101
|
Kadivar Z, Beck CE, Rovekamp RN, O'Malley MK. Single limb cable driven wearable robotic device for upper extremity movement support after traumatic brain injury. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng 2021; 8:20556683211002448. [PMID: 34123404 PMCID: PMC8175840 DOI: 10.1177/20556683211002448] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2021] [Accepted: 02/24/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Recently, soft exosuits have been proposed for upper limb movement assistance, most supporting single joint movements. We describe the design of a portable wearable robotic device (WRD), “Armstrong,” able to support three degrees-of-freedom of arm movements, and report on its feasibility for movement support of individuals with hemiparesis after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods We introduce Armstrong and report on a pilot evaluation with two male individuals post-TBI (T1 and T2) and two healthy individuals. Testing involved elbow flexion/extension with and without robotic-assisted shoulder stabilization; shoulder abduction with and without robotic-assisted elbow stabilization; and assisted shoulder abduction and flexion. Outcome measures included range of motion and root mean square trajectory and velocity errors. Results TBI subjects performed active, passive, hybrid and active assistive movements with Armstrong. Subjects showed improvements in movement trajectory and velocity. T1 benefited from hybrid, active, and assistive modes due to upper extremity weakness and muscle tone. T2 benefited from hybrid and assistive modes due to impaired coordination. Healthy subjects performed isolated movements of shoulder and elbow with minimal trajectory and velocity errors. Conclusions This study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of Armstrong for upper extremity movement assistance for individuals with TBI, with therapist supervision.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zahra Kadivar
- Texas Institute for Rehabilitation and Research, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | | | - Marcia K O'Malley
- Department of Mechanical Engineering, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
102
|
Huang MZ, Yoon YS, Yang J, Yang CY, Zhang LQ. In-Bed Sensorimotor Rehabilitation in Early and Late Subacute Stroke Using a Wearable Elbow Robot: A Pilot Study. Front Hum Neurosci 2021; 15:669059. [PMID: 34108868 PMCID: PMC8180557 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.669059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2021] [Accepted: 04/13/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Objects: To evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of in-bed wearable elbow robot training for motor recovery in patients with early and late subacute stroke. Methods: Eleven in-patient stroke survivors (male/female: 7/4, age: 50.7 ± 10.6 years, post-stroke duration: 2.6 ± 1.9 months) received 15 sessions of training over about 4 weeks of hospital stay. During each hourly training, participants received passive stretching and active movement training with motivating games using a wearable elbow rehabilitation robot. Isometric maximum muscle strength (MVC) of elbow flexors and extensors was evaluated using the robot at the beginning and end of each training session. Clinical measures including Fugl-Meyer Assessment of upper extremity (FMA-UE), Motricity Index (MI) for upper extremities, Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) were measured at baseline, after the 4-week training program, and at a 1-month follow-up. The muscle strength recovery curve over the training period was characterized as a logarithmic learning curve with three parameters (i.e., initial muscle strength, rate of improvement, and number of the training session). Results: At the baseline, participants had moderate to severe upper limb motor impairment {FMA-UE [median (interquartile range)]: 28 (18-45)} and mild spasticity in elbow flexors {MAS [median (interquartile range)]: 0 (0-1)}. After about 4 weeks of training, significant improvements were observed in FMA-UE (p = 0.003) and MI (p = 0.005), and the improvements were sustained at the follow-up. The elbow flexors MVC significantly increased by 1.93 Nm (95% CI: 0.93 to 2.93 Nm, p = 0.017) and the elbow extensor MVC increased by 0.68 Nm (95% CI: 0.05 to 1.98 Nm, p = 0.036). Muscle strength recovery curve showed that patients with severe upper limb motor impairment had a greater improvement rate in elbow flexor strength than those with moderate motor impairment. Conclusion: In-bed wearable elbow robotic rehabilitation is feasible and effective in improving biomechanical and clinical outcomes for early and late subacute stroke in-patients. Results from the pilot study suggested that patients with severe upper limb motor impairment may benefit more from the robot training compared to those with moderate impairment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mei Zhen Huang
- Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Yong-Soon Yoon
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Presbyterian Medical Center, Jeonbuk, South Korea
| | - Jisu Yang
- Department of Neuroscience and Behavioral Biology, College of Arts and Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States
| | - Chung-Yong Yang
- Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, United States.,Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Seum Hospital, Jeonbuk, South Korea
| | - Li-Qun Zhang
- Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, United States.,Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, United States.,Department of Bioengineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, United States
| |
Collapse
|
103
|
De Oliveira AC, Sulzer JS, Deshpande AD. Assessment of Upper-Extremity Joint Angles Using Harmony Exoskeleton. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2021; 29:916-925. [PMID: 33872155 DOI: 10.1109/tnsre.2021.3074101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
The biomechanical complexity of the human shoulder, while critical for functionality, poses a challenge for objective assessment during sensorimotor rehabilitation. With built-in sensing capabilities, robotic exoskeletons have the potential to serve as tools for both intervention and assessment. The bilateral upper-extremity Harmony exoskeleton is capable of full shoulder articulation, forearm flexion-extension, and wrist pronation-supination motions. The goal of this paper is to characterize Harmony's anatomical joint angle tracking accuracy towards its use as an assessment tool. We evaluated the agreement between anatomical joint angles estimated from the robot's sensor data and optical motion capture markers attached to the human user. In 9 healthy participants we examined 6 upper-extremity joint angles, including shoulder girdle angles, across 4 different motions, varying active/passive motion of the user and physical constraint of the trunk. We observed mostly good to excellent levels of agreement between measurement systems with for shoulder and distal joints, magnitudes of average discrepancies varying from 0.43° to 16.03° and width of LoAs ranging between 9.44° and 41.91°. Slopes were between 1.03 and 1.43 with r > 0.9 for shoulder and distal joints. Regression analysis suggested that discrepancies observed between measured robot and human motions were primarily due to relative motion associated with soft tissue deformation. The results suggest that the Harmony exoskeleton is capable of providing accurate measurements of arm and shoulder joint kinematics. These findings may lead to robot-assisted assessment and intervention of one of the most complex joint structures in the human body.
Collapse
|
104
|
Zhou H, Zhang Q, Zhang M, Shahnewaz S, Wei S, Ruan J, Zhang X, Zhang L. Toward Hand Pattern Recognition in Assistive and Rehabilitation Robotics Using EMG and Kinematics. Front Neurorobot 2021; 15:659876. [PMID: 34054455 PMCID: PMC8155590 DOI: 10.3389/fnbot.2021.659876] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2021] [Accepted: 04/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Wearable hand robots are becoming an attractive means in the facilitating of assistance with daily living and hand rehabilitation exercises for patients after stroke. Pattern recognition is a crucial step toward the development of wearable hand robots. Electromyography (EMG) is a commonly used biological signal for hand pattern recognition. However, the EMG based pattern recognition performance in assistive and rehabilitation robotics post stroke remains unsatisfactory. Moreover, low cost kinematic sensors such as Leap Motion is recently used for pattern recognition in various applications. This study proposes feature fusion and decision fusion method that combines EMG features and kinematic features for hand pattern recognition toward application in upper limb assistive and rehabilitation robotics. Ten normal subjects and five post stroke patients participating in the experiments were tested with eight hand patterns of daily activities while EMG and kinematics were recorded simultaneously. Results showed that average hand pattern recognition accuracy for post stroke patients was 83% for EMG features only, 84.71% for kinematic features only, 96.43% for feature fusion of EMG and kinematics, 91.18% for decision fusion of EMG and kinematics. The feature fusion and decision fusion was robust as three different levels of noise was given to the classifiers resulting in small decrease of classification accuracy. Different channel combination comparisons showed the fusion classifiers would be robust despite failure of specific EMG channels which means that the system has promising potential in the field of assistive and rehabilitation robotics. Future work will be conducted with real-time pattern classification on stroke survivors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hui Zhou
- School of Automation, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China
| | - Qianqian Zhang
- School of Automation, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China
| | - Mengjun Zhang
- School of Automation, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China
| | - Sameer Shahnewaz
- School of Automation, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China
| | - Shaocong Wei
- School of Automation, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China
| | - Jingzhi Ruan
- School of Automation, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China
| | - Xinyan Zhang
- Affiliated Nanjing Brain Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Lingling Zhang
- Affiliated Nanjing Brain Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| |
Collapse
|
105
|
Conti S, Spalletti C, Pasquini M, Giordano N, Barsotti N, Mainardi M, Lai S, Giorgi A, Pasqualetti M, Micera S, Caleo M. Combining robotics with enhanced serotonin-driven cortical plasticity improves post-stroke motor recovery. Prog Neurobiol 2021; 203:102073. [PMID: 33984455 DOI: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2021.102073] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2021] [Revised: 04/22/2021] [Accepted: 05/06/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
Despite recent progresses in robotic rehabilitation technologies, their efficacy for post-stroke motor recovery is still limited. Such limitations might stem from the insufficient enhancement of plasticity mechanisms, crucial for functional recovery. Here, we designed a clinically relevant strategy that combines robotic rehabilitation with chemogenetic stimulation of serotonin release to boost plasticity. These two approaches acted synergistically to enhance post-stroke motor performance. Indeed, mice treated with our combined therapy showed substantial functional gains that persisted beyond the treatment period and generalized to non-trained tasks. Motor recovery was associated with a reduction in electrophysiological and neuroanatomical markers of GABAergic neurotransmission, suggesting disinhibition in perilesional areas. To unveil the translational potentialities of our approach, we specifically targeted the serotonin 1A receptor by delivering Buspirone, a clinically approved drug, in stroke mice undergoing robotic rehabilitation. Administration of Buspirone restored motor impairments similarly to what observed with chemogenetic stimulation, showing the immediate translational potential of this combined approach to significantly improve motor recovery after stroke.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Conti
- Translational Neural Engineering Area, The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy
| | - C Spalletti
- Institute of Neuroscience, National Research Council (CNR), Pisa, Italy
| | - M Pasquini
- Translational Neural Engineering Area, The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy
| | - N Giordano
- Institute of Neuroscience, National Research Council (CNR), Pisa, Italy
| | - N Barsotti
- Unit of Cell and Developmental Biology, Department of Biology, University of Pisa, Italy
| | - M Mainardi
- Institute of Neuroscience, National Research Council (CNR), Pisa, Italy
| | - S Lai
- Translational Neural Engineering Area, The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy
| | - A Giorgi
- Unit of Cell and Developmental Biology, Department of Biology, University of Pisa, Italy
| | - M Pasqualetti
- Unit of Cell and Developmental Biology, Department of Biology, University of Pisa, Italy; Center for Neuroscience and Cognitive Systems, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Rovereto, Italy
| | - S Micera
- Translational Neural Engineering Area, The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy; Bertarelli Foundation Chair in Translational NeuroEngineering Laboratory, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Centre for Neuroprosthetics and Institute of Bioengineering, Lausanne, Switzerland.
