Abstract
[Purpose] This review synthesizes findings from studies on two forms of Constraint-Induced Movement Therapies: the original Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy and the modified Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy, in adult stroke patients including the evidence, current limitations and future directions. [Methods] We critically reviewed studies evaluating the effectiveness of Constraint-Induced Movement Therapies in chronic stoke focusing on the functional (i.e. motor recovery) and the neural (i.e. cortical organization) levels. [Results] Constraint-Induced Movement Therapies seemed to improve the upper limb functional usage in chronic stoke with no reliable neurophysiological underlying mechanisms. The Motor Activity Log was the common outcome measuring motor recovery. The work that has been done on modified Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy was far less than the work done on the original Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy. [Conclusion] Evident lack of understanding of the association between changes in motor recovery and the underlying neural mechanisms in-terms of measures of assessing and defining functional recovery (i.e Motor Activity Log) that lacks sufficient sensitivity to characterize changes in movement strategies and thereby lack of distinction between recovery and behavioral compensation. Future studies should employ using kinematic metrics to quantify and explain the training-related changes in behavior following Constraint-Induced Movement Therapies in chronic stroke.