Journal of Neurology and Neurorehabilitation Research

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.

Perspective - Journal of Neurology and Neurorehabilitation Research (2025) Volume 10, Issue 3

Mechanisms of Neuroplasticity Enhancement Through Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation in Stroke Recovery

Emily Carter*

Department of Neurophysiology, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.

*Corresponding Author:
Emily Carter
Department of Neurophysiology
University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
E-mail: e.carter@cam.ac.uk

Received: 03-Jul-2025, Manuscript No. JNNR-25-171937; Editor assigned: 04-Jul-2025, PreQC No. JNNR-25-1719375(PQ); Reviewed: 18-Jul-2025, QC No JNNR-25-1719375; Revised: 21-Jul-2025, Manuscript No. JNNR-25-1719375(R); Published: 28-Jul-2025, DOI:10.35841/ aajnnr -10.3.265

Citation: Carter E. Mechanisms of neuroplasticity enhancement through non-invasive brain stimulation in stroke recovery. J Neurol Neurorehab Res. 2025;10(3):265.

Introduction

Stroke remains a leading cause of adult disability globally, often resulting in deficits in motor, sensory, and cognitive functions. Rehabilitation strategies aim to capitalize on the brain’s intrinsic capacity for neuroplasticity, promoting recovery of lost functions through reorganization of neural networks. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), have emerged as promising adjuncts to conventional therapy. These interventions modulate cortical excitability, facilitating synaptic potentiation and enhancing activity-dependent plasticity within both lesioned and peri-lesional brain regions [1].

The therapeutic efficacy of NIBS is closely linked to the timing, intensity, and specificity of stimulation. Early-phase interventions, delivered alongside task-oriented rehabilitation, have been shown to strengthen corticospinal projections and improve functional outcomes. NIBS protocols can be tailored to target either the affected hemisphere to promote excitatory activity or the contralesional hemisphere to reduce maladaptive inhibition, thereby restoring interhemispheric balance. Such targeted modulation encourages the recruitment of spared neural circuits, reinforcing voluntary movement and functional coordination [2].

Mechanistically, NIBS induces long-term potentiation-like changes at the synaptic level, enhancing neurotransmitter release and receptor sensitivity within targeted cortical areas. These neurophysiological effects contribute to the consolidation of motor learning and facilitate the integration of rehabilitative exercises into meaningful motor behavior. Functional imaging studies demonstrate that repeated stimulation, combined with active training, results in reorganization of cortical maps and improved connectivity within sensorimotor networks, ultimately supporting recovery of skilled motor functions [3].

In addition to motor rehabilitation, NIBS has been investigated for its potential to improve cognitive deficits post-stroke. Targeting dorsolateral prefrontal and parietal regions, tDCS and TMS protocols can enhance attention, working memory, and executive functioning. When paired with cognitive training exercises, these interventions promote synaptic plasticity within task-relevant networks, amplifying learning effects. Moreover, individual factors, including lesion location, age, and baseline cortical excitability, influence responsiveness to stimulation, highlighting the need for personalized treatment plans [4].

Despite the promising results, several challenges remain regarding the optimization and clinical integration of NIBS. Determining the optimal stimulation parameters, duration, and combination with rehabilitative exercises requires further research. Additionally, long-term safety and the sustainability of functional gains must be evaluated across diverse patient populations. Interdisciplinary collaboration between neurophysiologists, rehabilitation specialists, and clinicians will be crucial for translating experimental findings into effective, evidence-based neurorehabilitation protocols [5].

Conclusion

Non-invasive brain stimulation represents a powerful tool for enhancing neuroplasticity and promoting functional recovery after stroke. By precisely modulating cortical excitability and reinforcing activity-dependent plasticity, these interventions can complement conventional rehabilitation to improve motor and cognitive outcomes. Continued research and individualized treatment strategies will be essential to maximize the clinical impact of NIBS in stroke recovery.

References

  1. Rapoport M, McCullagh S, Streiner D, et al. The clinical significance of major depression following mild traumatic brain injury. Psychosomatics. 2003;44:33-37.

    2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  2. Jorge RE, Robinson RG, Arndt SV, et al. Depression following traumatic brain injury: a 1 year longitudinal study. J Affect Disord. 1993;27:233-243.

    3. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Brooks N, McKinlay W, Symington C, et al. Return to work within the first seven years of severe head injury. Brain Inj. 1987;1:5-19.

    4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  4. Wiegner S, Donders J. Performance on the California Verbal Learning Test after traumatic brain injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1999;21:159-170.

    5. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Stuss DT, Ely P, Hugenholtz H, et al. Subtle neuropsychological deficits in patients with good recovery after closed head injury. Neurosurgery. 1985;17:41-47.

    6. Indexed at, Google Scholar

Get the App