| | - M Caleo
- Institute of Neuroscience, National Research Council (CNR), Pisa, Italy; Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Padova, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
106
|
Aprile I, Guardati G, Cipollini V, Papadopoulou D, Monteleone S, Redolfi A, Garattini R, Sacella G, Noro F, Galeri S, Carrozza MC, Germanotta M. Influence of Cognitive Impairment on the Recovery of Subjects with Subacute Stroke Undergoing Upper Limb Robotic Rehabilitation. Brain Sci 2021; 11:brainsci11050587. [PMID: 33946452 PMCID: PMC8147141 DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11050587] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2021] [Revised: 04/28/2021] [Accepted: 04/29/2021] [Indexed: 01/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Cognitive decline is often present in stroke survivors, with a significant impact on motor recovery. However, how specific cognitive domains could impact motor recovery after robotic rehabilitation in patients with stroke is still not well understood. In this study, we analyzed the relationship between cognitive impairment and the outcome of a robot-mediated upper limb rehabilitation intervention in a sample of 51 subacute stroke patients. Participants were enrolled and treated with a set of robotic and sensor-based devices. Before the intervention, patients underwent a cognitive assessment by means of the Oxford Cognitive Screen. To assess the effect of the 30-session rehabilitation intervention, patients were assessed twice with the following outcome measures: the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), to evaluate motor function; the Upper limb Motricity Index (MI), to evaluate upper limb muscle strength; the Modified Barthel Index (mBI), to evaluate activities of daily living and mobility. We found that deficits in spatial attention and executive functions impacted the mBI improvement, while language, number processing, and spatial attention deficits reduced the gains in the FMA-UE. These results suggest the importance to evaluate the cognitive functions using an adequate tool in patients with stroke undergoing a robotic rehabilitation intervention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Irene Aprile
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, 50143 Florence, Italy; (I.A.); (G.G.); (V.C.); (D.P.)
| | - Giulia Guardati
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, 50143 Florence, Italy; (I.A.); (G.G.); (V.C.); (D.P.)
| | - Valeria Cipollini
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, 50143 Florence, Italy; (I.A.); (G.G.); (V.C.); (D.P.)
| | - Dionysia Papadopoulou
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, 50143 Florence, Italy; (I.A.); (G.G.); (V.C.); (D.P.)
| | - Serena Monteleone
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, 20121 Milan, Italy; (S.M.); (A.R.); (R.G.); (G.S.); (F.N.); (S.G.); (M.C.C.)
| | - Alessandra Redolfi
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, 20121 Milan, Italy; (S.M.); (A.R.); (R.G.); (G.S.); (F.N.); (S.G.); (M.C.C.)
| | - Romina Garattini
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, 20121 Milan, Italy; (S.M.); (A.R.); (R.G.); (G.S.); (F.N.); (S.G.); (M.C.C.)
| | - Gianluigi Sacella
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, 20121 Milan, Italy; (S.M.); (A.R.); (R.G.); (G.S.); (F.N.); (S.G.); (M.C.C.)
| | - Fulvia Noro
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, 20121 Milan, Italy; (S.M.); (A.R.); (R.G.); (G.S.); (F.N.); (S.G.); (M.C.C.)
| | - Silvia Galeri
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, 20121 Milan, Italy; (S.M.); (A.R.); (R.G.); (G.S.); (F.N.); (S.G.); (M.C.C.)
| | - Maria Chiara Carrozza
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, 20121 Milan, Italy; (S.M.); (A.R.); (R.G.); (G.S.); (F.N.); (S.G.); (M.C.C.)
- The Biorobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, 56127 Pisa, Italy
| | - Marco Germanotta
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, 50143 Florence, Italy; (I.A.); (G.G.); (V.C.); (D.P.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +39-0633086553
| |
Collapse
|
107
|
Pastorino R, Loreti C, Giovannini S, Ricciardi W, Padua L, Boccia S. Challenges of Prevention for a Sustainable Personalized Medicine. J Pers Med 2021; 11:jpm11040311. [PMID: 33923579 PMCID: PMC8073054 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11040311] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2021] [Revised: 04/09/2021] [Accepted: 04/14/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
The development and implementation of the approaches of personalized medicine for disease prevention are still at infancy, although preventive activities in healthcare represent a key pillar to guarantee health system sustainability. There is an increasing interest in finding informative markers that indicate the disease risk before the manifestation of the disease (primary prevention) or for early disease detection (secondary prevention). Recently, the systematic collection and study of clinical phenotypes and biomarkers consented to the advance of Rehabilomics in tertiary prevention. It consents to identify relevant molecular and physiological factors that can be linked to plasticity, treatment response, and natural recovery. Implementation of these approaches would open avenues to identify people at high risk and enable new preventive lifestyle interventions or early treatments targeted to their individual genomic profile, personalizing prevention and rehabilitation. The integration of personalized medicine into prevention may benefit citizens, patients, healthcare professionals, healthcare authorities, and industry, and ultimately will seek to contribute to better health and quality of life for Europe’s citizens.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roberta Pastorino
- Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health—Public Health Area, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy; (R.P.); (S.B.)
| | - Claudia Loreti
- Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Invecchiamento, Neurologiche, Ortopediche e della Testa-Collo, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy; (S.G.); (L.P.)
- Correspondence:
| | - Silvia Giovannini
- Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Invecchiamento, Neurologiche, Ortopediche e della Testa-Collo, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy; (S.G.); (L.P.)
| | - Walter Ricciardi
- Sezione di Igiene, Dipartimento Universitario di Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy;
| | - Luca Padua
- Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Invecchiamento, Neurologiche, Ortopediche e della Testa-Collo, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy; (S.G.); (L.P.)
- Dipartimento di Scienze Geriatriche e Ortopediche, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Stefania Boccia
- Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health—Public Health Area, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy; (R.P.); (S.B.)
- Sezione di Igiene, Dipartimento Universitario di Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy;
| |
Collapse
|
108
|
Raglio A, Panigazzi M, Colombo R, Tramontano M, Iosa M, Mastrogiacomo S, Baiardi P, Molteni D, Baldissarro E, Imbriani C, Imarisio C, Eretti L, Hamedani M, Pistarini C, Imbriani M, Mancardi GL, Caltagirone C. Hand rehabilitation with sonification techniques in the subacute stage of stroke. Sci Rep 2021; 11:7237. [PMID: 33790343 PMCID: PMC8012636 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-86627-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/03/2020] [Accepted: 03/17/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
After a stroke event, most survivors suffer from arm paresis, poor motor control and other disabilities that make activities of daily living difficult, severely affecting quality of life and personal independence. This randomized controlled trial aimed at evaluating the efficacy of a music-based sonification approach on upper limbs motor functions, quality of life and pain perceived during rehabilitation. The study involved 65 subacute stroke individuals during inpatient rehabilitation allocated into 2 groups which underwent usual care dayweek) respectively of standard upper extremity motor rehabilitation or upper extremity treatment with sonification techniques. The Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Scale, Box and Block Test and the Modified Ashworth Scale were used to perform motor assessment and the McGill Quality of Life-it and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale to assess quality of life and pain. The assessment was performed at baseline, after 2 weeks, at the end of treatment and at follow-up (1 month after the end of treatment). Total scores of the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Scale (primary outcome measure) and hand and wrist sub scores, manual dexterity scores of the affected and unaffected limb in the Box and Block Test, pain scores of the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (secondary outcomes measures) significantly improved in the sonification group compared to the standard of care group (time*group interaction < 0.05). Our findings suggest that music-based sonification sessions can be considered an effective standardized intervention for the upper limb in subacute stroke rehabilitation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alfredo Raglio
- Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, I.R.C.C.S., Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, Music Therapy Research Laboratory, Scientific Institute of Pavia , Via Maugeri 10, 27100, Pavia, Italy.
