The Brain Science Podcast: The brain brought to you by the people who actually study it.

First, a bit of a acknowledgement: 

Ginger Campbell wrote a very nice review of my book which

Ginger Campbell, MD

ended up on the book's cover. I asked her to write it because I love her podcast; The Brain Science Podcast. 

The podcast, which is usually in interview form, is an incredible resource for anyone interested in the brain. Ginger Campbell, the creator/director, interviews lions of neuroscience at the top of their game. I rarely find myself lost in her question and answer tête-à-tête. She strikes the perfect middle ground where you understand what they're talking about but it's not simplified into mush.

In the negotiation to get her to write a blurb for my book, she floated the idea of me being interviewed on the Brain Science Podcast, to which I spat my coffee all over the computer screen. Sure, interview a whole bunch of people who are teetering on the verge of a Nobel, and then interview me. I've decided I'm a "science communicator." And in this regard me and Dr. Campbell have a lot in common. She's not a neuroscientist, she's not a neurologist, as I understand it she's an ER MD (see her update to this, below). So it's been sheer curiosity that has driven her to the brain. And we have that in common. Every other organ in the body is known-- right down to its molecular structure, we know what's going on. But the brain is not only unknown, it's really unknown. 

Stroke has been the fascination of scientists since Hippocrates. Dr. Campbell has done several episodes on stroke but almost all the episodes has something relatable to stroke.

Please note, there is a link to the podcast on the right hand column (→) 

Here is Dr. Campbell's input on this entry...

"After spending over 20 years as an emergency physician I am now doing a Fellowship in Hospice and Palliative Care Medicine at the University of Alabama School of Medicine.

However, I do need to clarify the difference between Free and Premium episodes, which I hope you will pass on to your readers.

The 25 most recent episodes are ALWAYS free. This represents about 2 years of content. Free episodes are available in iTunes, Stitcher, and most other podcasting apps.

There is some limited Premium Content in iTunes, but this is from 2010 when I was experimenting with making Premium versions of new episodes. (I also had CD's of these but they didn't sell so I quit after 3 episodes (65-67).

The Premium subscription ($5/month) gives people unlimited to all the back episodes PLUS episode transcripts. Details at http://brainsciencepodcast.com/premium. I also offer all these episodes and transcripts for $1 each. These have been more popular than expected.

Access to the Premium content is via a special webpage and/or via the mobile APP, which is now free.

I have gotten a few complaints about putting some of my content behind a Pay wall, but many more listeners appreciate having an easy way to support my work. I don't make that much but since I took a 50% paycut to pursue my Fellowship in Palliative Medicine, every little bit helps!

One other thing: even the premium episodes contain Audible ads because there is no easy way to remove this."

Great Question!

I get a lot of questions about stroke recovery and try to answer the best I can given the fact that I have rarely met the folks I'm giving advice to. Here is an email I got recently. Hope the following exchange helps some folks!

Dear Mr. Levine, 

In March of 2014 my friend had a stroke. She is 59, very gifted and motivated. She has received physical and occupational therapy from local facilities since then and has made a lot of improvement. We have obtained a Neuromove unit and recently got a Walkaide device for her foot, but it is looking like we are reaching the limit of local expertise to help her push forward. She has been very motivated up to now, but upon not satisfactorily acheiving some of her 6 month goals, has hit a rough patch. So we are just searching for anything that might spur her on at this point. We have looked into constraint induced programs locally, but not impressed with what we have found. Also, she is very reluctant to undergo the frustration she thinks this therapy will be. We don't want to encourage her to do something difficult without knowing it has a good chance of helping her. I am writing to you because your book has been a huge help in "coaching" her, and I thought you might know someone in New England who we could go to for help.

"Joan"

Hi "Joan,"

A couple quick things; it looks like you're doing the right thing re: NeuroMove, and the walkaid. I'm a pretty big fan of both of those. 

Secondly, if she is plateauing, that's to be expected. The general philosophy is that once the plateau has taken place, gains can continue to be made, but of course, the gains are much more conservative given an equal amount of work.

Sometimes it helps to work towards specific goals. For instance, your friend may walk great with the walkaid, but may not walk fast enough to make getting around outside useful. So increasing the speed of walking would be the goal. In fact, quickness can generally be used as a goal; upper body dressing, cooking a specific dish, making a bed etc. can all be goals were speed is worked on.

