News

Peter Coghlan’s recovery story is one of the more remarkable you’ll come across. In 2011, aged just 33, this former soldier had a massive brain stem stroke and woke from a coma with locked-in syndrome; fully conscious and aware, but unable to move or speak. He could blink, and that was all. Imagine lying there, hearing people around your bed discuss a bleak future, with no way but blinking to tell them you’re still in there….

Locked-in syndrome is caused by damage to the pons, the part of the brain stem that carries nerve traffic between brain and body. Almost every voluntary muscle is paralysed, except, usually, the ones that move the eyes; so the person is awake and thinking clearly but unable to move or speak. Around 90% of people with it die within four months, and there’s still no cure, only assistive technology to help with communication.

Peter actually learned to communicate letter by letter on an alphabet board, using only his eyes. His first four words, blinked out to neurologist Professor David Blacker, were: ‘can you fix me?’ Then came the work; hours every day, trying to move a finger, trying to swallow, relearning the basics most of us never think about. At times, he says, it was like a horror film. But he kept at it. Six months and one day after his stroke, Peter walked (when no-one with his condition had been known to walk independently out of a hospital ward). Since then he’s kept setting himself challenges; 7km of Perth’s City to Surf, 15km for a charity walk, and last year he hiked Snowdon, the highest mountain in Wales, raising over £500 for fallen soldiers and quite possibly becoming the first locked-in syndrome quadriplegic stroke survivor to do it. He now volunteers on the same stroke ward where he was once a patient, and he’s written a book about it all, In the Blink of an Eye. Amazing stuff 😉

A word of caution alongside the inspiration, as ever. Peter’s degree of recovery is really rare; most people who survive locked-in syndrome don’t regain anything like this, and it depends heavily on the site and extent of the brain stem damage and much else outside anyone’s control. So it’s not a template; but it does show what can happen when someone refuses the ceiling placed on them and keeps chipping away long after most would have stopped, and that’s exactly the principle the ARNI Instructors and I work on every day; there’s often more in the tank than the first prognosis suggests. Peter did it with an alphabet board and a refusal to give in – great job Peter.

If your arm and hand have been left weak by a stroke, you’ll know it’s often the last thing to recover, and standard rehabilitation has surprisingly little to offer once you plateau. So this pilot trial from the University of Pittsburgh, published in Nature Medicine on 4 June 2026, caught my eye. Seven people with chronic, profound arm weakness got a measurable amount of movement back… using an implant borrowed from a completely different field of medicine.

As you know so well, a stroke damages the brain, not the spinal cord, and that turns out to be the whole basis of the idea. When you go to move your arm, the command still leaves the brain and travels down through the spinal cord to the neurons that fire the muscles; after a stroke those descending signals are badly weakened, but the spinal circuits below are still intact. They’re simply not getting a strong enough command any more. As lead researcher Marco Capogrosso puts it: ‘we’re not substituting anything. We’re just trying to facilitate whatever is left after stroke and help it as much as we can.’

The technique is called cervical epidural spinal cord stimulation. Two thin electrode leads are placed just outside the spinal cord at the neck, over the roots that serve the arm and hand (C3 to T1). The stimulation doesn’t drive the muscles directly; instead it targets the sensory nerve fibres entering the spinal cord (the dorsal-root afferents), and through them raises the excitability of the motor neurons, so the weakened signal still arriving from the brain is now enough to produce movement. The same class of device has been used for decades to treat chronic pain, and is already FDA-approved for that, but this is the first time anyone’s used it to restore arm function after a stroke.

The results, for a small early trial, were well worth having. All seven participants improved, whatever their starting level: an average 32% increase in arm strength, better overall arm mobility, and a reduction in the spasticity (the abnormal muscle stiffness) that so often follows stroke. And all of this came from fewer than nine hours of movement training across four weeks, with no serious side effects and no pain. One participant’s goal was simple: ‘my goal in the beginning was to be able to hug my girlfriend and daughter with both arms. I was able to do that.’ Professor George Wittenberg, a co-author, didn’t hold back: ‘it is like a quantum change in the way that stroke rehabilitation is being handled.’

Two things stand out about it. First, the effect is immediate; switch the stimulation on and the movement improves that moment, which, as Capogrosso notes, is itself a real motivator, because the survivor sees and feels the difference straight away and engages more. Second, it isn’t purely switch-on-switch-off. The stimulation gives an assistive effect while it’s on, but the research also points to a therapeutic effect that builds over time, with some improvement remaining even when it’s off. Btw, the one honest caveat from this feasibility study is that holding onto the gains largely depended on continued stimulation; function declined when the stimulation stopped, which is one of the main questions the next trial is set up to answer.

