Background: Somatosensory function plays an important role in motor learning. More than half of the stroke patients have somatosensory impairments in the upper limb, which could hamper recovery.Question: Is sensorimotor upper limb (UL) therapy of more benefit for motor and somatosensory outcome than motor therapy?Design: Randomized assessor- blinded multicenter controlled trial with block randomization stratified for neglect, severity of motor impairment, and type of stroke.Participants: 40 first-ever stroke patients with UL sensorimotor impairments admitted to the rehabilitation center.Intervention: Both groups received 16 h of additional therapy over 4 weeks consisting of sensorimotor (N = 22) or motor (N = 18) UL therapy.Outcome measures: Action Research Arm test (ARAT) as primary outcome, and other motor and somatosensory measures were assessed at baseline, post-intervention and after 4 weeks follow-up.Results: No significant between-group differences were found for change scores in ARAT or any somatosensory measure between the three time points. For UL impairment (Fugl-Meyer assessment), a significant greater improvement was found for the motor group compared to the sensorimotor group from baseline to post-intervention [mean (SD) improvement 14.65 (2.19) vs. 5.99 (2.06); p = 0.01] and from baseline to follow-up [17.38 (2.37) vs. 6.75 (2.29); p = 0.003].Conclusion: UL motor therapy may improve motor impairment more than UL sensorimotor therapy in patients with sensorimotor impairments in the early rehabilitation phase post stroke. For these patients, integrated sensorimotor therapy may not improve somatosensory function and may be less effective for motor recovery.Clinical Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03236376.

In our chronic sample, one in five patients showed good upper limb observed but low perceived function. Measuring both observed and perceived arm and hand function seems warranted together with considering a differential therapy approach for the distinct groups. Implications for rehabilitation A considerable group of patients in the chronic phase post-stroke have good motor function in their affected upper limb, but nevertheless perceive a restricted ability. In order to identify a mismatch in people with chronic stroke, both observed and perceived upper limb motor function should be assessed. Besides common measurement tools for observed function like the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, perceived function can be evaluated by means of the hand function section of the Stroke Impact Scale. For patients with good observed but low perceived function, an additional rehabilitation strategy should be considered, potentially including awareness of ability and a self-efficacy approach.

Our sample of stroke patients assessed early showed full somatosensory perception but proportional passive and active somatosensory processing recovery. Disruption of both the TCT and IOT early after stroke appears to be a factor associated with somatosensory impairment but not outcome.

BackgroundAberrant functional connectivity in brain networks associated with motor impairment after stroke is well described, but little is known about the association with somatosensory impairments.AimThe objective of this cross-sectional observational study was to investigate the relationship between brain functional connectivity and severity of somatosensory impairments in the upper limb in the acute phase post stroke.MethodsNineteen first-ever stroke patients underwent resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) and a standardized clinical somatosensory profile assessment (exteroception and higher cortical somatosensation) in the first week post stroke. Integrity of inter- and intrahemispheric (ipsilesional and contralesional) functional connectivity of the somatosensory network was assessed between patients with severe (Em-NSA< 13/32) and mild to moderate (Em-NSA> 13/32) somatosensory impairments.ResultsPatients with severe somatosensory impairments displayed significantly lower functional connectivity indices in terms of interhemispheric (p = 0.001) and ipsilesional intrahemispheric (p = 0.035) connectivity compared to mildly to moderately impaired patients. Significant associations were found between the perceptual threshold of touch assessment and interhemispheric (r = -0.63) and ipsilesional (r = -0.51) network indices. Additional significant associations were found between the index of interhemispheric connectivity and light touch (r = 0.55) and stereognosis (r = 0.64) evaluation.ConclusionPatients with more severe somatosensory impairments have lower inter- and ipsilesional intrahemispheric connectivity of the somatosensory network. Lower connectivity indices are related to more impaired exteroception and higher cortical somatosensation. This study highlights the importance of network integrity in terms of inter- and ipsilesional intrahemispheric connectivity for somatosensory function. Further research is needed investigating the effect of therapy on the re-establishment of these networks.

We investigated actual daily life upper limb (UL) activity in relation to observed UL motor function and perceived UL activity in chronic stroke in order to better understand and improve UL activity in daily life. In 60 patients, we collected (1) observed UL motor function (Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA-UE)), (2) perceived UL activity (hand subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS-Hand)), and (3) daily life UL activity (bilateral wrist-worn accelerometers for 72 h) data. Data were compared between two groups of interest, namely (1) good observed (FMA-UE >50) function and good perceived (SIS-Hand >75) activity (good match, n = 16) and (2) good observed function but low perceived (SIS-Hand ≤75) activity (mismatch, n = 15) with Mann–Whitney U analysis. The mismatch group only differed from the good match group in perceived UL activity (median (Q1–Q3) = 50 (30–70) versus 93 (85–100); p < 0.001). Despite similar observed UL motor function and other clinical characteristics, the affected UL in the mismatch group was less active in daily life compared to the good match group (p = 0.013), and the contribution of the affected UL compared to the unaffected UL for each second of activity (magnitude ratio) was lower (p = 0.022). We conclude that people with chronic stroke with low perceived UL activity indeed tend to use their affected UL less in daily life despite good observed UL motor function.