Impact Of Beat Frequency in Rhythmic Auditory Stimulation un The Effectiveness of Motor Imagery in Stroke Rehabilitation

Authors

  • Bhavini Gurjar
  • Deepak Lohar
  • Jafar Khan
  • Deepika Balala
  • Shubham Menria
  • Richa Hirendra Rai
  • Renuka Pal
  • Rinshum Vyas
  • Shilpi Kapoor
  • Deepak Sharma

Keywords:

N\A

Abstract

Background: Motor Imagery (MI) combined with Rhythmic Auditory Stimulation (RAS) is an emerging approach in stroke rehabilitation. However, the optimal tempo for RAS remains unclear. This study evaluates the impact of beat frequency slow (50 bpm) vs fast (90 bpm) on motor outcomes when used with MI in stroke rehabilitation, while using a CIMT group as constant for comparison.

Methods: Forty post-stroke patients were randomized into three groups. Group A (n=20) received CIMT. Group B1 (n=10) practiced MI with slow RAS (50 bpm), and Group B2 (n=10) with fast RAS (90 bpm). All interventions lasted 16 weeks. STREAM and MMT scores were recorded at baseline and at the end of treatment.

Results: All groups showed significant improvement. However, Group B1 (slow RAS) showed better coordination and motor planning outcomes than B2 (fast RAS). CIMT group showed overall higher muscle strength gains.

Conclusion: Slow rhythmic cues (50 bpm) enhanced the effectiveness of Motor Imagery more than fast rhythms. Beat frequency should be considered in RAS-based stroke rehabilitation protocols.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet. 2011;377(9778):1693–1702.

Morris JH, van Wijck F, Joice S, Donaghy M. Eur J Neurol. 2013;20(4):603–610.

Liepert J, Bauder H, Miltner WHR, Taub E, Weiller C. Stroke. 2000;31(6):1215-20.

Page SJ, Levine P, Sisto SA, Johnston MV. Phys Ther. 2001;81(8):1455-62.

Zhang Y, Jiang W, Rao Y, et al. Neural Regen Res. 2022;17(7):1525–32.

Decety J, Grezes J. Trends Cogn Sci. 1999;3(5):172–8.

Calautti C, Baron JC. Stroke. 2003;34(6):1553-1566.

Zimmermann-Schlatter A, et al. BMC Neurol. 2008;8:60.

Thaut MH, McIntosh GC, Hoemberg V. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1185.

Subramaniam S, Bhatt T. NeuroRehabilitation. 2019;44(1):27-37.

Schaefer RS. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014;369(1658):20130402.

Cha Y, Kim Y, Chung Y. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014;26(4):479–482.

Ghai S, Ghai I, Effenberg AO. Sci Rep. 2018;8:506.

Guerra ZF, Lucchetti G. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2017;41(4):205–214.

Taub E, Uswatte G, Elbert T. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3(3):228–236.

Downloads

Published

2025-08-02

How to Cite

1.
Gurjar B, Lohar D, Khan J, Balala D, Menria S, Rai RH, Pal R, Vyas R, Kapoor S, Sharma D. Impact Of Beat Frequency in Rhythmic Auditory Stimulation un The Effectiveness of Motor Imagery in Stroke Rehabilitation. J Neonatal Surg [Internet]. 2025Aug.2 [cited 2025Oct.12];14(2S):616-8. Available from: https://mail.jneonatalsurg.com/index.php/jns/article/view/8692

Issue

Vol. 14 No. 2S (2025): Journal of Neonatal Surgery

Section

Original Article

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

You are free to:

  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

Terms:

  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2 3 4 5