There’s real reason to take this seriously beyond the small numbers. Around 400,000 people in the US develop chronic arm and hand weakness after stroke every year, and, as Wittenberg says, we’re increasingly comfortable with implanted devices anyway: ‘people already get pacemakers to keep their heart going, so why not have a spinal cord stimulator to keep their movement going?’ The team is now recruiting for a longer trial, testing extended stimulation both on its own and alongside physical therapy, and Capogrosso reckons that, if no major obstacles come up, the technology could be approved for stroke within three to five years. That’s US-based and still some way from your local hospital here of course… but as timelines for this kind of neurotech go, three to five years is not long at all.

At ARNI, the ARNI Instructors and I have always worked on the principle that the arm comes back through intensive, repeated, meaningful practice… and nothing here changes that. What something like this offers is a way to make that practice possible for people whose signal to the muscle is currently just too weak to act on. Interesting stuff, and we’ll be watching where the next trial takes it.

If you’ve had a stroke on the right side of the brain, you may well have come across a problem called spatial neglect, which is where the brain stops attending to everything on your left. It isn’t actually blindness; your eyes work perfectly well, but the brain no longer registers one side of the world. Survivors tend to miss food on the left of the plate, walk into door frames, read only the right half of a page – or don’t see a car coming from the left at a crossing. Neglect is among the most common cognitive effects of stroke, occurring in roughly 38% of survivors, and it’s also one of the strongest signs of a slower, harder recovery, so finding it early can change what comes next.

The trouble is that the usual bedside tests miss a good deal of it. Someone can complete a pen-and-paper cancellation task, or copy a drawing well enough, and still be neglecting their left side out in the daily life where the problem really bites. Conventional screening depends on structured verbal instructions and set tasks, which don’t always reflect how a person behaves when simply looking around a room. And, for survivors whose speech has been affected by the stroke, language-based tests become even harder still to administer fairly.

So a team at the University of Lucerne and the Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, led by Prof Thomas Nyffeler and Dr Brigitte Kaufmann, has spent several years developing a different approach based on eye-tracking, and their latest study (published in Neuropsychological Rehabilitation in 2026) takes it a significant step closer to everyday clinical use. The method is called free visual exploration. You simply look at photographs of ordinary everyday scenes, and an eye-tracker logs where your gaze goes. Someone with neglect explores only the right side of each image and leaves the left almost untouched, and when a clinician maps that gaze as a heat map, the imbalance shows up plainly. As you might imagine, this is far closer to how neglect actually behaves in real life than a tick-box test at the bedside!

What the new study adds is the missing piece that has held eye-tracking back from routine use: proper reference data. The team measured healthy people aged 20 to 89 to establish what normal looks like at every age, so a clinician now has age-appropriate benchmarks to compare a patient against. The overall direction of gaze stayed stable right across adulthood, which means the result holds up whatever a person’s age. When they tested the benchmark from their earlier work, it correctly identified over 95% of healthy participants, so a clinician can read an unusual result with real confidence as a genuine sign of neglect rather than ordinary variation in how people look at a scene. And their earlier research had already shown that clinicians pick up neglect more reliably using free-exploration eye-tracking than with the standard paper-pencil tests.

There are practical reasons this suits stroke survivors particularly well; it’s quick and needs almost no spoken instruction, so it works whatever a person’s first language, and even where speech has been affected by the stroke. And because you can repeat it easily and it gives consistent results over time, a therapist can use it not just to diagnose neglect once, but to track whether it’s improving as rehabilitation goes on. To help other clinics take it up, the team has made their normative data and analysis scripts openly available, so hospitals and neurorehabilitation centres can apply the same benchmarks straight away. It’s still moving from research into routine practice rather than sitting in every stroke unit today, but that transition looks a good deal closer than itdid. So a fast, language-free way for clinicians to pin it down early, and then follow it through recovery, is a welcome direction… and one we’ll be watching closely as it reaches more UK clinics.

How about this; imagine a soft, hair-thin thread being steered through the twisting blood vessels of the brain by a magnet held outside the skull, clearing the clot that caused a stroke. Science fiction, right?! But amazingly, it’s being built right now, by a team at MIT and a spinout called Magnendo led by Dr Yoonho Kim. And it could change how the most severe strokes are treated, and crucially, where they can be treated.

As you may know, when a large clot blocks one of the major arteries supplying the brain, the treatment is a thrombectomy: a surgeon threads a thin guidewire up through the blood vessels, from an artery in the groin or wrist all the way to the brain, then passes a catheter over it to pull the clot out. It’s one of the most effective treatments in all of stroke medicine. The hard part is the journey. The brain’s vessels are narrow, winding and fiendishly awkward to navigate, and steering a passive wire around those bends by hand takes real skill, real time, and carries a genuine risk of damaging a vessel wall along the way.