| | - Monica Panigazzi
- Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, I.R.C.C.S., Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, Music Therapy Research Laboratory, Scientific Institute of Pavia , Via Maugeri 10, 27100, Pavia, Italy
| | - Roberto Colombo
- Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, I.R.C.C.S., Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, Music Therapy Research Laboratory, Scientific Institute of Pavia , Via Maugeri 10, 27100, Pavia, Italy
| | | | - Marco Iosa
- Fondazione S. Lucia, I.R.C.C.S., Rome, Italy
| | | | - Paola Baiardi
- Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, I.R.C.C.S., Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, Music Therapy Research Laboratory, Scientific Institute of Pavia , Via Maugeri 10, 27100, Pavia, Italy
| | - Daniele Molteni
- Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, I.R.C.C.S., Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, Music Therapy Research Laboratory, Scientific Institute of Pavia , Via Maugeri 10, 27100, Pavia, Italy
| | | | - Chiara Imbriani
- Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, I.R.C.C.S., Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, Music Therapy Research Laboratory, Scientific Institute of Pavia , Via Maugeri 10, 27100, Pavia, Italy
| | - Chiara Imarisio
- Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, I.R.C.C.S., Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, Music Therapy Research Laboratory, Scientific Institute of Pavia , Via Maugeri 10, 27100, Pavia, Italy
| | - Laura Eretti
- Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, I.R.C.C.S, Montescano, PV, Italy
| | - Mehrnaz Hamedani
- Neurological Clinic, S. Martino Hospital, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| | - Caterina Pistarini
- Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, I.R.C.C.S., Nervi (GE), Pavia, Italy
| | - Marcello Imbriani
- Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, I.R.C.C.S., Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, Music Therapy Research Laboratory, Scientific Institute of Pavia , Via Maugeri 10, 27100, Pavia, Italy
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
109
|
Bessler J, Prange-Lasonder GB, Schaake L, Saenz JF, Bidard C, Fassi I, Valori M, Lassen AB, Buurke JH. Safety Assessment of Rehabilitation Robots: A Review Identifying Safety Skills and Current Knowledge Gaps. Front Robot AI 2021; 8:602878. [PMID: 33937345 PMCID: PMC8080797 DOI: 10.3389/frobt.2021.602878] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2020] [Accepted: 01/28/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
The assessment of rehabilitation robot safety is a vital aspect of the development process, which is often experienced as difficult. There are gaps in best practices and knowledge to ensure safe usage of rehabilitation robots. Currently, safety is commonly assessed by monitoring adverse events occurrence. The aim of this article is to explore how safety of rehabilitation robots can be assessed early in the development phase, before they are used with patients. We are suggesting a uniform approach for safety validation of robots closely interacting with humans, based on safety skills and validation protocols. Safety skills are an abstract representation of the ability of a robot to reduce a specific risk or deal with a specific hazard. They can be implemented in various ways, depending on the application requirements, which enables the use of a single safety skill across a wide range of applications and domains. Safety validation protocols have been developed that correspond to these skills and consider domain-specific conditions. This gives robot users and developers concise testing procedures to prove the mechanical safety of their robotic system, even when the applications are in domains with a lack of standards and best practices such as the healthcare domain. Based on knowledge about adverse events occurring in rehabilitation robot use, we identified multi-directional excessive forces on the soft tissue level and musculoskeletal level as most relevant hazards for rehabilitation robots and related them to four safety skills, providing a concrete starting point for safety assessment of rehabilitation robots. We further identified a number of gaps which need to be addressed in the future to pave the way for more comprehensive guidelines for rehabilitation robot safety assessments. Predominantly, besides new developments of safety by design features, there is a strong need for reliable measurement methods as well as acceptable limit values for human-robot interaction forces both on skin and joint level.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jule Bessler
- Roessingh Research and Development, Enschede, Netherlands.,Department of Biomedical Signals and Systems, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
| | - Gerdienke B Prange-Lasonder
- Roessingh Research and Development, Enschede, Netherlands.,Department of Biomechanical Engineering, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
| | | | - José F Saenz
- Fraunhofer Institute for Factory Operation and Automation, Magdeburg, Germany
| | | | - Irene Fassi
- National Research Council of Italy, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Aske Bach Lassen
- Department of Robot Technology, Danish Technological Institute, Odense, Denmark
| | - Jaap H Buurke
- Roessingh Research and Development, Enschede, Netherlands.,Department of Biomedical Signals and Systems, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
110
|
Chen Z, Xia N, He C, Gu M, Xu J, Han X, Huang X. Action observation treatment-based exoskeleton (AOT-EXO) for upper extremity after stroke: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2021; 22:222. [PMID: 33743788 PMCID: PMC7981809 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-021-05176-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2020] [Accepted: 03/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Stroke produces multiple symptoms, including sensory, motor, cognitive and psychological dysfunctions, among which motor deficit is the most common and is widely recognized as a major contributor to long-term functional disability. Robot-assisted training is effective in promoting upper extremity muscle strength and motor impairment recovery after stroke. Additionally, action observation treatment can enhance the effects of physical and occupational therapy by increasing neural activation. The AOT-EXO trial aims to investigate whether action observation treatment coupled with robot-assisted training could enhance motor circuit activation and improve upper extremity motor outcomes. Methods The AOT-EXO trial is a multicentre, prospective, three-group randomized controlled trial (RCT). We will screen and enrol 132 eligible patients in the trial implemented in the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine of Tongji Hospital, Optical Valley Branch of Tongji Hospital and Hubei Province Hospital of Integrated Chinese & Western Medicine in Wuhan, China. Prior to study participation, written informed consent will be obtained from eligible patients in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The enrolled stroke patients will be randomized to three groups: the CT group (conventional therapy); EXO group (exoskeleton therapy) and AOT-EXO group (action observation treatment-based exoskeleton therapy). The patients will undergo blinded assessments at baseline, post-intervention (after 4 weeks) and follow-up (after 12 weeks). The primary outcome will be the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity (FMA-UE). Secondary outcomes will include the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), modified Barthel Index (MBI), kinematic metrics assessed by inertial measurement unit (IMU), resting motor threshold (rMT), motor evoked potentials (MEP), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and safety outcomes. Discussion This trial will provide evidence regarding the feasibility and efficacy of the action observation treatment-based exoskeleton (AOT-EXO) for post-stroke upper extremity rehabilitation and elucidate the potential underlying kinematic and neurological mechanisms. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1900026656. Registered on 17 October 2019. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05176-x.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zejian Chen
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.,World Health Organization Cooperative Training and Research Center in Rehabilitation, Wuhan, China
| | - Nan Xia
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.,World Health Organization Cooperative Training and Research Center in Rehabilitation, Wuhan, China
| | - Chang He
- Institute of Rehabilitation and Medical Robotics, State Key Lab of Digital Manufacturing Equipment and Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Minghui Gu
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.,World Health Organization Cooperative Training and Research Center in Rehabilitation, Wuhan, China
| | - Jiang Xu
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.,World Health Organization Cooperative Training and Research Center in Rehabilitation, Wuhan, China
| | - Xiaohua Han
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. .,World Health Organization Cooperative Training and Research Center in Rehabilitation, Wuhan, China.
| | - Xiaolin Huang
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. .,World Health Organization Cooperative Training and Research Center in Rehabilitation, Wuhan, China.
| |
Collapse
|
111
|
Cramer SC, Le V, Saver JL, Dodakian L, See J, Augsburger R, McKenzie A, Zhou RJ, Chiu NL, Heckhausen J, Cassidy JM, Scacchi W, Smith MT, Barrett AM, Knutson J, Edwards D, Putrino D, Agrawal K, Ngo K, Roth EJ, Tirschwell DL, Woodbury ML, Zafonte R, Zhao W, Spilker J, Wolf SL, Broderick JP, Janis S. Intense Arm Rehabilitation Therapy Improves the Modified Rankin Scale Score: Association Between Gains in Impairment and Function. Neurology 2021; 96:e1812-e1822. [PMID: 33589538 DOI: 10.1212/wnl.0000000000011667] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2020] [Accepted: 12/23/2020] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of intensive rehabilitation on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), a measure of activities limitation commonly used in acute stroke studies, and to define the specific changes in body structure/function (motor impairment) most related to mRS gains. METHODS Patients were enrolled >90 days poststroke. Each was evaluated before and 30 days after a 6-week course of daily rehabilitation targeting the arm. Activity gains, measured using the mRS, were examined and compared to body structure/function gains, measured using the Fugl-Meyer (FM) motor scale. Additional analyses examined whether activity gains were more strongly related to specific body structure/function gains. RESULTS At baseline (160 ± 48 days poststroke), patients (n = 77) had median mRS score of 3 (interquartile range, 2-3), decreasing to 2 [2-3] 30 days posttherapy (p < 0.0001). Similarly, the proportion of patients with mRS score ≤2 increased from 46.8% at baseline to 66.2% at 30 days posttherapy (p = 0.015). These findings were accounted for by the mRS score decreasing in 24 (31.2%) patients. Patients with a treatment-related mRS score improvement, compared to those without, had similar overall motor gains (change in total FM score, p = 0.63). In exploratory analysis, improvement in several specific motor impairments, such as finger flexion and wrist circumduction, was significantly associated with higher likelihood of mRS decrease. CONCLUSIONS Intensive arm motor therapy is associated with improved mRS in a substantial fraction (31.2%) of patients. Exploratory analysis suggests specific motor impairments that might underlie this finding and may be optimal targets for rehabilitation therapies that aim to reduce activities limitations. CLINICAL TRIAL Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02360488. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE This study provides Class III evidence that for patients >90 days poststroke with persistent arm motor deficits, intensive arm motor therapy improved mRS in a substantial fraction (31.2%) of patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steven C Cramer
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD.
