Akhyova Sahoo¹*, Riti Mohanty², Priyanka Kar¹, Aakansha¹ and Birupakshya Mahakul³

¹Associate Professor, KIMS School of Physiotherapy, BBSR, India
²Associate Professor Hi-Tech College of Physiotherapy, BBSR, India
³Professor, KIMS School of Physiotherapy, BBSR, India

*Corresponding Author: Akhyova Sahoo, Associate Professor, KIMS School of Physiotherapy, BBSR, India.

Received: July 20, 2026; Published: September 01, 2026

Abstract

Background: Stroke is a leading cause of long-term disability in the world that frequently leads toward motor impairment, a lack of independence, and disability in activities of daily living. The regaining of motor functions following a stroke is not solely dependent upon motor practice but also the quality and combination of sensory information. Sensory Related intervention like sensory retraining, mirror therapy, motor imagery, bilateral, electrical, robotic rehabilitation and virtual reality interventions have become promising approaches to improve motor relearning using neuroplasticity processes.

Objective: To conduct a systematic review of the contributions of altered sensory input to post-stroke motor relearning and formulate a theoretical model of the relationships between sensory enhancement, neuroplasticity and functional motor recovery.

Methods: Evidence-based research was presented in the form of a systematic review and theoretical synthesis by the researchers utilizing evidence of clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and rehabilitation-based studies in stroke survivors as adults. The review explored neurophysiological processes, interventions and concluded on their effects on motor recovery outcomes.

Results: The literature review indicates that altered and/or augmented sensory stimuli could potentially contribute to motor relearning poststroke by improving sensory perception, sensorimotor integration, sensorimotor feedback perception, and motor performance. Reported benefit was intervention type-, stroke characteristics-, and outcome assessed dependent. Most consistently found evidence was identified for selected upper limb and hand outcomes, with possible benefits for mirror therapy, bilateral training and feedback based approaches, whilst evidence for gait, activities of daily living, functional independence and specific neurophysiological mechanisms was more heterogeneous. Several possible mechanisms were proposed by the theoretical synthesis which connect changes in sensory input and motor relearning such as increased afferent feedback, sensorimotor integration, error-based learning, internal motor simulation and experience-dependent neuroplasticity.

Conclusion: Modulations or enhancements of sensory inputs could be added to repetitive, taskspecific, active post-stroke rehabilitation for motor relearning. Mirror therapy, sensory retraining, motor imagery, bilateral training, sensory stimulation, robotic rehabilitation and/or virtual reality appear to be beneficial based on current evidence, although evidence varies in strength and consistency for different interventions and outcomes. Research and data support the proposed theoretical framework, which explains the possible interactive role of sensory feedback with motor practice and neuroplasticity, but more and quality research is needed to understand how sensory feedback should be used and to illustrate potential mechanisms.

Keywords: Stroke Rehabilitation; Altered Sensory Input; Motor Relearning; Neuroplasticity; Sensorimotor Integration; Mirror Therapy; Virtual Reality and Functional Recovery

