% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Tscherpel:874655,
      author       = {Tscherpel, Caroline and Hensel, Lukas and Lemberg,
                      Katharina and Vollmer, Mattias and Volz, Lukas J. and Fink,
                      Gereon R. and Grefkes, Christian},
      title        = {{T}he differential roles of contralesional frontoparietal
                      areas in cortical reorganization after stroke},
      journal      = {Brain stimulation},
      volume       = {13},
      number       = {3},
      issn         = {1935-861X},
      address      = {New York, NY [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2020-01571},
      pages        = {614 - 624},
      year         = {2020},
      abstract     = {BackgroundStudies examining the contribution of
                      contralesional brain regions to motor recovery after stroke
                      have revealed conflicting results comprising both supporting
                      and disturbing influences. Especially the relevance of
                      contralesional brain regions beyond primary motor cortex
                      (M1) has rarely been studied, particularly concerning the
                      temporal dynamics post-stroke.MethodsWe, therefore, used
                      online transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) interference
                      to longitudinally assess the role of contralesional (right)
                      frontoparietal areas for recovery of hand motor function
                      after left hemispheric stroke: contralesional M1,
                      contralesional dorsal premotor cortex (dPMC), and
                      contralesional anterior intraparietal sulcus (IPS). Fourteen
                      stroke patients and sixteen age-matched healthy subjects
                      performed motor tasks of varying complexity with their
                      (paretic) right hand. Motor performance was quantified using
                      three-dimensional kinematic data. All patients were assessed
                      twice, (i) in the first week, and (ii) after more than three
                      months post-stroke.ResultsWhile we did not observe a
                      significant effect of TMS interference on movement
                      kinematics following the stimulation of contralesional M1
                      and dPMC in the first week post-stroke, we found
                      improvements of motor performance upon interference with
                      contralesional IPS across motor tasks early after stroke, an
                      effect that persisted into the later phase. By contrast, for
                      dPMC, TMS-induced deterioration of motor performance was
                      only evident three months post-stroke, suggesting that a
                      supportive role of contralesional premotor cortex might
                      evolve with reorganization.ConclusionWe here highlight
                      time-sensitive and region-specific effects of contralesional
                      frontoparietal areas after left hemisphere stroke, which may
                      influence on neuromodulation regimes aiming at supporting
                      recovery of motor function post-stroke.},
      cin          = {INM-3},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406},
      pnm          = {572 - (Dys-)function and Plasticity (POF3-572)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:32289686},
      UT           = {WOS:000533522600019},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.brs.2020.01.016},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/874655},
}