The Effects of Intensive Training on Motor Recovery

antiquity · 05-09-2003, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Summary:Â* Intensive training and exercise may enhance motor recovery or even restore motor function in people who have been long paralyzed due to spinal cord injury or stroke.Â* These training effects may be due to reversal of &ldquolearned non-use&rdquo, a theoretical shutdown of neuronal circuitry that results from non-use of motor systems.Â* Recent data suggest that the training effects may be due to the ability of the spinal cord to learn and adapt to motor activities, even in the absence of supraspinal influences.Â* A substantial body of evidence indicates that weight-supported ambulation training on treadmills can remarkably restore overground locomotor performance of people with chronic spinal cord injury.Â* The data provides strong bases for greater use of intensive exercise therapy, particularly use of weight-supported treadmill training for people with spinal cord injury and stroke.

Please click here to read the full article.

[This message was edited by seneca on 05-09-03 at 07:57 PM.]

Acid · 05-13-2003, 01:51 AM

Doesn't tell, if damaged spine regions get alike sent overload and if that is bad for them.

I assume I could walk or even run with a broken foot, too. Could be declared progressive on motor recovery. But ain't state if that is good for the injured systems.

Acid · 05-13-2003, 02:12 AM

In them weirdo C.R. pic games I once played one aimed for the right arm there.
Tried to alike send out a movement command
but hold it before it is executed.

Got the impression, such done real (my extreme lacks of professionality with such aside) might be more suited to send particularily right C1 there overload, than to tune for a region there, and one in the head, like upper frontal cortex on the opposite side.

Got into parallel processing limits problems.
Thought, the correct settings seem, to keep central aimings for right C1 systems security supervision in this.
But aimings for some region in the hand or arm, and opposite upper frontal, were already alike maxing out my as MBD rather handicapped parallel processing capacities.

With the left arm there, I usually figured it not worth the bother to even try.
Spinal hardware interlinks between C3 and brain base register too far down.
And left C1 in a stage there, that attempts for the arm seem more suited to cause overloads, maybe up to systems damages there,
than decent chances being registered to get that arm in again.

Seems to take first programming for hardware interlinks there going up,
and there are too many complications for my rather limited capacities with that.

With the other stronger side I assumed,
if the dude were after the arm on that side,
he should IMO spend a lot more time going for rather passive interlinks with right C1.
Supervising how long that region can take that well enough, and withdraw before it gets too much for there.
And train these timings and interlinks with there up.

Then shunt with there rather central downwards, and figure out how far the damaged are still taking to what O.K. enough.
Working so it is O.K. enough for them to widen out timings and interlink strengthes, and parallel processing capacities.

Parallel processing capacities of the damaged seemed a main hindrance for me in the whole.

With right C6 there in that case, I thought it might be easier, if he found himself whomever is a decent enough programmer for such, and that the person maybe could try from C7 to C6 and then upwards,
and also for C6 direct,
to work on changes.

As to me it seemed, from C5 downwards for C6 is way harder to get C6 log,
than from C7 upwards for C6.

Quite generally I assumed that right upwards ones (and in his systems also left side ones)
might be easier programmed for via some good enough external programmer,
while the downwards right ones better via himself.

A text of Wise Young, if I got that right, seemed to list C5 to T1 as relevant for arm interlinks.

So in that particular case there with the right arm, I figured takes on the right side to reprogram interlink capacities upwards and downwards for these.
If parallel processing capacities of the damaged are not in an O.K. enough way for them gotten up, maybe he can wait for better arm use a long time still.

So I figured takes softly enough for them working on widening out their parallel processing capacities in context with these spinal regions.

And eventually starting to program for this arm more.
I mentioned some considerations about that before.

But more generally I have been more to do with brain than arms stuff,
and though for sort of an idle hobby in between it was entertaining for me to process a bit about such in that case, all in all arms are not my "department".

Acid · 05-13-2003, 02:20 AM

With legs there I thought, apart from that for the left one that ain't seem to look good at all in prospects,
that even if one had someone who knows how to program up interlinks for there,
likely it'd change spinal sides balances.

As on the stronger side more can alike transit.
And on the weaker not so much.

Spinal adaptations of between the legs off-branches and up there, might impact on spinal regions with belly organ off-branches also.

The more these alter sides balances,
the more likely to me it seems, that eventually off-links to belly organs might alter in sides balances there also.

I am no med smurf to guess just about how becoming that'd be for belly organs.

However I'm very sure that they are more important than legs.
Whatever some here holler around like legs are the most relevant.

The most relevant seem simplified vital systems.
And concerning spinal injuries the welfare of the damaged regions.

To blindly risk systems security and welfare, in a craze to try to force something on injured systems, that might be negative also in impacts,
and not consider such at all,
seems foolish.

