Adults 18 to 85, any sex, with Stroke. Patients with the condition only — healthy volunteers not accepted.
Results — posted to ClinicalTrials.gov
Per-arm endpoint measurements with 95% confidence intervals where reported. Source: trial results section.
Primary Motor Cortex (M1) Excitability Derived From Stimulus Response CurvePrimary· Baseline, Post-Training 1 (1 Week), Post-Training 2 (4 Weeks)
Motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes were measured prior to treatment (baseline), one week after the treatment (post-training 1), and 4 weeks after treatment (post-training 2).The MEP is elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) at increased intensity. Its amplitude is measured from peak to peak and expressed in millivolts (mV). Measured MEP amplitudes were plotted against the intensity to create a stimulus response curve (SRC). Long-lasting increases in MEP amplitude indicate increases in motor cortex excitability and are associated with motor learning.
Baseline
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
4.68
± 5.65
Sham Stimulation
9.09
± 11.28
Post-Training Week 1
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
5.01
± 5.96
Sham Stimulation
8.04
± 9.28
Post-Training Week 4
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
2.66
± 2.55
Sham Stimulation
7.66
± 10.67
Mean Time to Completion for Jebsen Hand Function Test (JTT)Secondary· Baseline, Post-Training (1 Week), Post-Training (4 Weeks)
The JTT provides a standardized and objective evaluation of fine and gross motor hand function using simulated activities of daily living assessing the speed of performance. Total score is the sum of time taken for each sub-test, which were normalized to standard scores (also expressed in seconds).Total scores range from +1 to -1 where -1 indicates best function.
Baseline
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
.38
± .23
Sham Stimulation
.49
± .21
Post-Training Week 1
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
.34
± .26
Sham Stimulation
.45
± .20
Post-Training Week 4
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
.31
± .26
Sham Stimulation
.44
± .21
Mean Peak Acceleration of Wrist Extension MovementsSecondary· Baseline, Post-Training (1 Week), Post-Training (4 Weeks)
Mean peak acceleration was measured at baseline, one week after the treatment (post-training 1), and four weeks after the treatment (post-training 2). Increases in the mean peak acceleration of the trained wrist extension movements indicate motor learning. Acceleration was measured in g; a symbol for the average acceleration produced by gravity at the Earth's surface.
Baseline
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
.61
± .48
Sham Stimulation
.60
± .32
Post-Training Week 1
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
.72
± .32
Sham Stimulation
.79
± .49
Post-Training Week 4
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
.71
± .32
Sham Stimulation
.81
± .47
Mean Reaction Time of Wrist Extension MovementsSecondary· Baseline, Post-Training (1 Week), Post-Training (4 Weeks)
Subjects will be asked to perform 7 auditory-cued ballistic wrist extensions before and after motor training. Electromyographic (EMG) activity recorded during the ballistic wrist extensions will be used to measure reaction time. Reaction time is the length of time between the auditory cue and the onset of the movement-related EMG burst of the extensor carpi ulnaris muscle. A longer time indicated longer time to reaction.
Baseline
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
238.1
± 77.40
Sham Stimulation
257.14
± 88.13
Post-Training Week 1
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
238.43
± 36.38
Sham Stimulation
224.59
± 63.69
Post-Training Week 4
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
219.63
± 67.55
Sham Stimulation
225.35
± 75.05
Mean Motor Activity Log (MAL) Score: Amount SubtestSecondary· Baseline, Post-Training (1 Week), Post-Training (4 Weeks)
Individuals are asked to rate amount of movement during 30 daily functional tasks. Items are scored on a 0 to 6-point ordinal scale as follows:
0 = The weaker arm was not used at all for that activity (never)
1 = Occasionally used weaker arm, but only very rarely (very rarely)
2= Sometimes used weaker arm, but did the activity most of the time with stronger arm (rarely)
3 = Used weaker arm about half as much as before the stroke (half pre-stroke)
4 = Used weaker arm almost as much as before the stroke (3/4 pre-stroke)
5 = The ability to use the weaker arm for that activity was as good as
Baseline
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
78.67
± 23.16
Sham Stimulation
78.00
± 24.76
Post-Training Week 1
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
81.00
± 23.63
Sham Stimulation
79.00
± 25.39
Post-Training Week 4
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
84.67
± 23.21
Sham Stimulation
77.33
± 25.42
Mean Motor Activity Log (MAL): How Well SubtestSecondary· Baseline, Post-Training (1 Week), Post-Training (4 Weeks)
Individuals are asked to rate quality of movement during 30 daily functional tasks. Items are scored on a 6-point ordinal scale as follows:
0=The weaker arm was not used at all for that activity (never); 1=The weaker arm was moved during that activity, but was not helpful (very poor); 2=The weaker arm was of some use during the activity, but needed help from the stronger arm or moved very slowly or with difficulty (poor); 3=The weaker arm was used for the purpose indicated, but movements were slow or were made with only some effort (fair); 4=The movements made by the weaker arm were almost no
Baseline
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
3.41
± .96
Sham Stimulation
3.17
± 1.18
Post-Training Week 1
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
3.64
± 1.04
Sham Stimulation
3.48
± 1.23
Post-Training Week 4
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
3.92
± .96
Sham Stimulation
3.33
± 1.21
Mean Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) Total TimeSecondary· Baseline, Post-Training (1 Week), Post-Training (4 Weeks)
The Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) is a quantitative index of upper extremity motor ability examinable through the use of timed and functional tasks. There are 15 timed tasks included with a time cap of 120 seconds. The max amount of time to completion is 1800 seconds if all tasks are failed. The time in seconds were summed across all the tasks to obtain the total duration. Values in the table represent the time taken in seconds to successfully complete all 15 tasks).