| | - Vu Le
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Jeffrey L Saver
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Lucy Dodakian
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Jill See
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Renee Augsburger
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Alison McKenzie
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Robert J Zhou
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Nina L Chiu
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Jutta Heckhausen
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Jessica M Cassidy
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Walt Scacchi
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Megan Therese Smith
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - A M Barrett
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Jayme Knutson
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Dylan Edwards
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - David Putrino
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Kunal Agrawal
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Kenneth Ngo
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Elliot J Roth
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - David L Tirschwell
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Michelle L Woodbury
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Ross Zafonte
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Wenle Zhao
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Judith Spilker
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Steven L Wolf
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Joseph P Broderick
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| | - Scott Janis
- From the Department of Neurology (S.C.C., J.L.S.), University of California, Los Angeles; California Rehabilitation Institute (S.C.C.), Los Angeles; Department of Neurology (S.C.C., V.L., L.D., J. See, R.A., A.M., R.J.Z., N.L.C., J.M.C.), Department of Psychological Science (J.H.), Institute for Software Research (W.S.), and Department of Statistics (M.T.S.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Physical Therapy (A.M.), Chapman University, Irvine, CA; Department of Allied Health Sciences (J.M.C.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation Research (A.M.B.), Kessler Foundation; Department of Stroke Rehabilitation (A.M.B.), Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, West Orange, NJ; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (J.K.), MetroHealth System, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH; Brain Stimulation and Robotics Laboratory (D.E.), Burke Neurological Institute; Department of Telemedicine and Virtual Rehabilitation (D.P.), Burke Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY; Abilities Research Center (D.P.), Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (K.A.), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; Brooks Rehabilitation Clinical Research Center (K.N.), Brooks Rehabilitation, Jacksonville, FL; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (E.J.R.), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurology (D.L.T.), University of Washington, Seattle; Departments of Health Science and Research (M.L.W.) and Public Health Sciences (W.Z.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.Z.), Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Neurology (J. Spilker, J.P.B.), University of Cincinnati, OH; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine (S.L.W.), Division of Physical Therapy Education, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Atlanta VA Health Care System (S.L.W.), Center for Visual and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation, Decatur, GA; and NINDS (S.J.), NIH, Bethesda, MD
| |
Collapse
|
112
|
TAŞAR BEYDA, TATAR AHMETBURAK, TANYILDIZI ALPERKADIR, YAKUT OGUZ. DESIGN, DYNAMIC MODELING AND CONTROL OF WEARABLE FINGER ORTHOSIS. J MECH MED BIOL 2021. [DOI: 10.1142/s0219519421500068] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
Human hands and fingers are of significant importance in people’s capacity to perform daily tasks (touching, feeling, holding, gripping, writing). However, about 1.5 million people around the world are suffering from injuries, muscle and neurological disorders, a loss of hand function, or a few fingers due to stroke. This paper focuses on newly developed finger orthotics, which is thin, adaptable to the length of each finger and low energy costs. The aim of the study is to design and control a new robotic orthosis using for daily rehabilitation therapy. Kinematic and dynamic analysis of orthosis was calculated and the joint regulation of orthosis was obtained. The Lagrange method was used to obtain dynamics, and the Denavit–Hartenberg (D–H) method was used for kinematic analysis of hand. In order to understand its behavior, the robotic finger orthotics model was simulated in MatLab/Simulink. The simulation results show that the efficiency and robustness of proportional integral derivative (PID) controller are appropriate for the use of robotic finger orthotics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- BEYDA TAŞAR
- Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey
| | - AHMET BURAK TATAR
- Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey
| | - ALPER KADIR TANYILDIZI
- Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey
| | - OGUZ YAKUT
- Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
113
|
Morone G, Palomba A, Martino Cinnera A, Agostini M, Aprile I, Arienti C, Paci M, Casanova E, Marino D, LA Rosa G, Bressi F, Sterzi S, Gandolfi M, Giansanti D, Perrero L, Battistini A, Miccinilli S, Filoni S, Sicari M, Petrozzino S, Solaro CM, Gargano S, Benanti P, Boldrini P, Bonaiuti D, Castelli E, Draicchio F, Falabella V, Galeri S, Gimigliano F, Grigioni M, Mazzoleni S, Mazzon S, Molteni F, Petrarca M, Picelli A, Posteraro F, Senatore M, Turchetti G, Straudi S. Systematic review of guidelines to identify recommendations for upper limb robotic rehabilitation after stroke. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2021; 57:238-245. [PMID: 33491943 DOI: 10.23736/s1973-9087.21.06625-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Upper limb motor impairment is one of the most frequent stroke consequences. Robot therapy may represent a valid option for upper limb stroke rehabilitation, but there are still gaps between research evidence and their use in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to determine the quality, scope, and consistency of guidelines clinical practice recommendations for upper limb robotic rehabilitation in stroke populations. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION We searched for guideline recommendations on stroke published between January 1st, 2010 and January 1st, 2020. Only the most recent guidelines for writing group were selected. Electronic databases (N.=4), guideline repertories and professional rehabilitation networks (N.=12) were searched. We systematically reviewed and assessed guidelines containing recommendation statements about upper limb robotic rehabilitation for adults with stroke (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020173386). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Four independent reviewers used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, and textual syntheses were used to appraise and compare recommendations. From 1324 papers that were screened, eight eligible guidelines were identified from six different regions/countries. Half of the included guidelines focused on stroke management, the other half on stroke rehabilitation. Rehabilitation assisted by robotic devices is generally recommended to improve upper limb motor function and strength. The exact characteristics of patients who could benefit from this treatment as well as the correct timing to use it are not known. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review has identified many opportunities to modernize and otherwise improve stroke patients' upper limb robotic therapy. Rehabilitation assisted by robot or electromechanical devices for stroke needs to be improved in clinical practice guidelines in particular in terms of applicability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Angela Palomba
- Multidisciplinary Department of Medicine for Surgery and Orthodontics, Luigi Vanvitelli University of Campania, Naples, Italy
| | | | | | - Irene Aprile
- IRCCS Don Carlo Gnocchi Foundation, Florence, Italy
| | | | - Matteo Paci
- AUSL District of Central Tuscany, Florence, Italy
| | - Emanuela Casanova
- Unit of Rehabilitation and Neurorehabilitation Medicine, IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche, Bologna, Italy
| | - Dario Marino
- IRCCS Neurolysis Center "Bonino Pulejo, " Messina, Italy
| | - Giuseppe LA Rosa
- Department of Biomedical and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Catania, Catania, Italy
| | | | - Silvia Sterzi
- Biomedical Campus University Foundation, Rome, Italy
| | - Marialuisa Gandolfi
- Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Daniele Giansanti
- National Center for Innovative Technologies in Public Health, Italian National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy
| | - Luca Perrero
- Unit of Neurorehabilitation, SS. Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo University Hospital, Alessandria, Italy
| | | | | | - Serena Filoni
- Padre Pio Foundation and Rehabilitation Centers, San Giovanni Rotondo, Foggia, Italy
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Paolo Boldrini
- Società Italiana di Medicina Fisica e Riabilitativa (SIMFER), Rome, Italy
| | | | - Enrico Castelli
- Unit of Pediatric Neurorehabilitation, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Francesco Draicchio
- Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology and Hygiene, INAIL, Monte Porzio Catone, Rome, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Falabella
- Italian Federation of Persons with Spinal Cord Injuries (Faip Onlus), Rome, Italy
| | | | - Francesca Gimigliano
- Department of Mental and Physical Health and Preventive Medicine, Luigi Vanvitelli University of Campania, Naples, Italy
| | - Mauro Grigioni
- National Center for Innovative Technologies in Public Health, Italian National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy
| | - Stefano Mazzoleni
- Department of Electrical and Information Engineering, Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy
| | | | | | - Maurizio Petrarca
- The Movement Analysis and Robotics Laboratory, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Alessandro Picelli
- Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | | | - Michele Senatore
- AITO (Associazione Italiana Terapisti Occupazionali), Rome, Italy
| | | | - Sofia Straudi
- Department of Neuroscience and Rehabilitation, Ferrara University Hospital, Ferrara, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
114
|