In terms of finding a place in New England, of course there are quite a few good ones. Find the link on this blog on the right hand column [-->] you'll see something that says "FIND A STROKE CENTER NEAR YOU?" Click on that, put in your ZIP Code, and all the hospitals that are supposed to be good at stroke recovery will come up- they should be able to direct you to the best rehab options. There's other links on there (on the right side column [-->]) to help you look for aggressive physiatry and other rehab clinicians.

One last thing, and this is a tough one… But your friend may be simply at the end of recovery. This is one thing I struggled with in my book… And in fact had somebody else write it; Kathy Spencer. I'll attach and image of her quote to this email (bottom of this blog entry). And she talks about the point at which living your life gets in the way of recovery. At some point there's not enough justification for the hard work given the amount of gains that are made. It's a decision that everybody has to make for themselves.

Have you looked into the saeboflex? It may be appropriate.

But, again,there's no magic algorithm here, it's just more work.

Please let me know if you have any other comments, insights, etc.

Best,     
Pete

(CLICK ON TEXT BELOW TO MAKE IT LARGER!)

The rules of recovery

There's a difference – in my mind – between recovery and rehabilitation. Recovery is getting back what the stroke took. Rehabilitation is a medical model that may or may not help recovery.

I'm a fan of rehab for the most part. Good rehab from (approximately) the first week, through the first year in a system with folks who are trained and with the fundamental equipment needed to promote recovery, represents the best that can be done. But for most, this in not close to the reality.

But instead of trashing the system and the people in that system, let me focus on recovery. The rules of recovery are simple. The process is dauntingly difficult, but the rules are simple. 

What are the rules of recovery?

The rules of recovery are the same as deeply learning anything arduous; lots of hard work, lots of repetition, lots of planning and constantly looking for breakthroughs.

Of course, there are a few flies in the ointment. What of spasticity? What about the classic stroke Catch-22-- if you can't move, how do you repeat a movement? If the ability to be rational is gone, can the level of effort needed be achieved? And then there is the huge number of other issues that can get in the way. Issues of balance and vision and sensation and all the other illnesses that may befall us, and finally, aging.

The rules of recovery are the rules of every effort and every success. Let's not make it complicated.

"Instant gratification and how it may hurt you" OR "It works great (and that's the problem)"

You want to eliminate drop foot? 

Use an AFO, done!

You want the elbow to straighten?

Tap the triceps, done! 

  

You want the hand to stay open? 

Put a splint on, done!

You want to improve balance? 

Give 'em a walker, done!

You want to have them talk better? 

Give them a language aid, done!

You want them to swallow better? 

Feed them thickened liquids, done!

In every case, and many more, short-term "instant gratification" often gets in the way of a more complete recovery. 

Why and how?

The irony of stroke is that deficits to lifting the foot, swallowing, balance, etc. are exactly what needs to be embraced to promote recovery. So instead of throwing an external aid at the problem, sometimes its best to challenge the challenge.

• If you want to speak French better, do you get an app?
• If you want to learn how to work on your car do you hire a better mechanic?
• If you want to be better at driving directions do you get a GPS?

In stroke, sometimes it is better to use the aid, no doubt. But choose your acquiescence wisely.

Lumosity: NOT generalizable.

I've said before and I'll say it again, "brain training" games -- like those developed by lumosity -- have very little proven

efficacy. Do they change the brain? Yes. But so does just about everything else. Let me explain... there was a story that we used to tell in the lab and it went like this...

"If I throw you a set of keys, and you catch it, there will be neuroplastic change. 

If I throw you a set of keys, and you try catch it drop it, there will be neuroplastic change. 

If I throw you a set of keys, and you just watch the keys hit the floor, there will be neuroplastic change."

So do "brain traing " games change your brain? Yes. The change your brain to be better at the games. If the end result you want is to be better at the games, have at it, and become better at those games. But are the skills that you gain from these games generalizable to anything else in your life? Not that we know of.

Here is a recent article that says... well, let's put it this way... if you work for luminosity, you'll hate it...

A Consensus on the Brain Training Industry from the Scientific Community 

Again, the key word here is "generalizable." Here's another article that makes the same point: "The authors conclude that memory training programs appear to produce short-term, specific training effects that do not generalize."