Wise Young · 05-17-2003, 04:55 AM

Acid, I don't understand well what you are saying and so must paraphrase my best interpretation of your questions:

Is activity bad for the spinal cord?
• It is possible that certain types of activity may not be good for recovery in the spinal cord. The reason is that the spinal cord does "learn" and if you give the spinal cord the wrong information, it may acquire "bad habits".
• Pain for example may disrupt locomotor reflexes. A recent study reported that painful electrical stimulation of the legs in a spinal-injured rat disrupts and retards locomotor recovery.

Wise.

05-13-2003, 01:51 AM	#2
Acid Banned Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Berlin Posts: 1,779	Comment Doesn't tell, if damaged spine regions get alike sent overload and if that is bad for them. I assume I could walk or even run with a broken foot, too. Could be declared progressive on motor recovery. But ain't state if that is good for the injured systems.

05-13-2003, 02:12 AM	#3
Acid Banned Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Berlin Posts: 1,779	... (Some C.R. game arm interlinks reprogramming considerations.) In them weirdo C.R. pic games I once played one aimed for the right arm there. Tried to alike send out a movement command but hold it before it is executed. Got the impression, such done real (my extreme lacks of professionality with such aside) might be more suited to send particularily right C1 there overload, than to tune for a region there, and one in the head, like upper frontal cortex on the opposite side. Got into parallel processing limits problems. Thought, the correct settings seem, to keep central aimings for right C1 systems security supervision in this. But aimings for some region in the hand or arm, and opposite upper frontal, were already alike maxing out my as MBD rather handicapped parallel processing capacities. With the left arm there, I usually figured it not worth the bother to even try. Spinal hardware interlinks between C3 and brain base register too far down. And left C1 in a stage there, that attempts for the arm seem more suited to cause overloads, maybe up to systems damages there, than decent chances being registered to get that arm in again. Seems to take first programming for hardware interlinks there going up, and there are too many complications for my rather limited capacities with that. With the other stronger side I assumed, if the dude were after the arm on that side, he should IMO spend a lot more time going for rather passive interlinks with right C1. Supervising how long that region can take that well enough, and withdraw before it gets too much for there. And train these timings and interlinks with there up. Then shunt with there rather central downwards, and figure out how far the damaged are still taking to what O.K. enough. Working so it is O.K. enough for them to widen out timings and interlink strengthes, and parallel processing capacities. Parallel processing capacities of the damaged seemed a main hindrance for me in the whole. With right C6 there in that case, I thought it might be easier, if he found himself whomever is a decent enough programmer for such, and that the person maybe could try from C7 to C6 and then upwards, and also for C6 direct, to work on changes. As to me it seemed, from C5 downwards for C6 is way harder to get C6 log, than from C7 upwards for C6. Quite generally I assumed that right upwards ones (and in his systems also left side ones) might be easier programmed for via some good enough external programmer, while the downwards right ones better via himself. A text of Wise Young, if I got that right, seemed to list C5 to T1 as relevant for arm interlinks. So in that particular case there with the right arm, I figured takes on the right side to reprogram interlink capacities upwards and downwards for these. If parallel processing capacities of the damaged are not in an O.K. enough way for them gotten up, maybe he can wait for better arm use a long time still. So I figured takes softly enough for them working on widening out their parallel processing capacities in context with these spinal regions. And eventually starting to program for this arm more. I mentioned some considerations about that before. But more generally I have been more to do with brain than arms stuff, and though for sort of an idle hobby in between it was entertaining for me to process a bit about such in that case, all in all arms are not my "department".

05-13-2003, 02:20 AM	#4
Acid Banned Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Berlin Posts: 1,779	.... With legs there I thought, apart from that for the left one that ain't seem to look good at all in prospects, that even if one had someone who knows how to program up interlinks for there, likely it'd change spinal sides balances. As on the stronger side more can alike transit. And on the weaker not so much. Spinal adaptations of between the legs off-branches and up there, might impact on spinal regions with belly organ off-branches also. The more these alter sides balances, the more likely to me it seems, that eventually off-links to belly organs might alter in sides balances there also. I am no med smurf to guess just about how becoming that'd be for belly organs. However I'm very sure that they are more important than legs. Whatever some here holler around like legs are the most relevant. The most relevant seem simplified vital systems. And concerning spinal injuries the welfare of the damaged regions. To blindly risk systems security and welfare, in a craze to try to force something on injured systems, that might be negative also in impacts, and not consider such at all, seems foolish.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-17-2003, 04:55 AM	#5
Wise Young Administrator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: New Brunswick, NJ, USA Posts: 37,972	Acid, I don't understand well what you are saying and so must paraphrase my best interpretation of your questions: Is activity bad for the spinal cord? • It is possible that certain types of activity may not be good for recovery in the spinal cord. The reason is that the spinal cord does "learn" and if you give the spinal cord the wrong information, it may acquire "bad habits". • Pain for example may disrupt locomotor reflexes. A recent study reported that painful electrical stimulation of the legs in a spinal-injured rat disrupts and retards locomotor recovery. Wise.