stimulation for a person who had chronic stroke and who initially exhibited no active wrist or finger movement. Case Description A 63-year-old man with hemiparesis caused by an ischemic stroke 7 years before the intervention described here received task-specific training incorporating an electrical stimulation neuroprosthesis 3 hours per day, 5 days per week, for 4 weeks. Testing was conducted before and after the intervention and again 6 weeks later with stroke-specific outcome measures. Outcomes Increases in function and quality of life were observed after the intervention. Discussion An intervention incorporating task-specific training with functional electrical stimulation appears to have increased function and quality of life in a person with chronic stroke. This type of intervention might provide a pathway by which people with similar impairments would become eligible for more advanced treatment regimens, such as modified constraint-induced therapy. K Dunning, PT, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Allied Health Sciences, University of Cincinnati Academic Medical Center, 3202 Eden Ave, Cincinnati, OH 45220-0394 (USA), and Director of Clinical Research, Drake Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. Address all correspondence to Dr Dunning at: kari.dunning@uc.edu. A Berberich, BS, is a graduate student in the Health Promotion and Education Program, College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. She was an undergraduate health science student in the Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Allied Health Sciences, University of Cincinnati Academic Medical Center at the time of this research. B Albers, BS, is a Doctor of Physical Therapy student in the Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Cincinnati. She was an undergraduate health science student in the Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Allied Health Sciences, University of Cincinnati Academic Medical Center at the time of this research. K Mortellite, BS, is a Doctor of Physical Therapy student in the Doctor of Physical Therapy Division, Department of Family and Community Medicine, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC. She was an undergraduate health science student in the Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Allied Health Sciences, University of Cincinnati Academic Medical Center at the time of this research. PG Levine, PTA, BA, is Principal Research Assistant, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Allied Health Sciences, University of Cincinnati Academic Medical Center, and Co-Director, Neuromotor Recovery and Rehabilitation Laboratory, Drake Center. VA Hill Hermann, OT, MS, is Research Occupational Therapist, Neuromotor Recovery and Rehabilitation Laboratory, Drake Center. SJ Page, PhD, is Associate Professor of Rehabilitation Sciences, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and Neurosciences, University of Cincinnati Academic Medical Center, and Director, Neuromotor Recovery and Rehabilitation Laboratory, Drake Center. [Dunning K, Berberich A, Albers B, et al. A four-week, task-specific neuroprosthesis program for a person with no active wrist or finger movement because of chronic stroke. Phys Ther. 2008;88:397 405.] 2008 American Physical Therapy Association Post a Rapid Response or find The Bottom Line: www.ptjournal.org March 2008 Volume 88 Number 3 Physical Therapy f 397

Stroke, the leading cause of disability in the United States, 1 can cause lifelong impairments that significantly compromise quality of life. 2 Conventional treatments, such as neurodevelopmental techniques, have not been shown to be efficacious in improving upper-extremity function. 3 The results of studies with lesion-bearing animals 4,5 and humans without disabilities 6,7 have suggested that repeated task-specific arm and hand use conveys motor learning via cortical reorganization. Newer therapies incorporating task-specific protocols, such as modified constraintinduced therapy (CIT) and mental practice, have been shown to be efficacious and can be easily implemented in clinical situations. 8,9 However, it has been estimated that only 20% to 25% of people with chronic stroke have the active wrist or finger movement needed for CIT. 10 Thus, there remains a critical need for efficacious clinical interventions for people with stroke and exhibiting little movement in their affected wrist and fingers. Recent data suggested that surface neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), administered twice per weekday over an 8-week period, increases active wrist extension in people with stroke and initially exhibiting flaccid wrists and fingers. 11 Although there were no increases in function as a result of NMES, gains in active range of motion (AROM) were sufficient for patients to then participate in modified CIT, and functional movement was restored. 12 Clinically, these findings suggest that a therapist should send a patient with no active wrist or finger movement home with an NMES unit for a time before initiating taskspecific treatments. The limitations of conventional surface NMES include difficulty with consistent, reproducible electrode placement with repeated treatments. In addition, for a patient with no wrist or finger AROM, NMES does not provide support of the wrist into extension to facilitate the optimum reach, grasp, and release movement necessary to perform a number of task-specific activities. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) delivered through a neuroprosthesis has the potential to overcome these limitations. In a previous study with an FES neuroprosthesis and task-specific activities, functional improvements were shown for people with acute or chronic stroke and initially demonstrating at least 10 degrees of AROM extension in the wrist and at least 2 fingers. 13 That study concluded that future studies should evaluate chronic post stroke hemiplegia subjects and... patients with a major disability. 13(p755) A new, noninvasive neuroprosthesis has provided synchronized, precise, and reliable activation of affected arm flexor and extensor muscles during the performance of activities of daily living (ADL). Limited studies with this device have shown increased wrist passive range of motion (PROM), decreased spasticity (as measured with the Ashworth scale), and increased function in people with chronic stroke and with some initial wrist or finger AROM. 14 16 Given the aforementioned effect of surface stimulation in flaccid stroke, 11,12 we wondered whether intensive, task-specific, repetitive ADL training with the neuroprosthesis might increase function in a patient with no active movement in the wrist or fingers. Clinically, such training might facilitate a faster recovery (as opposed to sending the patient home with an NMES unit before working on task-specific activities). Therefore, we evaluated how a combination of FES (with a neuroprosthesis) and task-specific training would affect function and quality of life in a person who had sustained a stroke several years before the implementation of this therapy and who exhibited no wrist or finger AROM. Case Description Patient History and Characteristics We selected for treatment a patient with the following characteristics: (1) no active extension in the affected wrist and fingers, (2) stroke experienced more than 3 months before treatment, (3) score of 25 (out of 30) on the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination, 17 (4) age of more than 35 years but less than 85 years, (5) occurrence of only one stroke, and (6) discharge from all forms of physical rehabilitation. The following characteristics were avoided in the selection of the patient: (1) participation in any experimental rehabilitation or drug studies; (2) pregnancy; (3) uncontrolled seizure disorders; (4) excessive spasticity at the affected elbow, wrist, or fingers, defined as a score of 3 on the Modified Ashworth Spasticity Scale 18 ; and (5) excessive pain in the affected arm, as measured by a score of 4 on a 10-point visual analog scale. A volunteer contacted us in response to an announcement made at a local stroke support group with these criteria in mind. Before being screened and receiving the intervention, the patient signed an informed consent form approved by the local institutional review board. He was a 63-year-old white man who had had an ischemic stroke 7 years earlier and who exhibited right-arm hemiparesis. He was righthand dominant but reported not using his right hand since the stroke. After his stroke, he received 10 weeks of inpatient rehabilitation followed by 3 months of outpatient speech therapy. After discharge, he received speech therapy for an additional 3 months. He had not received any additional therapy since completing his speech therapy. At the start of our treatment program, he 398 f Physical Therapy Volume 88 Number 3 March 2008

Figure 1. Bioness H-200. was taking medications for high blood pressure and high cholesterol, and he had a history of angina. He lived alone and received help with household chores from a friend. Because of his affected arm impairment, he did not cook and ate out at every meal. He did not actively use his hand for any activities. He ambulated independently without an ankle-foot orthosis or an assistive device. He exhibited expressive aphasia. His goal was to return to his prestroke function, although he admitted he did not expect this would happen. His goals were to make a sandwich so that he could eat lunch at home, iron his shirts, eat finger food, use his computer, and write with his right hand. He was selected for the intervention because he met our criteria described above and was motivated and willing to follow through with the intervention guidelines. At the time of screening, the patient s scores on the Modified Ashworth Spasticity Scale were 1 (elbow), 1 (wrist), 2 (fingers), and 0 (thumb). The patient had never been administered antispasticity medications. The Modified Mini-Mental State Examination score was 30 out of 30. Before the intervention, a licensed and board-certified neurological clinical specialist (physical therapist) evaluated the patient to assess upper extremity sensation, range of motion (ROM), and strength (force-generating capacity). There was no indication of upper-limb contractures, and PROM was normal, without pain. The patient s unaffected (left) upper extremity exhibited normal ROM and strength. He was able to actively flex and abduct his right shoulder 80 degrees but not without elbow flexion, indicating flexor synergy. Wrist flexion and extension were present at trace levels, and there was no active movement of the fingers. Apparatus The patient used the Bioness H-200 system* (Fig. 1) as part of a structured task-specific program. The Bioness H-200 is a microprocessor-based, US Food and Drug Administrationapproved NMES device. It comprises 3 sizes of a forearm-hand molded orthosis and contains an array of 5 surface electrodes ranging in size from 2 2 to6 4 cm. The electrodes are positioned over the extensor digitorum, extensor pollicis brevis, flexor * Bioness Inc, 25134 Rye Canyon Loop, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. March 2008 Volume 88 Number 3 Physical Therapy f 399

