The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
This might be peddling unilaterally on a stationary bike if you can do that. For a different type of limb injury, like an arm injury, this might be reaching, provided the shoulder is mobile, doing reaching. It might be even writing with the damaged side and then intentionally not writing with the preferred or undamaged side.
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.
in some cases where people have damage in their brain, the limbs are perfectly fine, but the motor signals aren't getting down to the limbs, and in that case, the limb is fine, so you actually are free to use either limb as much as you want, and in that case, you don't want to rely on the uninjured pathway too much. In fact, you want to restrict the uninjured pathway.
you don't have to do that all day, every day. These experiments centered on doing one or two hours of dedicated work, sensory motor work
by encouraging activity of the injured limb, provided it could be done without pain, and importantly, not just exercising that limb or part of the body but restricting the opposite healthy part of the body, that the speed of recovery was significantly faster.