@article{FritzschWangdosSantosetal.2014,
  author    = {Fritzsch, Claire and Wang, Jing and dos Santos, Luara Ferreira and Mauritz, Karl-Heinz and Brunetti, Maddalena and Dohle, Christian},
  title     = {Different effects of the mirror illusion on motor and somatosensory processing},
  series = {Restorative neurology and neuroscience},
  volume    = {32},
  journal   = {Restorative neurology and neuroscience},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {IOS Press},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {0922-6028},
  doi       = {10.3233/RNN-130343},
  pages     = {269 -- 280},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Purpose: Mirror therapy can improve motor and sensory functions, but effects of the mirror illusion on primary motor and somatosensory cortex could not be established consistently. Methods: Fifteen right handed healthy volunteers performed or observed a finger-thumb opposition task. Cerebral activations during normal movement (NOR), mirrored movement (MIR) and movement observation (OBS) by means of a video chain were recorded with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Activation sizes in movement > static conditions were identified using SPM8 (p < 0.001, unc.) and attributed to predefined areas employing the Anatomy toolbox 1.8. Laterality indices for the responsive areas were calculated on the basis of the number of activated voxels. Results: Relevant bilateral BOLD responses were found in primary motor (M1) and somatosensory (S1 - BA 2, 3b and 3a) cortex, premotor and parietal areas and V5. When comparing MIR to NOR, no significant change of contralateral activation in M1 was found, but clearly at S1 with differences between hands. Conclusion: The mirror illusion does not elicit immediate changes in motor areas, yet there is a direct effect on somatosensory areas, especially for left hand movements. These results suggest different effects of mirror therapy on processing and rehabilitation of motor and sensory function.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FloeelWernerGrittneretal.2014,
  author    = {Fl{\"o}el, Agnes and Werner, Cordula and Grittner, Ulrike and Hesse, Stefan and J{\"o}bges, Michael and Knauss, Janet and Seifert, Michael and Steinhagen-Thiessen, Elisabeth and Goevercin, Mehmet and Dohle, Christian and Fischer, Wolfgang and Schlieder, Regina and Nave, Alexander Heinrich and Meisel, Andreas and Ebinger, Martin and Wellwood, Ian},
  title     = {Physical fitness training in Subacute Stroke (PHYS-STROKE) - study protocol for a randomised controlled trial},
  series = {Trials},
  volume    = {15},
  journal   = {Trials},
  publisher = {BioMed Central},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1745-6215},
  doi       = {10.1186/1745-6215-15-45},
  pages     = {12},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Background: Given the rising number of strokes worldwide, and the large number of individuals left with disabilities after stroke, novel strategies to reduce disability, increase functions in the motor and the cognitive domains, and improve quality of life are of major importance. Physical activity is a promising intervention to address these challenges but, as yet, there is no study demonstrating definite outcomes. Our objective is to assess whether additional treatment in the form of physical fitness-based training for patients early after stroke will provide benefits in terms of functional outcomes, in particular gait speed and the Barthel Index (co-primary outcome measures) reflecting activities of daily living (ADL). We will gather secondary functional outcomes as well as mechanistic parameters in an exploratory approach. Methods/Design: Our phase III randomised controlled trial will recruit 215 adults with moderate to severe limitations of walking and ADL 5 to 45 days after stroke onset. Participants will be stratified for the prognostic variables of "centre", "age", and "stroke severity", and randomly assigned to one of two groups. The interventional group receives physical fitness training delivered as supported or unsupported treadmill training (cardiovascular active aerobic training; five times per week, over 4 weeks; each session 50 minutes; total of 20 additional physical fitness training sessions) in addition to standard rehabilitation treatment. The control intervention consists of relaxation sessions (non-cardiovascular active; five times per week week, over 4 weeks; each session 50 minutes) in addition to standard rehabilitation treatment. Co-primary efficacy endpoints will be gait speed (in m/s, 10 m walk) and the Barthel Index (100 points total) at 3 months post-stroke, compared to baseline measurements. Secondary outcomes include standard measures of quality of life, sleep and mood, cognition, arm function, maximal oxygen uptake, and cardiovascular risk factors including blood pressure, pulse, waist-to-hip ratio, markers of inflammation, immunity and the insulin-glucose pathway, lipid profile, and others. Discussion: The goal of this endpoint-blinded, phase III randomised controlled trial is to provide evidence to guide post-stroke physical fitness-based rehabilitation programmes, and to elucidate the mechanisms underlying this intervention.},
  language  = {en}
}