Keeling AB, Piitz M, Semrau JA, Hill MD, Scott SH, Dukelow SP. Robot enhanced stroke therapy optimizes rehabilitation (RESTORE): a pilot study. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2021; 18:10. [PMID: 33478563 PMCID: PMC7819212 DOI: 10.1186/s12984-021-00804-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2020] [Accepted: 01/08/2021] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic rehabilitation after stroke provides the potential to increase and carefully control dosage of therapy. Only a small number of studies, however, have examined robotic therapy in the first few weeks post-stroke. In this study we designed robotic upper extremity therapy tasks for the bilateral Kinarm Exoskeleton Lab and piloted them in individuals with subacute stroke. Pilot testing was focused mainly on the feasibility of implementing these new tasks, although we recorded a number of standardized outcome measures before and after training. METHODS Our team developed 9 robotic therapy tasks to incorporate feedback, intensity, challenge, and subject engagement as well as addressing both unimanual and bimanual arm activities. Subacute stroke participants were assigned to a robotic therapy (N = 9) or control group (N = 10) in a matched-group manner. The robotic therapy group completed 1-h of robotic therapy per day for 10 days in addition to standard therapy. The control group participated only in standard of care therapy. Clinical and robotic assessments were completed prior to and following the intervention. Clinical assessments included the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (FMA UE), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Robotic assessments of upper limb sensorimotor function included a Visually Guided Reaching task and an Arm Position Matching task, among others. Paired sample t-tests were used to compare initial and final robotic therapy scores as well as pre- and post-clinical and robotic assessments. RESULTS Participants with subacute stroke (39.8 days post-stroke) completed the pilot study. Minimal adverse events occurred during the intervention and adding 1 h of robotic therapy was feasible. Clinical and robotic scores did not significantly differ between groups at baseline. Scores on the FMA UE, ARAT, FIM, and Visually Guided Reaching improved significantly in the robotic therapy group following completion of the robotic intervention. However, only FIM and Arm Position Match improved over the same time in the control group. CONCLUSIONS The Kinarm therapy tasks have the potential to improve outcomes in subacute stroke. Future studies are necessary to quantify the benefits of this robot-based therapy in a larger cohort. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04201613, Registered 17 December 2019-Retrospectively Registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04201613 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexa B. Keeling
- Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada
| | - Mark Piitz
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada
| | - Jennifer A. Semrau
- Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada
- Department of Kinesiology and Applied Physiology, University of Delaware, Newark, DE USA
| | - Michael D. Hill
- Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada
| | - Stephen H. Scott
- Department of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON Canada
| | - Sean P. Dukelow
- Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada
| |
Collapse
|
115
|
Mekbib DB, Debeli DK, Zhang L, Fang S, Shao Y, Yang W, Han J, Jiang H, Zhu J, Zhao Z, Cheng R, Ye X, Zhang J, Xu D. A novel fully immersive virtual reality environment for upper extremity rehabilitation in patients with stroke. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2021; 1493:75-89. [PMID: 33442915 DOI: 10.1111/nyas.14554] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2020] [Revised: 11/20/2020] [Accepted: 12/02/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Given the rising incidence of stroke, several technology-driven methods for rehabilitation have recently been developed. Virtual reality (VR) is a promising therapeutic technology among them. We recently developed a neuroscientifically grounded VR system to aid recovery of motor function poststroke. The developed system provides unilateral and bilateral upper extremity (UE) training in a fully immersive virtual environment that may stimulate and activate mirror neurons (MNs) in the brain necessary for UE rehabilitation. Twenty-three participants were randomized to a VR group (n = 12) to receive VR intervention (8 h within 2 weeks) plus 8-h occupational therapy (OT) or a control group (n = 11) to receive time-matched OT alone. Treatment effects on motor recovery and cortical reorganization were investigated using the Barthel Index (BI), Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity (FM-UE), and resting-state fMRI. Both groups significantly improved BI (P < 0.05), reflecting the recovery of UE motor function. The VR group revealed significant improvements on FM-UE scores (P < 0.05) than the control group. Neural activity increased after the intervention, particularly in the brain areas implicating MNs, such as in the primary motor cortex. Overall, results suggested that using a neuroscientifically grounded VR system might offer additional benefits for UE rehabilitation in patients receiving OT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Destaw B Mekbib
- Interdisciplinary Institute of Neuroscience and Technology (ZIINT), College of Biomedical Engineering and Instrument Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Dereje Kebebew Debeli
- State Key Laboratory of Chemical Engineering, College of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Li Zhang
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China
| | - Shan Fang
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China
| | - Yuling Shao
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China
| | - Wei Yang
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China
| | - Jiawei Han
- The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Hongjie Jiang
- The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Junming Zhu
- The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Zhiyong Zhao
- MOE & Shanghai Key Laboratory of Brain Functional Genomics (East China Normal University), Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China
- Shanghai Key Laboratory of Magnetic Resonance, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China
- Key Laboratory for Biomedical Engineering of Ministry of Education, College of Biomedical Engineering & Instrument Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Ruidong Cheng
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China
| | - Xiangming Ye
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China
| | - Jianmin Zhang
- The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Dongrong Xu
- Molecular Imaging and Neuropathology Division, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University & New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York City, New York
| |
Collapse
|
116
|
Sehle A, Stuerner J, Hassa T, Spiteri S, Schoenfeld MA, Liepert J. Behavioral and neurophysiological effects of an intensified robot-assisted therapy in subacute stroke: a case control study. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2021; 18:6. [PMID: 33430912 PMCID: PMC7798321 DOI: 10.1186/s12984-020-00792-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2020] [Accepted: 11/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Physical training is able to induce changes at neurophysiological and behavioral level associated with performance changes for the trained movements. The current study explores the effects of an additional intense robot-assisted upper extremity training on functional outcome and motor excitability in subacute stroke patients. METHODS Thirty moderately to severely affected patients < 3 months after stroke received a conventional inpatient rehabilitation. Based on a case-control principle 15 patients were assigned to receive additional 45 min of robot-assisted therapy (Armeo®Spring) 5 times per week (n = 15, intervention group, IG). The Fugl-Meyer Assessment for the Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) was chosen as primary outcome parameter. Patients were tested before and after a 3-week treatment period as well as after a follow-up period of 2 weeks. Using transcranial magnetic stimulation motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and cortical silent periods were recorded from the deltoid muscle on both sides before and after the intervention period to study effects at neurophysiological level. Statistical analysis was performed with non-parametric tests. Correlation analysis was done with Spearman´s rank correlation co-efficient. RESULTS Both groups showed a significant improvement in FMA-UE from pre to post (IG: + 10.6 points, control group (CG): + 7.3 points) and from post to follow-up (IG: + 3.9 points, CG: + 3.3 points) without a significant difference between them. However, at neurophysiological level post-intervention MEP amplitudes were significantly larger in the IG but not in the CG. The observed MEP amplitudes changes were positively correlated with FMA-UE changes and with the total amount of robot-assisted therapy. CONCLUSION The additional robot-assisted therapy induced stronger excitability increases in the intervention group. However, this effect did not transduce to motor performance improvements at behavioral level. Trial registration The trial was registered in German Clinical Trials Register. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER DRKS00015083. Registration date: September 4th, 2018. https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015083 . Registration was done retrospectively.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aida Sehle
- Lurija Institute and Department of Neurological Rehabilitation, Kliniken Schmieder, Zum Tafelholz 8, 78476, Allensbach, Germany
| | - Jana Stuerner
- Lurija Institute and Department of Neurological Rehabilitation, Kliniken Schmieder, Zum Tafelholz 8, 78476, Allensbach, Germany
| | - Thomas Hassa
- Lurija Institute and Department of Neurological Rehabilitation, Kliniken Schmieder, Zum Tafelholz 8, 78476, Allensbach, Germany
| | - Stefan Spiteri
- Lurija Institute and Department of Neurological Rehabilitation, Kliniken Schmieder, Zum Tafelholz 8, 78476, Allensbach, Germany
| | - Mircea A Schoenfeld
- Department of Neurological Rehabilitation, Kliniken Schmieder, Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Neurology, Otto-Von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.,Leibniz Institute for Neurobiology, Magdeburg, Germany
| | - Joachim Liepert
- Lurija Institute and Department of Neurological Rehabilitation, Kliniken Schmieder, Zum Tafelholz 8, 78476, Allensbach, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
117
|
Morrow CM, Johnson E, Simpson KN, Seo NJ. Determining Factors that Influence Adoption of New Post-Stroke Sensorimotor Rehabilitation Devices in the USA. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2021; 29:1213-1222. [PMID: 34143736 PMCID: PMC8249076 DOI: 10.1109/tnsre.2021.3090571] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
Rehabilitation device efficacy alone does not lead to clinical practice adoption. Previous literature identifies drivers for device adoption by therapists but does not identify the best settings to introduce devices, the roles of different stakeholders including rehabilitation directors, or specific criteria to be met during device development. The objective of this work was to provide insights into these areas to increase clinical adoption of post-stroke restorative rehabilitation devices. We interviewed 107 persons including physical/occupational therapists, rehabilitation directors, and stroke survivors and performed content analysis. Unique to this work, care settings in which therapy goals are best aligned for restorative devices were found to be outpatient rehabilitation, followed by inpatient rehabilitation. Therapists are the major influencers for adoption because they typically introduce new rehabilitation devices to patients for both clinic and home use. We also learned therapists' utilization rate of a rehabilitation device influences a rehabilitation director's decision to acquire the device for facility use. Main drivers for each stakeholder are identified, along with specific criteria to add details to findings from previous literature. In addition, drivers for home adoption of rehabilitation devices by patients are identified. Rehabilitation device development should consider the best settings to first introduce the device, roles of each stakeholder, and drivers that influence each stakeholder, to accelerate successful adoption of the developed device.
