Abstract
Despite showing early promise, several recent clinical trials of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) failed to augment rehabilitative outcomes of the paretic upper limb. This article addresses why pairing NIBS with unilateral approaches is weakly generalizable to patients in all ranges of impairments. The article also addresses whether alternate therapies are better suited for the more impaired patients, where they may be more feasible and offer neurophysiologic advantages not offered with unilateral therapies. The article concludes by providing insight on how to create NIBS paradigms that are tailored to distinctly augment the effects of therapies across patients with varying degrees of impairment.