References

1. Stinear CM., et al. “An update on predicting motor recovery after stroke”. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 57 (2014): 489-498.
2. Dembele J., et al. “Bilateral versus unilateral upper limb training in subacute stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. South African Journal of Physiotherapy 80 (2024): 12.
3. Arya KN., et al. “Mirror illusion for sensorimotor training in stroke: a randomized controlled trial”. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases 27 (2018): 3236-3246.
4. Du Q., et al. “Vibrotactile enhancement in hand rehabilitation has a reinforcing effect on sensorimotor brain activities”. Frontiers in Neuroscience 16 (2022): 935827.
5. Rand D. “Proprioception deficits in chronic stroke: upper extremity function and daily living”. PLoS One 13 (2018): e0195043.
6. Jeannerod M. “Mental imagery in the motor context”. Neuropsychologia 33 (1995): 1419-1432.
7. Crosby LD., et al. “A novel bilateral lower extremity mirror therapy intervention for individuals with stroke”. Heliyon 2 (2016): e00208.
8. Stinear CM., et al. “Kinesthetic, but not visual, motor imagery modulates corticomotor excitability”. Experimental Brain Research 168 (2006): 157-164.
9. Stoykov ME and Madhavan S. “Motor priming in neurorehabilitation”. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy 39 (2015): 33-42.
10. Arya KN., et al. “Interlimb coupling in poststroke rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial”. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 27 (2020): 272-289.
11. Mehrholz J., et al. “Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke”. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018 (2018): CD006876.
12. Cauraugh JH., et al. “Bilateral movement training and stroke motor recovery progress: a structured review and meta-analysis”. Human Movement Science 29 (2010): 853-870.
13. Connell LA., et al. “Somatosensory impairment after stroke: frequency of different deficits and their recovery”. Clinical Rehabilitation 22 (2008): 758-767.
14. Wu CY., et al. “Effects of mirror therapy on motor and sensory recovery in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial”. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 94 (2013): 1023-1030.
15. Kimberley TJ., et al. “Neural substrates for motor imagery in severe hemiparesis”. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 20 (2006): 268-277.
16. Li YC., et al. “Three ways to improve arm function in the chronic phase after stroke by robotic priming combined with mirror therapy, arm training, and movement-oriented therapy”. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 104 (2023): 1195-1202.
17. Dohle C., et al. “Mirror therapy promotes recovery from severe hemiparesis: a randomized controlled trial”. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 23 (2009): 209-217.
18. Hurst AJ and Boe SG. “Imagining the way forward: a review of contemporary motor imagery theory”. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 16 (2022): 1033493.
19. Peng WW., et al. “Neurobiological mechanisms of TENS-induced analgesia”. Neuroimage 195 (2019): 396-408.
20. Pollock A., et al. “Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke”. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 11 (2014): CD010820.
21. Bayona NA., et al. “The role of task-specific training in rehabilitation therapies”. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 12 (2005): 58-65.
22. Van Delden ALEQ., et al. “A systematic review of bilateral upper limb training devices for poststroke rehabilitation”. Stroke Research Treatment 2012 (2012): 972069.
23. Kiper P., et al. “Effects of immersive virtual reality on upper-extremity stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review with meta-analysis”. Journal of Clinical Medicine 13 (2023): 146.
24. Garcia Carrasco D and Aboitiz Cantalapiedra J. “Effectiveness of motor imagery or mental practice in functional recovery after stroke: a systematic review”. Neurologia 31 (2016): 43-52.
25. Chen PM., et al. “Comparison of bilateral and unilateral upper limb training in people with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. PLoS One 14 (2019): e0216357.
26. Lee SH., et al. “Effects of virtual reality-based bilateral upper-extremity training on brain activity in post-stroke patients”. Journal of Physical Therapy Science 27 (2015): 2285-2287.
27. Wen X., et al. “Therapeutic role of additional mirror therapy on the recovery of upper extremity motor function after stroke”. Neural Plastic 2022 (2022): 8966920.
28. French B., et al. “Repetitive task training for improving functional ability after stroke”. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016 (2016): CD006073.
29. Chang WH and Kim YH. “Robot-assisted therapy in stroke rehabilitation”. Journal of Stroke 15 (2013): 174.
30. Langhorne P., et al. “Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review”. Lancet Neurology 8 (2009): 741-754.
31. Van Peppen RPS., et al. “The impact of physical therapy on functional outcomes after stroke: what’s the evidence?” Clinical Rehabilitation 18 (2004): 833-862.
32. Zehr EP., et al. “Neuromechanical interlimb interactions and rehabilitation of walking after stroke”. In: Replace, Repair, Restore, Relieve. Cham: Springer (2014): 219-225.
33. Chen X., et al. “Therapeutic effects of sensory input training on motor function rehabilitation after stroke”. Medicine 97 (2018): e13387.
34. Samuelkamaleshkumar S., et al. “Mirror therapy enhances motor performance in the paretic upper limb after stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial”. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 95 (2014): 2000-2005.
35. Michielsen ME., et al. “Motor recovery and cortical reorganization after mirror therapy in chronic stroke patients: a phase II randomized controlled trial”. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 25 (2011): 223-233.
36. Tyson SF., et al. “Sensory loss in hospital-admitted people with stroke: characteristics, associated factors, and relationship with function”. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 22 (2008): 166-172.