Collapse
|
118
|
Aprile I, Guardati G, Cipollini V, Papadopoulou D, Mastrorosa A, Castelli L, Monteleone S, Redolfi A, Galeri S, Germanotta M. Robotic Rehabilitation: An Opportunity to Improve Cognitive Functions in Subjects With Stroke. An Explorative Study. Front Neurol 2020; 11:588285. [PMID: 33329334 PMCID: PMC7710798 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2020.588285] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2020] [Accepted: 10/21/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: After a stroke, up to three-quarters of acute and subacute stroke survivors exhibit cognitive impairment, with a significant impact on functional recovery, quality of life, and social engagement. Robotic therapy has shown its effectiveness on motor recovery, but its effectiveness on cognitive recovery has not fully investigated. Objective: This study aims to assess the impact of a technological rehabilitation intervention on cognitive functions in patients with stroke, using a set of three robots and one sensor-based device for upper limb rehabilitation. Methods: This is a pilot study in which 51 patients were enrolled. An upper limb rehabilitation program was performed using three robots and one sensor-based device. The intervention comprised motor/cognitive exercises, especially selected among the available ones to train also cognitive functions. Patients underwent 30 rehabilitation sessions, each session lasting 45 minutes, 5 days a week. Patients were assessed before and after the treatment with several cognitive tests (Oxford Cognitive Scale, Symbol Digit Modalities Test, Digit Span, Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure, Tower of London, and Stroop test). In addition, motor (Fugl-Meyer Assessment and Motricity Index) and disability (modified Barthel Index) scales were used. Results: According to the Oxford Cognitive Scale domains, a significant percentage of patients exhibited cognitive deficits. Excluding perception (with only one patient impaired), the domain with the lowest percentage of patients showing a pathological score was praxis (about 25%), while the highest percentage of impaired patients was found in calculation (about 70%). After the treatment, patients improved in all the investigated cognitive domains, as measured by the selected cognitive assessment scales. Moreover, motor and disability scales confirmed the efficacy of robotics on upper limb rehabilitation in patients with stroke. Conclusions: This explorative study suggests that robotic technology can be used to combine motor and cognitive exercises in a unique treatment session. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04164381.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Irene Aprile
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, Florence, Italy
| | | | | | | | | | - Letizia Castelli
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, UOC Neuroriabilitazione ad Alta Intensità, Rome, Italy
| | | | | | - Silvia Galeri
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS, Milan, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
119
|
Su F, Xu W. Enhancing Brain Plasticity to Promote Stroke Recovery. Front Neurol 2020; 11:554089. [PMID: 33192987 PMCID: PMC7661553 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2020.554089] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2020] [Accepted: 10/08/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Stroke disturbs both the structural and functional integrity of the brain. The understanding of stroke pathophysiology has improved greatly in the past several decades. However, effective therapy is still limited, especially for patients who are in the subacute or chronic phase. Multiple novel therapies have been developed to improve clinical outcomes by improving brain plasticity. These approaches either focus on improving brain remodeling and restoration or on constructing a neural bypass to avoid brain injury. This review describes emerging therapies, including modern rehabilitation, brain stimulation, cell therapy, brain-computer interfaces, and peripheral nervous transfer, and highlights treatment-induced plasticity. Key evidence from basic studies on the underlying mechanisms is also briefly discussed. These insights should lead to a deeper understanding of the overall neural circuit changes, the clinical relevance of these changes in stroke, and stroke treatment progress, which will assist in the development of future approaches to enhance brain function after stroke.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Wendong Xu
- Department of Hand Surgery, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
120
|
Chen Z, Wang C, Fan W, Gu M, Yasin G, Xiao S, Huang J, Huang X. Robot-Assisted Arm Training versus Therapist-Mediated Training after Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JOURNAL OF HEALTHCARE ENGINEERING 2020; 2020:8810867. [PMID: 33194159 PMCID: PMC7641296 DOI: 10.1155/2020/8810867] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2020] [Revised: 10/03/2020] [Accepted: 10/14/2020] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
Background More than two-thirds of stroke patients have arm motor impairments and function deficits on hospital admission, leading to diminished quality of life and reduced social participation. Robot-assisted training (RAT) is a promising rehabilitation program for upper extremity while its effect is still controversial due to heterogeneity in clinical trials. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare robot-assisted training (RAT) versus therapist-mediated training (TMT) for arm rehabilitation after stroke. Methods We searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane EBM Reviews, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Studies of moderate or high methodological quality (PEDro score ≥4) were included and analyzed. We assessed the effects of RAT versus TMT for arm rehabilitation after stroke with testing the noninferiority of RAT. A small effect size of -2 score for mean difference in Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) and Cohen's d = -0.2 for standardized mean difference (SMD) were set as noninferiority margin. Results Thirty-five trials with 2241 participants met inclusion criteria. The effect size for arm motor impairment, capacity, activities of daily living, and social participation were 0.763 (WMD, 95% CI: 0.404 to 1.123), 0.109 (SMD, 95% CI: -0.066 to 0.284), 0.049 (SMD, 95% CI: -0.055 to 0.17), and -0.061 (SMD, 95% CI: -0.196 to 0.075), respectively. Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that robot-assisted training was slightly superior in motor impairment recovery and noninferior to therapist-mediated training in improving arm capacity, activities of daily living, and social participation, which supported the use of RAT in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zejian Chen
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
- World Health Organization Cooperative Training and Research Center, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Chun Wang
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
- World Health Organization Cooperative Training and Research Center, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Wei Fan
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
- World Health Organization Cooperative Training and Research Center, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Minghui Gu
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
- World Health Organization Cooperative Training and Research Center, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Gvzalnur Yasin
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
- World Health Organization Cooperative Training and Research Center, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Shaohua Xiao
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
- World Health Organization Cooperative Training and Research Center, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Jie Huang
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
- World Health Organization Cooperative Training and Research Center, Wuhan 430030, China
| | - Xiaolin Huang
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
- World Health Organization Cooperative Training and Research Center, Wuhan 430030, China
| |
Collapse
|
121
|
Wu J, Dodakian L, See J, Burke Quinlan E, Meng L, Abraham J, Wong EC, Le V, McKenzie A, Cramer SC. Gains Across WHO Dimensions of Function After Robot-Based Therapy in Stroke Subjects. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2020; 34:1150-1158. [PMID: 33084499 DOI: 10.1177/1545968320956648] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Studies examining the effects of therapeutic interventions after stroke often focus on changes in loss of body function/structure (impairment). However, improvements in activities limitations and participation restriction are often higher patient priorities, and the relationship that these measures have with loss of body function/structure is unclear. OBJECTIVE This study measured gains across WHO International Classification of Function (ICF) dimensions and examined their interrelationships. METHODS Subjects were recruited 11 to 26 weeks after hemiparetic stroke. Over a 3-week period, subjects received 12 sessions of intensive robot-based therapy targeting the distal arm. Each subject was assessed at baseline and at 1 month after end of therapy. RESULTS At baseline, subjects (n = 40) were 134.7 ± 32.4 (mean ± SD) days poststroke and had moderate-severe arm motor deficits (arm motor Fugl-Meyer score of 35.6 ± 14.4) that were stable. Subjects averaged 2579 thumb movements and 1298 wrist movements per treatment session. After robot therapy, there was significant improvement in measures of body function/structure (Fugl-Meyer score) and activity limitations (Action Research Arm Test, Barthel Index, and Stroke Impact Scale-Hand), but not participation restriction (Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale). Furthermore, while the degree of improvement in loss of body function/structure was correlated with improvement in activity limitations, neither improvement in loss of body function/structure nor improvement in activity limitations was correlated with change in participation restriction. CONCLUSIONS After a 3-week course of robotic therapy, there was improvement in body function/structure and activity limitations but no reduction in participation restriction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer Wu
- University of California, Irvine, Orange, CA, USA
| | | | - Jill See
- University of California, Irvine, Orange, CA, USA
| | - Erin Burke Quinlan
- University of California, Irvine, Orange, CA, USA.,Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, & Neuroscience and King's College London, London, England, UK
| | - Lisa Meng
- University of California, Irvine, Orange, CA, USA
| | - Jeby Abraham
- University of California, Irvine, Orange, CA, USA.,Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, HI, USA
| | - Ellen C Wong
- University of California, Los Angeles, and California Rehabilitation Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Vu Le
- University of California, Irvine, Orange, CA, USA
| | | | - Steven C Cramer
- University of California, Irvine, Orange, CA, USA.,University of California, Los Angeles, and California Rehabilitation Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
122
|
Park JH, Park G, Kim HY, Lee JY, Ham Y, Hwang D, Kwon S, Shin JH. A comparison of the effects and usability of two exoskeletal robots with and without robotic actuation for upper extremity rehabilitation among patients with stroke: a single-blinded randomised controlled pilot study. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2020; 17:137. [PMID: 33076952 PMCID: PMC7574181 DOI: 10.1186/s12984-020-00763-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2020] [Accepted: 09/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Robotic rehabilitation of stroke survivors with upper extremity dysfunction may yield different outcomes depending on the robot type. Considering that excessive dependence on assistive force by robotic actuators may interfere with the patient’s active learning and participation, we hypothesised that the use of an active-assistive robot with robotic actuators does not lead to a more meaningful difference with respect to upper extremity rehabilitation than the use of a passive robot without robotic actuators. Accordingly, we aimed to evaluate the differences in the clinical and kinematic outcomes between active-assistive and passive robotic rehabilitation among stroke survivors. Methods In this single-blinded randomised controlled pilot trial, we assigned 20 stroke survivors with upper extremity dysfunction (Medical Research Council scale score, 3 or 4) to the active-assistive robotic intervention (ACT) and passive robotic intervention (PSV) groups in a 1:1 ratio and administered 20 sessions of 30-min robotic intervention (5 days/week, 4 weeks). The primary (Wolf Motor Function Test [WMFT]-score and -time: measures activity), and secondary (Fugl-Meyer Assessment [FMA] and Stroke Impact Scale [SIS] scores: measure impairment and participation, respectively; kinematic outcomes) outcome measures were determined at baseline, after 2 and 4 weeks of the intervention, and 4 weeks after the end of the intervention. Furthermore, we evaluated the usability of the robots through interviews with patients, therapists, and physiatrists. Results In both the groups, the WMFT-score and -time improved over the course of the intervention. Time had a significant effect on the WMFT-score and -time, FMA-UE, FMA-prox, and SIS-strength; group × time interaction had a significant effect on SIS-function and SIS-social participation (all, p < 0.05). The PSV group showed better improvement in participation and smoothness than the ACT group. In contrast, the ACT group exhibited better improvement in mean speed. Conclusions There were no differences between the two groups regarding the impairment and activity domains. However, the PSV robots were more beneficial than ACT robots regarding participation and smoothness. Considering the high cost and complexity of ACT robots, PSV robots might be more suitable for rehabilitation in stroke survivors capable of voluntary movement. Trial registration The trial was registered retrospectively on 14 March 2018 at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03465267).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jin Ho Park