Emerging Stroke Recovery Treatments? Yeah NO.

Just caught this over at Dean's stellar stroke-recovery site:

An article called "Emerging Treatments for Motor Rehabilitation After Stroke."  They include:
1. mirror therapy
2. motor imagery or mental practice
3. constraint-induced movement therapy
4. noninvasive brain stimulation 
5. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor medications

A coupla itzy problems: These treatment options have been around for at least a decade and at least one has little proven efficacy.

Let's get the 5th one out of the way; these meds (SSRIs) are things like prozak and paxil and they usually treat depression. They've been used forever to treat depression in survivors. Do they help depression, yeah. Do they help you recover, no. SSRI's effectiveness-- if you take JAMA's word for it: meh. BTW, Mild to moderate depression is probably better treated with exercise. (A review here from Harvard.) And exercise is what survivors ought to be doing anyway, so its a two-fer! 

The 2nd and 3rd I've been involved in published clinical trials and have written about in my book, blog entries and magazine articles. In fact, our group, led by our fearless leader Stephen J. Page, was the first to do a modification of constraint induced therapy, and the first to look at motor imagery post stroke. And this goes back to the late 90s. "Emerging Treatments." Yeah. No. I've written about it extensively in every edition of my book as well as magazine articles, journal articles and every talk I've ever done.

Mirror therapy has been around for stroke, again, since the late 90s. I've written about it in this blog, in my book and in every talk.

Noninvasive brain stimulation is nonspecific but they're talking about Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), which has been around for quite some time. Our group has done

a lot of work with the "next gen" of this called Navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation -- basically its more accurate. But there is no research that shows that sapping the "stroked" brain with TMS does anything--yet. Promising, maybe, but not much there...yet.

So we have 3 "emerging" treatment option that have been around for more than a decade, one option that probs does not work and one that we're not sure what it does or how to use it. 

Oh, you wanted answers, now I get it!

Stroke survivors and caregivers are often frustrated with stroke recovery research. Why are the simple questions not even asked, they wonder. Typical questions are:

1. Why are there no "head to head" comparisons between interventions. For instance, why don't they compare electrical stimulation to the Saeboflex?

2. Why don't they combine interventions the way a therapist would do therapy? For instance, why aren't there studies that look at electrical stimulation and the Saebo flex?

3. Why aren't simple questions answered, like, "What is the most effective treatment option given my level of arm movement?"

These are the sort of questions that confuse people that are not in research. I hate to be an apologist for research and researchers, but let me offer some insight...

Head to head comparisons are never done, in any pathology, for any intervention, initially. For instance you probably didn't see a lot of comparisons between different cholesterol drugs, initially. One company makes a cholesterol drug, they put a lot of research into it, and then they put it on the market. A second company does the same thing. But both those companies will make money off of those drugs, so the cost of the studies are justified. If there's a comparison study done, nobody's can make any money. In fact, one of the two drugs is gonna look really bad, and sell even less. So who's going to fund a study like that?

Now you may find studies that compare different cholesterol drugs. Cholesterol drugs have been around since the early 1970s. Rehabilitation research into stroke really started in the mid-to-late 90s. It wasn't that people weren't doing research before then, it was just that the outcome measures were really poor. Let's put it this way, to test how well somebody was moving-- prior to the mid-1990s-- we used a fancy protractor, and a VCR. Now we use kinematics labs. Prior to the early 1990s we had no way to image the brain, and now we have MRI, functional MRI, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and on and on. 

Again, not to be an apologist for researchers, but there are other issues as well. For instance, when should you do the studies? Should you do them when the stroke survivor is acute, or during the subacute phase, or the chronic phase? Or should you do all three? It takes some time to explain, but recovery is very different during those three phases. And here's another problem: recruitment. It is very difficult to recruit stroke survivors during the acute and subacute phases. It has to do with the fact that, first of all, you can't get in the way of "standard of care." That is, it is unethical for research to get in the way of what a stroke survivor would typically get. Also, what that standard of care is doing is considered a "confound" in research. A confound is something that the researchers have no control over. In this case the confound would be the therapist, and the therapy that the therapist is offering. Each therapist is different, and each therapy or combination of therapies is different. The researcher can do nothing about those variables (confounds). 