37. Stoykov ME., et al. “Movement-based priming: clinical applications and neural mechanisms”. Journal of Motor Behavior 49 (2017): 88-97.
38. Grezes J and Decety J. “Functional anatomy of execution, mental simulation, observation, and verb generation of actions: a meta-analysis”. Human Brain Mapping 12 (2001): 1-19.
39. Cauraugh JH and Kim S. “Two coupled motor recovery protocols are better than one: electromyogram-triggered neuromuscular stimulation and bilateral movements”. Stroke 33 (2022): 1589-1594.
40. Kwakkel G., et al. “Constraint-induced movement therapy after stroke”. Lancet Neurology 14 (2015): 224-234.
41. Yoon JA., et al. “Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy and mirror therapy for patients with subacute stroke”. Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine 38 (2014): 458.
42. Chen S., et al. “Effectiveness and success factors of bilateral arm training after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 14 (2022): 875794.
43. Yavuzer G., et al. “Mirror therapy improves hand function in subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial”. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 89 (2008): 393-398.
44. Munzert J., et al. “Cognitive motor processes: the role of motor imagery in the study of motor representations”. Brain Research Review 60 (2009): 306-326.
45. Carlsson H., et al. “Sensory re-learning of the upper limb after stroke: development and description of a novel intervention using the TIDieR checklist”. Trials 22 (2021): 430.
46. O’Shea H and Moran A. “Does motor simulation theory explain the cognitive mechanisms underlying motor imagery? A critical review”. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 11 (2017): 72.
47. Sun Y and Zehr EP. “Sensory enhancement amplifies interlimb cutaneous reflexes in wrist extensor muscles”. Journal of Neurophysiology 122 (2019): 2085-2094.
48. Bolognini N., et al. “The sensory side of post-stroke motor rehabilitation”. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 34 (2016): 571-586.
49. Stewart KC., et al. “Bilateral movement training and stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. Journal of Neurological Science 244 (2006): 89-95.
50. Timmermans AA., et al. “Technology-assisted training of arm-hand skills in stroke: concepts on reacquisition of motor control and therapist guidelines for rehabilitation technology design”. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 6 (2009): 1.
51. Vahdat S., et al. “A single session of robot-controlled proprioceptive training modulates functional connectivity of sensorimotor networks and improves reaching accuracy in chronic stroke”. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 33 (2019): 70-81.
52. Renner CIE., et al. “Bilateral arm training versus unilateral arm training for severely affected patients with stroke”. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 101 (2020): 1120-1130.
53. Kaupp C., et al. “Rhythmic arm cycling training improves walking and neurophysiological integrity in chronic stroke”. Journal of Neurophysiology 119 (2018): 1095-1112.
54. Klarner T., et al. “Long-term plasticity in reflex excitability induced by five weeks of arm and leg cycling training after stroke”. Brain Science 6 (2016): 54.
55. Cauraugh JH and Summers JJ. “Neural plasticity and bilateral movements: a rehabilitation approach for chronic stroke”. Progress in Neurobiology 75 (2005): 309-320.
56. Carlsson H., et al. “Sensory function, measured as active discriminative touch, is associated with dexterity after stroke”. PM R 11 (2019): 821-827.
57. Chuang LL., et al. “Effect of EMG-triggered neuromuscular electrical stimulation with bilateral arm training on hemiplegic shoulder pain and arm function after stroke”. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 14 (2017): 122.
58. Robertson SL and Jones LA. “Tactile sensory impairments and prehensile function in subjects with left-hemisphere cerebral lesions”. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 75 (1994): 1108-1117.
59. Keeling AB., et al. “Robot enhanced stroke therapy optimizes rehabilitation: a pilot study”. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 18 (2021): 10.
60. Kwong PWH., et al. “Bilateral transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation improves lower-limb motor function in subjects with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial”. Journal of the American Heart Association 7 (2018): e007341.
61. Hatem SM., et al. “Rehabilitation of motor function after stroke: a multiple systematic review focused on techniques to stimulate upper extremity recovery”. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 10 (2016): 442.
62. Stoykov ME., et al. “Comparison of bilateral and unilateral training for upper extremity hemiparesis in stroke”. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 23 (2009): 945-953.
63. Dickstein R., et al. “Motor imagery in physical therapist practice”. Physical Therapy 87 (2007): 942-953.
64. Jeannerod M. Neural simulation of action: a unifying mechanism for motor cognition”. Neuroimage 14 (2001): S103-S109.
65. Jia J. “Exploration on neurobiological mechanisms of the central–peripheral–central closed-loop rehabilitation”. Frontiers in Cell Neuroscience 16 (2022): 982881.
66. Stoykov ME and Corcos DM. “A review of bilateral training for upper extremity hemiparesis”. Occupational Therapy International 16 (2009): 190-203.
67. Waller SM and Whitall J. “Bilateral arm training: why and who benefits?” NeuroRehabilitation 23 (2008): 29-41.
68. Whitall J., et al. “Repetitive bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing improves motor function in chronic hemiparetic stroke”. Stroke 31 (2000): 2390-2395.
69. Song YH and Lee HM. “Effect of immersive virtual reality-based bilateral arm training in patients with chronic stroke”. Brain Science 11 (2021): 1032.

Citation

Citation: Akhyova Sahoo., et al. “Effect of Altered Sensory Input on Motor Relearning in Post-Stroke Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review and Theoretical Synthesis". Acta Scientific Neurology 9.9 (2026): 18-45.

Copyright

Copyright: ©2026 Akhyova Sahoo., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.