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, 58, Samgaksan-ro, Gangbuk-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Gyulee Park
- Translational Research Program for Rehabilitation Robots, National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Ha Yeon Kim
- Translational Research Program for Rehabilitation Robots, National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Ji-Yeong Lee
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, 58, Samgaksan-ro, Gangbuk-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Yeajin Ham
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, 58, Samgaksan-ro, Gangbuk-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Donghwan Hwang
- Translational Research Program for Rehabilitation Robots, National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Suncheol Kwon
- Translational Research Program for Rehabilitation Robots, National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Joon-Ho Shin
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, 58, Samgaksan-ro, Gangbuk-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea. .,Translational Research Program for Rehabilitation Robots, National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
123
|
[Integrated care management for older people with chronic diseases in domesticity: evidence from Cochrane reviews]. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2020; 54:54-60. [PMID: 33044620 PMCID: PMC7835300 DOI: 10.1007/s00391-020-01796-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2020] [Accepted: 09/14/2020] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
Hintergrund Die Anzahl multipel chronisch erkrankter Älterer steigt, und Multimorbidität geht mit hoher Inanspruchnahme von Gesundheitsleistungen einher. Um Selbstständigkeit und Verbleib in der Häuslichkeit zu erhalten, wird zunehmend ein integriertes Versorgungsmanagement eingesetzt. Zur Wirksamkeit in der Zielgruppe der multipel chronisch erkrankten Älteren liegen aber kaum belastbare Daten vor. Ziel der Arbeit Bewertung der Wirksamkeit von integriertem Versorgungsmanagement bei Erwachsenen und Abschätzung der Übertragbarkeit auf ältere, multimorbide Personen in Deutschland. Methoden Systematische Literaturrecherche in der Cochrane Library mit Einschluss von Cochrane-Reviews (CR) zu (a) den 13 häufigsten Gesundheitsproblemen im Alter, mit (b) Komponenten des integrierten Versorgungsmanagements bei (c) Erwachsenen jeden Alters. Experten schätzten die Übertragbarkeit der eingeschlossenen CR auf multipel chronisch erkrankte Ältere in Deutschland ein. Ergebnisse Aus 1412 Treffern wurden 126 CR eingeschlossen. Zur Endpunktkategorie Selbstständigkeit und funktionale Gesundheit zeigten 25 CR klinisch relevante Ergebnisse mit moderater Evidenzqualität. Folgende Interventionskomponenten wurden – unter Berücksichtigung identifizierter Barrieren – als übertragbar eingeschätzt und könnten für ein effektives, indikationsspezifisch integriertes Versorgungsmanagement multipel chronisch erkrankter Älterer herangezogen werden: (1) körperliche Aktivierung, (2) multidisziplinäre Interventionen, (3) das Selbstmanagement verstärkende Interventionen, (4) kognitive Therapieverfahren, (5) telemedizinische Interventionen und (6) Disease-Management-Programme. Schlussfolgerungen Die identifizierten Komponenten sollten in versorgungs- und patientennahen randomisierten kontrollierten Studien auf Wirksamkeit bei gebrechlichen Älteren geprüft werden. Zusatzmaterial online Zusätzliche Informationen sind in der Online-Version dieses Artikels (10.1007/s00391-020-01796-1) enthalten.
Collapse
|
124
|
Rodgers H, Bosomworth H, Krebs HI, van Wijck F, Howel D, Wilson N, Finch T, Alvarado N, Ternent L, Fernandez-Garcia C, Aird L, Andole S, Cohen DL, Dawson J, Ford GA, Francis R, Hogg S, Hughes N, Price CI, Turner DL, Vale L, Wilkes S, Shaw L. Robot-assisted training compared with an enhanced upper limb therapy programme and with usual care for upper limb functional limitation after stroke: the RATULS three-group RCT. Health Technol Assess 2020; 24:1-232. [PMID: 33140719 PMCID: PMC7682262 DOI: 10.3310/hta24540] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Loss of arm function is common after stroke. Robot-assisted training may improve arm outcomes. OBJECTIVE The objectives were to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted training, compared with an enhanced upper limb therapy programme and with usual care. DESIGN This was a pragmatic, observer-blind, multicentre randomised controlled trial with embedded health economic and process evaluations. SETTING The trial was set in four NHS trial centres. PARTICIPANTS Patients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation, between 1 week and 5 years following first stroke, were recruited. INTERVENTIONS Robot-assisted training using the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Manus robotic gym system (InMotion commercial version, Interactive Motion Technologies, Inc., Watertown, MA, USA), an enhanced upper limb therapy programme comprising repetitive functional task practice, and usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was upper limb functional recovery 'success' (assessed using the Action Research Arm Test) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes at 3 and 6 months were the Action Research Arm Test results, upper limb impairment (measured using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment), activities of daily living (measured using the Barthel Activities of Daily Living Index), quality of life (measured using the Stroke Impact Scale), resource use costs and quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS A total of 770 participants were randomised (robot-assisted training, n = 257; enhanced upper limb therapy, n = 259; usual care, n = 254). Upper limb functional recovery 'success' was achieved in the robot-assisted training [103/232 (44%)], enhanced upper limb therapy [118/234 (50%)] and usual care groups [85/203 (42%)]. These differences were not statistically significant; the adjusted odds ratios were as follows: robot-assisted training versus usual care, 1.2 (98.33% confidence interval 0.7 to 2.0); enhanced upper limb therapy versus usual care, 1.5 (98.33% confidence interval 0.9 to 2.5); and robot-assisted training versus enhanced upper limb therapy, 0.8 (98.33% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.3). The robot-assisted training group had less upper limb impairment (as measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment motor subscale) than the usual care group at 3 and 6 months. The enhanced upper limb therapy group had less upper limb impairment (as measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment motor subscale), better mobility (as measured by the Stroke Impact Scale mobility domain) and better performance in activities of daily living (as measured by the Stroke Impact Scale activities of daily living domain) than the usual care group, at 3 months. The robot-assisted training group performed less well in activities of daily living (as measured by the Stroke Impact Scale activities of daily living domain) than the enhanced upper limb therapy group at 3 months. No other differences were clinically important and statistically significant. Participants found the robot-assisted training and the enhanced upper limb therapy group programmes acceptable. Neither intervention, as provided in this trial, was cost-effective at current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence willingness-to-pay thresholds for a quality-adjusted life-year. CONCLUSIONS Robot-assisted training did not improve upper limb function compared with usual care. Although robot-assisted training improved upper limb impairment, this did not translate into improvements in other outcomes. Enhanced upper limb therapy resulted in potentially important improvements on upper limb impairment, in performance of activities of daily living, and in mobility. Neither intervention was cost-effective. FUTURE WORK Further research is needed to find ways to translate the improvements in upper limb impairment seen with robot-assisted training into improvements in upper limb function and activities of daily living. Innovations to make rehabilitation programmes more cost-effective are required. LIMITATIONS Pragmatic inclusion criteria led to the recruitment of some participants with little prospect of recovery. The attrition rate was higher in the usual care group than in the robot-assisted training or enhanced upper limb therapy groups, and differential attrition is a potential source of bias. Obtaining accurate information about the usual care that participants were receiving was a challenge. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN69371850. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 54. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen Rodgers
- Stroke Research Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Stroke Northumbria, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, North Tyneside, UK
- Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Helen Bosomworth
- Stroke Research Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Hermano I Krebs
- Mechanical Engineering Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Frederike van Wijck
- School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
| | - Denise Howel
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Nina Wilson
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Tracy Finch
- Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | | | - Laura Ternent
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | | | - Lydia Aird
- Stroke Northumbria, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, North Tyneside, UK
| | - Sreeman Andole
- Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Romford, UK
| | - David L Cohen
- London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Jesse Dawson
- Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Gary A Ford
- Stroke Research Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - Richard Francis
- Stroke Research Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Steven Hogg
- Lay investigator (contact Stroke Research Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK)
| | | | - Christopher I Price
- Stroke Research Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Stroke Northumbria, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, North Tyneside, UK
| | - Duncan L Turner
- School of Health, Sport and Bioscience, University of East London, London, UK
| | - Luke Vale
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Scott Wilkes
- School of Medicine, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK
| | - Lisa Shaw
- Stroke Research Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| |
Collapse
|
125
|