Baseline
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
120.84
± 230.77
Sham Stimulation
130.04
± 153.06
Post-Training Week 1
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
91.31
± 169.83
Sham Stimulation
99.02
± 131.79
Post-Training Week 4
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
99.81
± 206.77
Sham Stimulation
91.42
± 118.77
Mean Wolf Motor Function Test Functional Ability (WMFT-FS) Scale ScoreSecondary· Baseline, Post-Training (1 Week), Post-Training (4 Weeks)
The WMFT is a 17 item scale that quantifies upper extremity (UE) motor ability through timed and functional tasks. The items are rated on a 6-point scale.Total scores can range from 17 to 102. Lower scores indicate debilitating mobility (such as no or limited functionality), while higher score indicate greater mobility (such as slow movement and normal movement).
Baseline
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
4.07
± .57
Sham Stimulation
4.08
± .72
Post-Training Week 1
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
4.31
± .55
Sham Stimulation
4.29
± .62
Post-Training Week 4
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
4.34
± .54
Sham Stimulation
4.13
± .54
Mean Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) Grip StrengthSecondary· Baseline, Post-Training (1 Week), Post-Training (4 Weeks)
Participants attempt to grip the dynamometer with greatest grip strength possible. The test should be conducted 3 times with a 1-minute rest between trials. The mean of grip strength exerted (kg) on 3 trials is then calculated.
Baseline
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
20.80
± 13.98
Sham Stimulation
22.30
± 12.72
Post-Training Week 1
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
22.30
± 19.10
Sham Stimulation
20.30
± 9.04
Post-Training Week 4
Group
Value
95% CI
Hebbian-type Stimulation
20.90
± 13.73
Sham Stimulation
20.00
± 11.57
Sponsor's own description
Stroke is a leading cause of morbidity in the United States but identification of treatment strategies to improve outcome is limited by the incomplete understanding of the mechanisms of recovery. Motor cortex (M1) reorganization plays a major-role in the recovery of motor deficits post-stroke; hence the importance for further development of rehabilitative strategies that utilize this potential for recovery.
In Specific Aim 1, investigators will determine if repeated exposure to training combined with Hebbian-type M1 stimulation enhances functional M1 reorganization in lesioned M1 of stroke patients.
In Specific Aim 2, investigators will determine if repeated exposure to training combined with Hebbian-type M1 stimulation enhances structural cortical reorganization in lesioned M1 of stroke patients and to explore whether these structural changes are related to the training induced functional cortical reorganization.
The overall goal of this project is to determine the effect of Hebbian- type stimulation on both, functional and structural brain reorganization, thereby obtaining indirect evidence for the neuronal substrate underlying training related improvement and maintenance of motor function in stroke patients. This knowledge may have a substantial positive impact on treatment for stroke patients that may significantly improve recovery and could move the field of neuro-rehabilitation forward.
Publications & conference data
1 peer-reviewed publication reference this trial (live from Europe PMC):
Other trials of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS)
Trials testing the same drug.
NCT07454954 — The Effect of Blood Flow Restriction Training Combined With Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Limb Function in Hemipl
· NA
· not yet recruiting
NCT06953596 — Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Treat Prolonged Grief Disorder
· NA
· not yet recruiting
NCT06991062 — Bayesian Neurobehavioral Phenotyping: From Mechanism Identification to Personalized Neuromodulation Treatments. R61 PHAS
· NA
· recruiting
NCT05426967 — rTMS for Military TBI-related Depression
· NA
· recruiting
NCT06639594 — Feasibility of Accelerated, Personalized rTMS as an Adjuvant for Impulse Control Disorders: a Pilot Study
· Phase 1
· recruiting
Other recruiting trials for Stroke
Currently open trials in the same condition.
NCT06615973 — Screening for Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) and Cognitive Function in Individuals With History of Stroke
· recruiting
NCT07494890 — Measurement Properties of Mechanical Cost of Walking for Individuals With Walking Impairment
· NA
· recruiting
NCT07356011 — Exoskeleton for Balance
· NA
· recruiting
NCT07523503 — Unilateral Versus Bilateral Task-specific Training on Motor Impairment, Upper Extremity Function, and Hand Dexterity in
· NA
· recruiting
NCT06704074 — Virtual Reality Task Oriented Training on Upper Limb Function in Stroke Patients
· NA
· recruiting
Publications: Europe PMC API search by NCT ID, retrieved 10 June 2026
Drug + disease cross-links: matched in real time against Drug Landscape's normalised drug + company + condition tables
Sponsor: as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov by Cathrin Buetefisch
Last refreshed: 16 January 2018
Drug Landscape aggregates and links these public records for informational use only. Always verify against the primary source before clinical or regulatory decisions. Canonical URL: https://druglandscape.com/trial/NCT01569607.