Magnendo’s answer grew out of years of research at MIT into what the team call ferromagnetic soft continuum robots. The guidewire has tiny magnetic particles built into a soft polymer tip, so instead of being pushed and twisted by hand, it’s steered from outside the body by a magnet mounted on a robotic arm. Tilt the magnet, and the tip follows the magnetic field around even the sharpest corner. In their earlier work, published in Science Robotics, the team showed the wire threading through a life-sized silicone model of the brain’s vessels, making one acute-angled turn after another to reach a series of aneurysms.. the wire is actually as thin and flexible as a conventional neurovascular guidewire, but where a standard wire is passive, this one actively steers itself toward the target.

The approach is posited to be able shorten the navigation stage of the procedure by 10 minutes or more in a typical case, and up to 30 minutes in a complex one, which is critical stuff when brain tissue is dying by the minute. In preclinical testing it reached hard-to-reach spots faster and more consistently, and, tellingly, it narrowed the gap between more and less experienced operators. The team has now been backed to develop the system further, with the longer-term aim of it navigating largely on its own, guided by live imaging and AI, so that a surgeon supervises rather than manually threads every millimetre.

So what could this mean for us as survivors and families? I think first about speed. Every minute a major artery stays blocked, more of the brain is lost, so anything that gets the clot out sooner means less damage and, very often, a better recovery to build on afterwards. But the bigger prize is access. Thrombectomy is brilliant, yet right now it’s only offered at a small number of specialist centres, because it needs a highly trained expert on hand, and many people who could benefit live too far from one to reach it in time. A robot that can do the difficult navigation, and could one day be operated remotely, might bring this treatment within reach of far more hospitals, so that where you happen to live weighs less heavily on whether you get it.

This is really early-stage work; larger trials and a long road through regulation lie ahead before any of it becomes routine. But the direction is a hopeful one: faster, safer clot removal, potentially available in many more places, for many more people. And obviously, the less brain tissue lost in those first crucial hours, the more there is to work with in rehabilitation afterwards… sounds good to us at ARNI Stroke Rehab… what’s your view?

After a stroke, the brain runs a repair programme of its own. The microglia, the brain’s resident immune cells, switch out of their initial inflammatory state and into a reparative one, producing growth factors such as insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1) that rebuild myelin around damaged nerve fibres and strengthen synaptic connections. This is a large part of what makes the early months after stroke so productive for rehabilitation… but it only lasts around two months, and once it fades, deficits tend to become permanent. Why it fades has never been well understood…

A team at the Institute of Science Tokyo, working with the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Medical Science, Kyushu University and the University of Freiburg, published their findings in Nature on 13 May 2026. They identified a transcription factor called ZFP384 which rises as the microglia lose their reparative properties; it disrupts the chromatin interactions mediated by a protein called YY1 that the microglia need in order to express their repair genes. The point with ZFP384, is that as it climbs, the repair programme switches off regardless of whether the brain still needs it. When the team deleted the Zfp384 gene from microglia in mouse stroke models, those animals held onto their recovery-associated gene expression far longer, with better remyelination, more synaptic plasticity and improved long-term neurological function.

They then built a therapeutic antisense oligonucleotide, ASO-Zfp384, to suppress the gene directly. An ASO is a short synthetic strand of nucleic acid designed to bind to the messenger RNA of a specific gene and trigger its degradation, turning that gene’s expression down. Six ASOs already hold FDA approval across three neurological conditions, including nusinersen for spinal muscular atrophy and tofersen for SOD1-associated ALS. ASOs cannot cross the blood-brain barrier when given systemically, so they are delivered by intrathecal injection into the cerebrospinal fluid, spreading along the neuraxis into the spinal cord and brain; imaging studies show glial cells take them up before neurons do, which matters here, since microglia are the target.

The timing of the ASO-Zfp384 results is significant…  the treatment sustained microglial reparative function and still worked when given a week, and even a month, after stroke onset; far outside the window in which clot-busting drugs are useful. Rather than suppressing inflammation, which has been the conventional approach, it retained the brain’s own repair programme. The team then examined brain tissue from human stroke patients and found the same relationship: as the human equivalent, ZNF384, rose, IGF1 declined. This is obviously animal research and the distance to the clinic is considerable; the next stage is safety and efficacy testing in larger preclinical models before any move toward human trials, so realistic NHS availability is a decade or more away. But. very interesting data to absorb.

If you’ve come across transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as a possible (clinical) add-on to stroke rehabilitation, an interesting review published in July 2026 in the journal Brain Sciences, led by Marcin Karol Setlak and colleagues at the Medical University of Silesia in Poland, draws a careful line between what the tech can and cannot yet do. rTMS is a non-invasive way of changing the excitability of the brain’s motor and language networks; the idea is not to replace rehabilitation but to prime the affected area so that the physiotherapy or speech work you do afterwards lands more effectively. The review’s focus is a more precise version of it; neuronavigated rTMS (nrTMS)… which links the stimulation to your own MRI scan and tracks the coil position in real time.