digitorum superficialis, flexor pollicis longus, and thenar muscles. Electrode positioning within the orthosis is custom determined for each patient to optimize the contraction of the wrist and finger flexor and extensor muscles. Once the optimal position is determined, the 5 electrodes are secured within the orthosis. This individualized electrode positioning makes it very easy for the patient to receive a consistent level of stimulation every day. The device delivered alternating current at a carrier frequency of 11 KHz, time modulated to 36 bursts per second. The stimulator was set in an interrupted-pulse mode with the contraction and relaxation intervals set at 7 seconds on and 7 seconds off. Two seconds of ramping up and ramping down were included in the 7-second time intervals. The microprocessor was programmed to stimulate finger/wrist extension for 60% of each session and to alternate between finger/wrist flexion and finger/wrist extension for 40% of each session. Outcome Measures The upper-extremity subscale of the Fugl-Meyer Scale (FM) 19 was used to determine whether changes occurred in affected arm impairment. The FM assesses several dimensions of impairment, including ROM, pain, sensation, and movement. Items are scored on a 3-point ordinal scale (0 cannot perform, 2 can perform fully), and item scores are summed to provide a maximum score of 66. The FM, as assessed using Pearson product moment correlation coefficients or Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients, offers good test-retest reliability (total.98.99, subtests.87 1.00) and construct validity. 20,21 The FM has been used extensively in studies measuring recovery and is recommended for trials designed to evaluate changes in motor impairment following stroke. 22(p239) The Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) 23 was used to determine whether fine motor skill changes occurred in the affected hand and fingers. The ARAT is a 19-item test divided into 4 categories (grasp, grip, pinch, and gross movement). Each item is graded on a 4-point ordinal scale (0 can perform no part of the test, 1 performs test partially, 2 completes test but takes an abnormally long time or has great difficulty, and 3 performs test normally), for a possible total score of 57. The test is hierarchical in that if a patient is able to perform the most difficult skill in each category, he or she will be able to perform the other items in that category and, thus, they need not be tested. The ARAT has high intrarater reliability (r.99) and retest reliability (r.98) and validity. 24 The Arm Motor Activity Test (AMAT) 25 was used to determine whether changes occurred in the ability to perform valued ADL with the affected arm. The AMAT is a 13- item test in which ADL are rated according to a functional ability scale that examines affected limb use (0 does not perform with affected arm, 5 uses arm at a level comparable to that on unaffected side) and a quality-of-movement scale (0 no movement initiated, 5 normal movement). The ADL, which are further subdivided into subactivities to be rated, include the use of a knife and fork, eating with a spoon, combing hair, and tying shoelaces. The AMAT is a valid, stable, and reliable scale and correlates positively with other stroke-specific functional scales. 25 The Motor Activity Log (MAL) 26 was used to determine whether changes occurred in the use of the affected limb. The MAL is a semistructured interview measuring how patients use their affected limbs for ADL. The patient rated how much and how well he used the affected arm for 30 ADL during the preceding week with a 6-point amount scale and a 6-point how well scale. In order to further determine effect on independence in daily activities, the how well scale was categorized into dependent (0 2) and independent (3 5) functions. The Stroke Impact Scale 2.0 (SIS) 27 was used to measure changes in stroke-specific quality of life. This scale is a 64-item self-report measure assessing 8 domains (strength, hand function, basic and instrumental ADL, mobility, communication, emotion, memory and thinking, and social participation). In a previous study, 27 the SIS domains were examined by comparing the SIS with existing stroke measures and by comparing differences in SIS scores across Rankin Scale levels. As determined with these techniques, each domain met or approached the standard of an alpha coefficient of.9 for comparing the same patients across time. 27 The intraclass correlation coefficients for test-retest reliability ranged from.70 to.92. 27 The Box and Block Test was used to measure disability. This test is a timed grasp and release test in which patients are seated in front of a box with a large partition separating it into 2 equal squares. Colored blocks are situated on one side of the partition, and patients are asked to move as many blocks as possible from one side to the other with the affected hand. This test has been found to be both valid and reliable. 28 Preintervention Testing and Intervention One week after the patient signed the approved consent form and 2 weeks before the intervention, preintervention testing was performed 400 f Physical Therapy Volume 88 Number 3 March 2008