Also, for acute studies, it's incredibly difficult to recruit. "Hi Mr. Smith, my name is Pete, I'm from research down the hall. You had a stroke two days ago. Would you like to get involved in a clinical trial? Is now a good time are you, or are you busy?" You see the problem.

The reason they don't combine interventions is because we haven't even figured out if the interventions by themselves work. Within one intervention, let's say electrical stimulation for example, we don't even know what the proper dosage should be. Is it a half an hour three times a day? Is it 15 minutes five times a day? Does it depend on how well the stroke survivor moves to begin with? What about their spasticity-- how does that affect things? So research tends to focus on a very tight question. Let's get that tight question answered first, then we can be pretty safe to start as the second, third, fourth... 15th question.

What works best for what stroke survivor in what situation is impossible to determine at this point. The algorithm for this stuff is incredibly complicated because the stroke can hit any part of the brain, people can have different sequelae (symptoms other stroke), and different comorbidities (illnesses outside the stroke). Further, they can be of different motivational levels, different ages, and on and on.

But that doesn't help you. You don't have time. If you're reading this blog is because you need answers now. The good news is, if you're willing to educate yourself a little bit, your guess is as good as ours.

Good luck.

BRAINS! (get used to it)

Share

 

     Out of all the organs in the human body we know the least about the brain. Every other organ in the body and we know to the cellular, if not the molecular level.

But the brain... You've heard the clichés, I'm sure; given the interdependence of neurons, the human brain is the most complex structure in the known galaxy, including the galaxy itself. The estimate of planets in the galaxy is upwards of 1 trillion. The most conservative estimate of the number of synaptic connections in the human brain is 1000 trillion! 

"But," you may think, "I can't even figure out which socks match my shoes." That maybe true, but remember: while you're trying to figure that out, your brain is keeping every one of the trillions of cells in your body in relative harmony.

We need to start looking at the brain. Yes, its squishy, yes its bloody, yes it is huge and pulsates in aliens from Mars. But we need to get over this "Its too weird!" posture, or we, its owner, can't really understand the darned thing.

Here's a place to start... Below is a video of the surgery for a subdural hematoma. This type of stroke is the least common (about 7%), but the most deadly.

Warning: this video is graphic. Frankly, I had a hard time sitting through it. I would suggest watching just one portion – a few seconds, from 1:32 to 1:39. This is the good part, where the surgeon rids the brain of this sort of cap of blood that has accumulated between the skull and the brain. If this sort of surgery is not done, the brain will continue to compress, furthering damage.

Enjoy!

Resistance Training After Stroke

Got a good question the other day about resistance training the other day. Please see the Q&A, below...

Q

     I am a 43 year old stroke survivor(2010).  I walk ok(not too pretty), can do light manual work, and can't run.  My left affected side is considerqbly weaker than my dominnant, nonaffected right side.

    I want to return to higher impact activities one day, but I just don't think I have the physical strength to do so.

  I have read several articles by Sroke survivors who benefitted greatly from barbell-base systematic weight training as a  means to advance recovery.  

    One writer mentioned (book) as a good place to begin.  It emphasizes combination weight exercises that employ multiple muscle groups and run through a full range of motion.

    Do you have any opinions or clinical experiences on the subject  of Strength Training following Stroke or could direct me towards some materials to get started?

A

     I did a quick review of the literature (example) and found that there's a general consensus that resistance training is a good thing post stroke. A really good thing. But there seems to be no consensus on what type of resistance training it should be. 
    Keep in mind: Resistance training can injure. There are a ton of questions before you begin, like...

1. How stable is your "bad" shoulder?
2. Will you have the strength and coordination to hold whatever (barbell, band, etc) and not drop it?
3. Do you have sensation enough to know if you are injuring the limb?

    One concern that therapists mistakenly have is that if you use muscles that have spasticity you will increase the spasticity. This is wrongheaded, and not true. So don't worry about using spastic muscles to help move you.

    I have seen people who've had a stroke run again. They're almost always young (younger than 60). I would think that as long as you are okay with "a new normal" the sky is the limit.

   
The hard part, of course, is putting the work in.
Previous article I wrote about this subject.