So, conventional rTMS is usually aimed using scalp landmarks or standard coordinate systems, which give only a rough approximation of the cortical target underneath… and after a stroke, the lesion, the surrounding reorganisation and any change in brain shape can shift the relationship between the scalp and the region you want to stimulate. So two patients treated on the same nominal protocol can end up with stimulation over different targets. Neuronavigation reduces that uncertainty; the target is defined on the patient’s own MRI, the coil position and angle are monitored during stimulation, and the same target can be reproduced session after session. When rTMS is delivered over many sessions alongside motor training, that reproducibility matters, because small differences in coil placement otherwise add up.

Stroke is the most studied use of rTMS in rehabilitation, mostly for upper-limb motor recovery, but also for aphasia, neglect and dysphagia. Two broad strategies are common; low-frequency stimulation (around 1 Hz) to the undamaged hemisphere to reduce its inhibitory influence, or high-frequency stimulation to the damaged hemisphere to boost its activity. Both rest on the interhemispheric imbalance model, but the review is clear that neither should be applied mechanically… in patients with extensive damage to the corticospinal tract, boosting the lesioned side may not be enough, and in patients who rely on the other hemisphere for residual movement, suppressing it may do harm. Which strategy suits you depends on your lesion, your remaining motor output, and how far your networks have already reorganised.

Better targeting is not the same as better outcomes, and the review is direct about the difference. Neuronavigation improves the accuracy and reproducibility of where the coil sits, but it does not by itself control how far the stimulation spreads through the tissue, which depends on coil design, coil-to-cortex distance, intensity and your individual anatomy. And most of the clinical evidence supporting rTMS after stroke was gathered using conventional, non-navigated protocols. So its specific superiority over standard rTMS in stroke recovery has not yet been shown in controlled trials.

The authors call nrTMS a precision-enhancing tool rather than a treatment in its own right. rTMS in general is available in some UK centres for selected uses, but neuronavigated protocols for stroke rehabilitation remain specialised and investigational, held back by equipment cost, the need for recent MRI, planning time, operator training, and close teamwork between neurologists, physiotherapists and neurophysiology teams. Routine NHS use for stroke is some way off and depends on trials showing the added precision produces real functional gains. At ARNI, the ARNI Instructors and I work on the principle that any priming intervention only counts if the rehabilitation that follows is intensive and task-specific; nrTMS is worth following, but the training that comes after it is still what does the work.

Did you know that strokes follow predictable time-of-day patterns? They happen more often in the morning hours and are often more severe near the end of the sleep period. A study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, led by Lauren Hablitz PhD at the University of Rochester Medicine and building on more than a decade of research by Maiken Nedergaard MD DMSc (whose lab discovered the glymphatic system in 2012), found that reinforcing the body’s natural daily rhythms after stroke improved motor recovery, shrank lesion size, lowered brain inflammation and boosted the brain’s waste-clearing system in mouse models. The benefits appeared even when treatment started three days after the stroke, well beyond the window for clot-busting drugs.

The glymphatic system circulates cerebrospinal fluid through brain tissue, clearing waste products and the inflammatory signals that build up after injury. This clearance is most active during sleep and controlled by the body’s internal 24-hour clock; stroke disrupts both, which slows the cleaning down when the brain needs it most. As Hablitz puts it: ‘stroke is not just a vascular event, but a disorder of timing.’ Her theory is that much of the lingering damage after stroke comes down to a failure of clearance: ‘if the system responsible for clearing signalling molecules isn’t working properly, everything builds up.’

The researchers tested four ways of restoring circadian rhythm: timed light exposure, melatonin, a clock-targeting drug called KL001, and time-restricted feeding (eating within a set daily window). KL001 and time-restricted feeding were then tested in stroke models, and both improved recovery, reduced lesion size and lowered inflammation. ‘All of the cytokines moved in the same direction,’ Hablitz notes… the brain appeared to be clearing inflammatory signals across the board rather than the treatment hitting one single target. Time-restricted feeding is already under study for heart disease and diabetes; it needs no specialist equipment and could, in principle, be done at home.

This is still animal research and human trials are needed before anyone can say it works the same way in people. Hablitz’s next steps are to establish whether improved glymphatic flow directly drives recovery and whether circadian-based interventions can move into clinical trials. At ARNI, the ARNI Instructors and I treat sleep and daily rhythm as rehabilitation factors rather than background lifestyle advice; this research sets out a neurological mechanism behind that.