with the above-described outcome measures. All measures were administered by a rater who was unaware of the type, duration, or nature of the intervention that the patient was to receive. After preintervention testing was complete, the patient was oriented to the electrical stimulation device during a 1-hour education session with a therapist member of the research team. After demonstrating safe and correct use, the patient took the device home for 1 week. During this 1-week ramp-up period, the device was used every day, beginning with 10 minutes, until the patient was able to use the device for a full 30 minutes on the seventh and final day. Based on the task-specific, affected arm training protocol described by Dettmers and colleagues, 29 our taskspecific, repetitive training regimen was administered 3 hours per day, 5 days per week (weekdays), for a total of 20 weekdays. With the use of this treatment schedule for people with chronic stroke and with at least 20 degrees of wrist extension AROM and 10 degrees of finger extension, Dettmers et al 29 reported improved function, strength, and spasticity. Our sessions were conducted in a private therapy room, were supervised by a physical therapist, and began with approximately 15 minutes of stretching and stability exercises (based on the initial physical therapy evaluation). The remaining session time consisted of repeated practice of functional task-specific activities Table 1. Task-specific Activities During Treatment a Week Activity 1 Make sandwich Cut and eat food with utensils Grasp and transport objects of various sizes and shapes Cook with spoon and spatula Flip burgers 2 Continue above and progress Grasp, transport, and place objects of various sizes and shapes in tighter spaces Begin working on pinching and gripping (eg, key grip) 3 Continue above and progress Pick up large items (eg, tray) with both arms and carry while walking Iron Write 4 Continue above and progress Make sandwich without prosthesis Cut food with utensils without prosthesis Eat soup with spoon Button clothes a Unless otherwise specified, the tasks were practiced with the more affected arm and hand with the prosthesis. The tasks were chosen on the basis of the patient s goals. as shown in Table 1. Specific tasks were determined by the patient s motivation and feedback throughout the intervention. Postintervention Testing One week after the intervention was completed, the patient returned to the laboratory for postintervention testing. The same outcome measures were administered by the same examiner who had rated the patient s movement before the intervention. In addition, a structured interview was administered by a separate research team member to document the patient s perspective concerning the benefits and limitations of the intervention (interview questions are listed in Fig. 2). Six weeks later, the patient returned for final postintervention testing. Outcomes The patient was seen for a total of 18 sessions, with 1 session being missed because of snow and 1 session being missed because of a personal conflict. Although the patient tolerated 80 minutes of electrical stimulation during repetitive tasks at the first session, by the end of the intervention, he was fully participating in both What changes in your upper-extremity function have you noticed compared with function before the intervention? What were your goals at the start of the program? What do you believe you accomplished with the program? What did you like about the device? What did you not like about the device? What impact has the intervention had on your ability to use your affected hand? Other comments. Figure 2. Survey questions administered after the intervention. March 2008 Volume 88 Number 3 Physical Therapy f 401

Table 2. Fugl-Meyer Scale Motor and Coordination Scores Before and After Intervention Assessment Category a Score Before Test After Test After 6 wk Reflexes (4) 4 4 4 Flexor synergy (12) 9 9 9 Extensor synergy (6) 6 5 5 Movement combining synergies (6) 1 2 2 Movement out of synergy (6) 1 1 0 Wrist (10) 2 2 1 Hand (14) 2 5 5 Coordination/speed (6) 2 3 2 Total (66) 27 31 28 a Number in parentheses denotes total possible score on a given item. Table 3. Action Research Arm Test Scores Before and After Intervention Category Score Before Test After Test After 6 wk Grasp 5 6 6 Grip 7 7 7 Pinch 4 5 4 Gross motor 0 0 4 Total 16 18 21 Table 4. Stroke Impact Scale 2.0 Scores Before and After Intervention Item Score Before Test After Test After 6 wk Physical function Strength 50 25 25 Hand function 15 25 30 Activities of daily living 53 73 83 Mobility 64 94 97 Social participation 81 41 66 Communication 50 61 57 Memory and thinking 57 71 75 Emotion 39 47 58 electrical stimulation and repetitive tasks for nearly 3 hours. Before the intervention, the patient scored 27 on the FM (Tab. 2), 16 on the ARAT (Tab. 3), and 2.07 on the AMAT functional ability scale and was able to transfer 12 blocks in the Box and Block Test. The SIS