Stroke Statistics zzzzz

15 million people suffer stroke worldwide each year.

In the USA...

• 10% of survivors recover completely or almost completely recover.
• 25% recover with minor impairments
• 40% experience moderate to severe impairments that require special care
• 10% require care in a nursing home or other long-term facility
• 15% die shortly after the stroke
• Approximately 14% of stroke survivors experience a second stroke in the first year following a stroke.

If we concentrate on the people who may need help with recovery we'd include survivors with

• minor impairments to... 
• those requiring care in a nursing facility 

This includes everything from occupational therapy to AFOs. Therefore...

11.25 million people per year worldwide will require these services and equipment. 

AFO after stroke: Once its on there, its on there for life.

Warning: ENDING THE USE OF AN AFO CAN LEAD TO FALLS AND INJURIES. 

Never discontinue the use of an orthotic without first consulting the appropriate health care provider. Then call your doctor. Then have your doc talk to any other providers as needed. Then discuss it some more. Thank you.

For years I've been pointing out how what clinicians focus on can hurt recovery. Clinicians focus on having the patient be safe and functional (able to do everyday tasks). Clinicians have the "safe and functional" mantra running through their heads constantly. There are two other things that influence what clinicians will to use to help survivors recover:   

1. What managed care will pay for

2. What therapists know about stroke recovery

This leaves a very small group of available options. These options may or may not lend themselves to promoting the highest level of recovery. Recovery, yes. But not necessarily the highest level of potential recovery.

I think the best example of this is the AFO. 

Before I get too technical, let me ask you a hypothetical.... Let's say you're a survivor. Your ankle is not moving well after stroke. But you know that recovery is unpredictable. 

Here's my question: During the time in which your ankle is trying to come back, would you put it in a cast? Probs not. If you casted it and the ankle tried to come back it wouldn't be able to. It would be stuck in one position by the cast. This is where clinicians lose the plot (as the English say). They see this ankle issue as an ankle issue. But its not an ankle issue! Its a brain issue. And what's the first rule of the brain? What's the one rule that everybody knows about the brain? 
Use it or lose it.

Now this (casting example) is only a slight exaggeration of what happens when stroke survivors are put into an AFO. 

Generally, AFOs are prescribed by clinicians waaaay too early. The brain has not revealed what it's capable of doing during the first few months after stroke. This phase, known as the subacute phase, typically last from 3 to 6 months. Clinicians will often prescribe the AFO in the first, second or third month after stroke.

And even before that... sometimes within the first 2-3 weeks after stroke, there is an effort to somehow bind the ankle in such a way that it is not required to move.

These all essentially lock the joint, disengaging the ankle muscles from what they've been using to lift the foot at the ankle since that survivor was born.

So why do clinicians do it? 

Simple; They don't focus on what the brain needs. They're more... peripheral in their perspective. They're about muscles and bones and tendons and ligaments. You you can't see neurons, can't see the brain, can't see the brain "reawaken" after stroke, and you can't see cortical plasticity. The mind, for many clinicians, is out of sight out of mind.

And who do they listen to? Orthotists. And what do orthotists make? AFOs. So will the orthotist say to a clinician suggesting an AFO, "Naw, AFOs lead to learned nonuse." Probs not.

It's not that clinicians mean to do you harm. They want you to be safe and functional. They want you to be where you want to be: home. So there is a trade-off: Put you in an AFO and get you home safe and early, or wait and see what develops. Here's one thing that managed care won't pay for: Waiting to see what develops. 

Its the instant gratification thing. Put an AFO on and survivors walk better instantly! But they also promote muscle atrophy, lock the joint (which joints hate because they like to move) and may lead to learned nonuse.

AND AFOs discourage walking.

"Hey mom, dad didn't put his ankle thingy on!"

"OK, lets just take the wheelchair!"

(Wanna know how hard it is to put on an AFO with one hand? This hard! ↓ ↓ ↓) 

Oh, and one more thing... once the AFO is on there, its on for life. Why? Because an AFO will atrophy both the neurology and the muscles involved in walking. Further, it will so change your "gait kinematics" that NOT wearing will become a risk. 

BTW: I'm not saying AFOs are never appropriate. Its just that they are not appropriate too early and they're not appropriate for everyone.

Further reading: Here.