Andrew Huberman· PhD
there is great benefit to restricting the use of the opposite, better-performing, uninjured limb or hand or other part of the body.
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
there is great benefit to restricting the use of the opposite, better-performing, uninjured limb or hand or other part of the body.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the key thing was to restrict movement of the intact, uninjured, opposite limb, and when they did that, it forced some movement in the injured limb and remarkably, through connections from the two sides of the brain, through the corpus callosum, this huge fiber pathway that links the two sides of the brain, they saw plasticity on both sides of the brain.