scores are shown in Table 4. The MAL median amount scale score was 0.34; the patient indicated that he did not use his right arm at all (score of 0 on the how well scale) for 26 of the 30 functional tasks on the MAL. Immediately after the intervention, the FM score increased 14.8% (Tab. 2), the ARAT score increased 12.5% (Tab. 3), the AMAT functional ability scale score increased 3.9% (2.15), and the Box and Block Test score increased 25% (15). The SIS scores are shown in Table 4. The median MAL amount scale score increased to 1.17. Six MAL scores increased from not using the affected arm at all (0 on the how well scale) to using the affected arm independently (ranging from 3 to 5 on the how well scale); these activities included getting in and out of a car, opening a door by turning a knob, washing and drying hands, pulling a chair away from a table before sitting down, carrying an object from place to place, and eating a sandwich or finger foods. Six weeks after the intervention, the ARAT score continued to increase (Tab. 3), and gains on the MAL were retained. However, the FM (Tab. 2), AMAT, and Box and Block Test scores returned to baseline values. Throughout the intervention, the patient reported improvements in his ability to perform ADL, including being able to eat finger foods, make sandwiches, and iron shirts. The structured interview revealed that the patient could not perform ADL with his right hand before the intervention; after the intervention, 402 f Physical Therapy Volume 88 Number 3 March 2008

he reported improvements in holding onto a steering wheel, carrying his lunch tray with both hands, and using his hand to stabilize (eg, removing a straw). He reported that he enjoyed the treatment and believed that he could have continued to improve with more sessions. He said that he did not like the functional tasks initially, but then he understood that he could reach and grasp with the help of the electrical stimulation unit. He had no problems with frequency and duration, but did state that it was helpful to have a therapist watching him daily and providing feedback and motivation. He added that he would do another 4 weeks of the intervention if his hand would continue to improve. Discussion Although conventional treatment techniques, such as neurodevelopmental techniques, have not been shown to be efficacious, 3 newer regimens have shown promise. To our knowledge, though, few of these regimens have been evaluated in people with chronic stroke and with no active movement in the wrist or fingers. Here we report on the efficacy of a regimen combining FES with task-specific training in a person with no active wrist or finger movement because of chronic stroke. To our knowledge, this is the first report of the use of this combination protocol in such a patient. There have been limited studies on people with chronic stroke and with no active wrist or finger movement. Gabr et al 11 conducted a crossover randomized controlled trial of 12 people with chronic stroke and with trace wrist movement at baseline. Patients receiving home-based electrical stimulation 2 times per day for 8 weeks while practicing extension exercises showed increased wrist extension AROM (an average of 21 ) but no functional increases (ARAT). Gains were not retained after the crossover to 8 weeks of a home exercise program. Santos et al 30 conducted a crossover randomized controlled trial of 8 people with stroke and with little or no wrist movement. These 8 people received 30- minute daily sessions of NMES 5 times per week for 2 weeks. After 10 sessions of NMES incorporating grasping and releasing a tennis ball, patients demonstrated significantly increased scores on the FM, Jebsen Hand Function Test, and Box and Block Test. No carryover effects were seen at 10 days after treatment, with all outcome measures returning to baseline or lower values. Unlike the above protocols, our intervention incorporated task-specific activities based on the patient s goals as well as a longer-duration regimen. Although we did not use AROM as an outcome measure, the patient in our case description gained enough wrist active extension to be eligible for constraint-induced therapy, similar to the results reported by Gabr et al. 11 Also as in the above-described studies, 11,30 the patient in our case description did not retain increases in FM or Box and Block Test scores. However, not only were increases in the AMAT, MAL, and SIS scores retained, but the SIS and AMAT scores continued to increase up to 6 weeks after the intervention. Although the above-described studies did not use the SIS or MAL, precluding direct comparisons of findings, our findings suggest that the duration of our protocol, the use of a neuroprosthesis to administer the FES, or the emphasis on patient-motivated, task-specific activities allowed functional carryover beyond the intervention. Apart from duration and frequency, it is interesting to consider whether the observed effects were attributable to the FES, to the repetitive, taskspecific protocol, or to the combination. We believe that they were attributable to the combination. In the study of Gabr et al, 11 in which Neuroprosthesis in Chronic Stroke only NMES was provided to people with flaccid wrists or fingers, increased wrist extension AROM, but no change in function, was observed. Although we cannot determine