Purpose. The syndrome of unilateral neglect following stroke is associated with poor outcome and presents significant challenges to those providing therapy for affected individuals. In contrast to a number of reviews which have recently appeared in therapy and rehabilitation journals relating to sensory aspects of neglect, this review focuses on ‘motor neglect’. Search strategy. We searched the clinical and scientific literature for papers concerning motor neglect. The search included the databases Web of Science, Pubmed and Cinahl, primarily using the term ‘motor neglect’. There was also a large degree of secondary searching involved. Discussion. Motor neglect refers to the under-utilization of a limb opposite a brain lesion that cannot be fully explained by primary sensory and motor deficits. The paper discusses classical descriptions of motor neglect and highlights the difficulties in disentangling motor neglect from hemiparesis. The related problem of motor extinction is introduced as a useful clinical measure of neglect-related movement difficulties and a significant clinical problem in its own right. Conclusion. Motor neglect is a relatively under-recognized deficit which may have a significant impact on patient performance and recovery following stroke. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of motor neglect for rehabilitation, including the relative contributions that may be made by Constraint-induced movement therapy and Bilateral movement therapy in managing patients with neglect-related movement problems.

The cerebellum and primary motor cortex (M1) are crucial to coordinated and accurate movements of the upper limbs. There is also appreciable evidence that these two structures exert somewhat divergent influences upon proximal versus distal upper limb control. Here, we aimed to differentially regulate the contribution of the cerebellum and M1 to proximal and distal effectors during motor adaptation, with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). For this, we employed tasks that promote similar motor demands, but isolate whole arm from hand/finger movements, in order to functionally segregate the hierarchy of upper limb control. Both young and older adults took part in a visuomotor rotation task; where they adapted to a 60° visuomotor rotation using either a hand-held joystick (requiring finger/hand movements) or a 2D robotic manipulandum (requiring whole-arm reaching movements), while M1, cerebellar or sham tDCS was applied. We found that cerebellar stimulation improved adaptation performance when arm movements were required to complete the task, while in contrast stimulation of M1 enhanced adaptation during hand and finger movements only. This double-dissociation was replicated in an independent group of older adults, demonstrating that the behaviour remains intact in ageing. These results suggest that stimulation of distinct motor areas can selectively improve motor adaptation in the proximal and distal upper limb. This also highlights new ways in which tDCS might be best applied to achieve reliable rehabilitation of upper limb motor deficits.