whether task-specific activities alone would have resulted in changes, this is a moot point, because the patient in our case description was unable to perform task-specific activities without the FES neuroprosthesis (because of decreased active wrist and finger movement) at the beginning of the intervention. Because this appears to be the first report of the effects of the use of an FES neuroprosthesis on quality of life for a person with chronic stroke, a discussion of SIS changes is warranted. The majority of SIS scores improved with treatment and continued to improve for up to 6 weeks; these included hand function, ADL, mobility, and emotion scores (Tab. 4). Interestingly, the only SIS score that did not improve was strength, because of a decrease in self-assessed leg and foot/ankle strength during the intervention. This decrease in leg and foot/ankle strength may have been relative to the patient s self-reported improvement in hand function and grip. Hand function improved in several areas, including carrying heavy objects, turning a door knob, and picking up a dime. Opening a jar and tying shoelaces did not improve, and these findings were validated by no improvement for these ARAT tasks. Improvement in mobility included improved balance, faster walking, climbing stairs, and getting in and out of a car. These findings agree with the patient s reports of improved gait and balance during the intervention. Although several emotion scores increased, the greatest change was observed in feeling that you have nothing to look forward to (changed from all of the time to a little of the time ) and feeling that life is worth living (changed from a March 2008 Volume 88 Number 3 Physical Therapy f 403

little of the time to most of the time ). These findings are consistent with the patient s reports that the intervention gave the patient hope. The decrease observed for social participation was attributable to a limit in work and social activities, perhaps because of the intense 4-week treatment schedule, because this rating increased to the baseline value at 6 weeks after the intervention. It is possible that the attention from the therapist (both during treatment and at the follow-up evaluation) was a catalyst in improving some of the quality-of-life components. We believe that this possibility is unlikely, however, for 2 reasons. The 6-week follow-up evaluation was conducted in the same way and by the same therapist as the baseline and postintervention evaluations. In addition, the SIS is self-administered, further decreasing the effect that a testing therapist may have on the outcome. If the attention given by the treating therapist had affected the SIS, then we would have expected the SIS scores to return to baseline values at the 6-week follow-up; this was not the case. Immediately after treatment, the score on one item of the SIS decreased (as described above). Interestingly, the patient reported improved gait and balance during the intervention; as mentioned above, these findings were reflected in the SIS scores. One possible explanation is that improved arm function resulted in improved gait (eg, arm swing and balance). Alternatively, it is possible that the improvements were attributable to increased activity (eg, transportation and walking needed to attend daily laboratory sessions). This possibility was less likely for our patient because he ambulated very actively in the community before the intervention and stated that he ate out every day. The improvements observed in the patient in this case description may have been attributable to cortical reorganization, as previous studies reported cortical reorganization with short periods of task-specific training. 4 7 The improvements also may have been attributable to increased wrist and finger strength, ROM, and control. During the third week of treatment, the patient gained enough wrist and finger control to start practicing functional tasks not involving heavy lifting (eg, making a sandwich) without the neuroprosthesis for short periods of time. Future work with other patients will examine these possibilities in more detail, and neuroimaging will be applied to examine hypothesized mechanisms. Conclusion A repetitive task-specific training program combined with FES appeared to increase affected upperextremity function and quality of life in a person with no active wrist or finger movement 7 years after stroke. To our knowledge, this is the first report of the efficacy of a regimen combining task-specific training with FES in a person with no active wrist or finger movement because of chronic stroke. This intervention has the potential to improve function in people with stroke and little movement in their wrists and fingers and perhaps to provide a window during which patients could participate in more advanced treatment regimens that require initial movement (eg, CIT, modified CIT, and mental imagery). Dr Dunning, Ms Hill Hermann, and Dr Page provided concept/idea/project design. Dr Dunning, Ms Berberich, Ms Mortellite, Ms Hill Hermann, and Dr Page provided writing. Dr Dunning, Ms Berberich, Ms Albers, Ms Mortellite, Mr Levine, and Ms Hill Hermann provided data collection. Dr Dunning, Ms Berberich, and Ms Mortellite provided data analysis. Dr Dunning, Mr Levine, and Ms Hill Hermann provided fund procurement. Ms Hill Hermann and Dr Page provided the patient. Dr Dunning and Dr Page provided facilities/equipment. Dr Dunning provided institutional liaisons. This article was received March 19, 2007, and was accepted October 19, 2007. DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20070087 References 1 Heart and Stroke Statistical Update. Dallas, Tex: American Heart Association; 2005. 2 Duncan PM, Samsa GP, Weinberger M, et al. Health status of individuals with mild strokes. Stroke. 1997;28:740 745. 3 Duncan PW. Synthesis of intervention trials to improve motor recovery following stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 1997;3:1 20. 4 Liu Y, Roullier E. Mechanisms of recovery of dexterity following unilateral lesion of the sensorimotor cortex in adult monkeys. Exp Brain Res. 1999;128:149 159. 5 Nudo R, Milliken G, Jenkins W, Merzenich M. Use-dependent alterations of movement representations in primary motor cortex of adult squirrel monkeys. J Neurosci. 1998;16:785 807. 6 Classen J, Liepert J, Wise S, et al. Rapid plasticity of human cortical movement representation induced by practice. J Neurophysiol. 1998;79:1117 1123. 7 Karni A, Meyer G, Jezzard P, et al. Functional MRI evidence for adult motor cortex plasticity during motor skill learning. Nature. 1995;377:155 158. 8 Page SJ, Sisto SA, Levine P, McGrath R. Efficacy of modified constraint-induced therapy in chronic stroke: a single blinded randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:14 18. 9 Page SJ, Levine P, Leonard AC. Effects of mental practice on affected limb use and function in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:399 402. 10 Wolf SL, Binder-Macleod SA. Electromyographic biofeedback applications to the hemiplegic patient: changes in upperextremity neuromuscular and functional status. Phys Ther. 1983;63:1393 1403. 11 Gabr U, Levine P, Page SJ. Home based EMG triggered stimulation in flaccid chronic stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19: 737 745. 12 Page SJ, Levine P. Back from the brink: EMG-triggered stimulation combined with modified constraint-induced therapy in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:27 31. 13 Popovic DB, Popovic MB, Sinkjaer T, et al. Therapy of a paretic arm in hemiplegic subjects augmented with a neural prosthesis: a cross over study. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2004;82:749 756. 14 Alon G, Stibrant K, Guerts CH, Ohry A. A home based, self-administered stimulation program to improve selected hand functions in chronic stroke. Neurorehabilitation. 2003;18:215 225. 404 f Physical Therapy Volume 88 Number 3 March 2008

15 Alon G, McBride K, Ring H. Improving selected hand functions using a noninvasive neuroprosthesis in persons with chronic stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2002;11:99 106. 16 Weingarden HW, Zeilig G, Heruti R, et al. Hybrid functional electrical stimulation orthosis system for the upper limb. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;77:276 281. 17 Teng EL, Chui HC. The Modified Mini- Mental State Exam. J Clin Psychiatry. 1987; 48:314 318. 18 Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987;67: 206 207. 19 Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, et al. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient, I: a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7: 13 31. 20 Duncan PW, Propst M, Nelson SG. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery following cerebrovascular accident. Phys Ther. 1983;63: 1606 1610. 21 Di Fabio RP, Badke RB. Relationship of sensory organization to balance function in patients with hemiplegia. Phys Ther. 1990;70:542 548. 22 Gladstone DJ, Daniells CJ, Black SE. The Fugl-Meyer Assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002:16:232 240. 23 Lyle RC. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res. 1981;4:483 492. 24 Van der Lee JH, De Groot V, Beckerman H, et al. The intra- and interrater reliability of the Action Research Arm Test: a practical test of upper extremity function in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:14 19. 25 Kopp B, Kunkel A, Flor H, et al. The Arm Motor Ability Test: reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of an instrument for assessing disabilities in activities of daily living. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78: 615 620. 26 Miltner WH, Bauder H, Sommer M, et al. Effects of constraint-induced therapy on patients with chronic motor deficits after stroke: a preliminary study. Stroke. 1999; 30:586 592. 27 Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, et al. The Stroke Impact Scale version 2.0: evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke. 1999;30:2131 2140. 28 Platz T, Pinkowski C, van Wijck F, et al. Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multicentre study. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19:404 411. 29 Dettmers C, Teske U, Hamzei F, et al. Distributed form of constraint-induced movement therapy improves functional outcome and quality of life after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:204 209. 30 Santos M, Zahner LH, McKiernan BJ, et al. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation improves severe hand dysfunction for individuals with chronic stroke: a pilot study. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2006;30:175 183. March 2008 Volume 88 Number 3 Physical Therapy f 405