Thakkar HK, Liao WW, Wu CY, Hsieh YW, Lee TH. Predicting clinically significant motor function improvement after contemporary task-oriented interventions using machine learning approaches. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2020; 17:131. [PMID: 32993692 PMCID: PMC7523081 DOI: 10.1186/s12984-020-00758-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2020] [Accepted: 09/10/2020] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accurate prediction of motor recovery after stroke is critical for treatment decisions and planning. Machine learning has been proposed to be a promising technique for outcome prediction because of its high accuracy and ability to process large volumes of data. It has been used to predict acute stroke recovery; however, whether machine learning would be effective for predicting rehabilitation outcomes in chronic stroke patients for common contemporary task-oriented interventions remains largely unexplored. This study aimed to determine the accuracy and performance of machine learning to predict clinically significant motor function improvements after contemporary task-oriented intervention in chronic stroke patients and identify important predictors for building machine learning prediction models. METHODS This study was a secondary analysis of data using two common machine learning approaches, which were the k-nearest neighbor (KNN) and artificial neural network (ANN). Chronic stroke patients (N = 239) that received 30 h of task-oriented training including the constraint-induced movement therapy, bilateral arm training, robot-assisted therapy and mirror therapy were included. The Fugl-Meyer assessment scale (FMA) was the main outcome. Potential predictors include age, gender, side of lesion, time since stroke, baseline functional status, motor function and quality of life. We divided the data set into a training set and a test set and used the cross-validation procedure to construct machine learning models based on the training set. After the models were built, we used the test data set to evaluate the accuracy and prediction performance of the models. RESULTS Three important predictors were identified, which were time since stroke, baseline functional independence measure (FIM) and baseline FMA scores. Models for predicting motor function improvements were accurate. The prediction accuracy of the KNN model was 85.42% and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) was 0.89. The prediction accuracy of the ANN model was 81.25% and the AUC-ROC was 0.77. CONCLUSIONS Incorporating machine learning into clinical outcome prediction using three key predictors including time since stroke, baseline functional and motor ability may help clinicians/therapists to identify patients that are most likely to benefit from contemporary task-oriented interventions. The KNN and ANN models may be potentially useful for predicting clinically significant motor recovery in chronic stroke.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hiren Kumar Thakkar
- Department of Computer Science Engineering and School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Bennett University, Plot Nos 8-11, TechZone II, Greater Noida, 201310 Uttar Pradesh India
| | - Wan-wen Liao
- Department of Occupational Therapy and Graduate Institute of Behavioral Sciences, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, No. 259, Wenhua 1st Rd., Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Ching-yi Wu
- Department of Occupational Therapy and Graduate Institute of Behavioral Sciences, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, No. 259, Wenhua 1st Rd., Taoyuan, Taiwan
- Healthy Aging Research Center, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Yu-Wei Hsieh
- Department of Occupational Therapy and Graduate Institute of Behavioral Sciences, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, No. 259, Wenhua 1st Rd., Taoyuan, Taiwan
- Healthy Aging Research Center, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Tsong-Hai Lee
- Department of Neurology, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan
- College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| |
Collapse
|
126
|
Age is negatively associated with upper limb recovery after conventional but not robotic rehabilitation in patients with stroke: a secondary analysis of a randomized-controlled trial. J Neurol 2020; 268:474-483. [PMID: 32844309 DOI: 10.1007/s00415-020-10143-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2020] [Revised: 08/03/2020] [Accepted: 08/05/2020] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is consistent evidence that robotic rehabilitation is at least as effective as conventional physiotherapy for upper extremity (UE) recovery after stroke, suggesting to focus research on which subgroups of patients may better respond to either intervention. In this study, we evaluated which baseline variables are associated with the response after the two approaches. METHODS This is a secondary analysis of a randomized-controlled trial comparing robotic and conventional treatment for the UE. After the assigned intervention, changes of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment UE score by ≥ 5 points classified patients as responders to treatment. Variables associated with the response were identified in a univariate analysis. Then, variables independently associated with recovery were investigated, in the whole group, and the two groups separately. RESULTS A sample of 190 patients was evaluated after the treatment; 121 were responders. Age, baseline impairment, and neglect were significantly associated with worse response to the treatment. Age was the only independently associated variable (OR 0.967, p = 0.023). Considering separately the two interventions, age remained negatively associated with recovery (OR 0.948, p = 0.013) in the conventional group, while none of the variables previously identified were significantly associated with the response to treatment in the robotic group. CONCLUSIONS We found that, in our sample, age is significantly associated with the outcome after conventional but not robotic UE rehabilitation. Possible explanations may include an enhanced positive attitude of the older patients towards technological training and reduced age-associated fatigue provided by robotic-assisted exercise. The possibly higher challenge proposed by robotic training, unbiased by the negative stereotypes concerning very old patients' expectations and chances to recover, may also explain our findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT02879279.
Collapse
|
127
|
Cho KH, Song WK. Effects of two different robot-assisted arm training on upper limb motor function and kinematics in chronic stroke survivors: A randomized controlled trial. Top Stroke Rehabil 2020; 28:241-250. [PMID: 32791945 DOI: 10.1080/10749357.2020.1804699] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Comparative studies of different robotic types are warranted to tailor robot-assisted upper limb training to patient's functional level. OBJECTIVES This study aimed to directly compare the effects of high inertia robot arm (whole arm manipulator, WAM) and low inertia robot arm (Proficio) on upper limb motor function in chronic stroke patients. METHODS In this randomized controlled trial, 40 chronic stroke survivors were randomized into robot-assisted arm training with WAM (RAT-WAM) and robot-assisted arm training with Proficio (RAT-P) groups. The RAT-WAM and RAT-P groups participated in the robot-assisted arm training with WAM and robot-assisted arm training with Proficio, respectively, for 40 min daily, three times weekly over a four week. Upper limb motor function was measured before and after the intervention using the Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA), action research arm test, and box and block test (BBT). Curvilinearity ratio (the length ratio of a straight line from the start to the target) was also measured as an index for upper limb kinematic performance. RESULTS The RAT-WAM and RAT-P groups showed significant improvements in FMA-total and -proximal (shoulder/elbow units), BBT, and ARAT after the intervention (P < .05). Also, the RAT-P group showed significantly more improvement than the RAT-WAM group in FMA-distal (hand/wrist units) (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS Improvements of upper limb motor function occurred during robot-assisted arm training with robotic systems. Low inertia robot arm was more effective in improving the motor function of the hand and wrist. The results may be useful for robot-assisted training for upper limb impairment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ki-Hun Cho
- Department of Physical Therapy, Korea National University of Transportation, Chungbuk, Republic of Korea
| | - Won-Kyung Song
- Department of Rehabilitative & Assistive Technology, National Rehabilitation Research Institute, National Rehabilitation Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
128
|
Chien WT, Chong YY, Tse MK, Chien CW, Cheng HY. Robot-assisted therapy for upper-limb rehabilitation in subacute stroke patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav 2020; 10:e01742. [PMID: 32592282 PMCID: PMC7428503 DOI: 10.1002/brb3.1742] [Citation(s) in RCA: 68] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2020] [Revised: 06/09/2020] [Accepted: 06/12/2020] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Stroke survivors often experience upper-limb motor deficits and achieve limited motor recovery within six months after the onset of stroke. We aimed to systematically review the effects of robot-assisted therapy (RT) in comparison to usual care on the functional and health outcomes of subacute stroke survivors. METHODS Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2019 were identified from six electronic databases. Pooled estimates of standardized mean differences for five outcomes, including motor control (primary outcome), functional independence, upper extremity performance, muscle tone, and quality of life were derived by random effects meta-analyses. Assessments of risk of bias in the included RCTs and the quality of evidence for every individual outcomes were conducted following the guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration. RESULTS Eleven RCTs involving 493 participants were included for review. At post-treatment, the effects of RT when compared to usual care on motor control, functional independence, upper extremity performance, muscle tone, and quality of life were nonsignificant (all ps ranged .16 to .86). The quality of this evidence was generally rated as low-to-moderate. Less than three RCTs assessed the treatment effects beyond post-treatment and the results remained nonsignificant. CONCLUSION Robot-assisted therapy produced benefits similar, but not significantly superior, to those from usual care for improving functioning and disability in patients diagnosed with stroke within six months. Apart from using head-to-head comparison to determine the effects of RT in subacute stroke survivors, future studies may explore the possibility of conducting noninferiority or equivalence trials, given that the less labor-intensive RT may offer important advantages over currently available standard care, in terms of improved convenience, better adherence, and lower manpower cost.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wai-Tong Chien
- The Nethersole School of Nursing, The Chinese University of Hong Kond, New Territories, Hong Kong
| | - Yuen-Yu Chong
- The Nethersole School of Nursing, The Chinese University of Hong Kond, New Territories, Hong Kong
| | - Man-Kei Tse
- The Nethersole School of Nursing, The Chinese University of Hong Kond, New Territories, Hong Kong
| | | | - Ho-Yu Cheng
- The Nethersole School of Nursing, The Chinese University of Hong Kond, New Territories, Hong Kong
| |
Collapse
|
129
|
Mehrholz J, Pollock A, Pohl M, Kugler J, Elsner B. Systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of robotic-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living and upper limb function after stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2020; 17:83. [PMID: 32605587 PMCID: PMC7325016 DOI: 10.1186/s12984-020-00715-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/28/2019] [Accepted: 06/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The aim of the present study was to to assess the relative effectiveness of the various types of electromechanical-assisted arm devices and approaches after stroke. Method This is a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with network meta-analysis. Our primary endpoints were activities of daily living (measured e.g. with Barthel-Index) and hand-arm function (measured e.g. with the Fugl-Meyer Scale for the upper limb), our secondary endpoints were hand-arm strength (measured e.g. with the Motricity Index) and safety. We used conventional arm training as our reference category and compared it with different intervention categories of electromechanical-assisted arm training depending on the therapy approach. We did indirect comparisons between the type of robotic device. We considered the heterogeneity of the studies by means of confidence and prediction intervals. Results Fifty five randomized controlled trials, including 2654 patients with stroke, met our inclusion criteria. For the primary endpoints activities of daily living and hand-arm function and the secondary endpoint hand-arm strength, none of the interventions achieved statistically significant improvements, taking into account the heterogeneity of the studies. Safety did not differ with regard to the individual interventions of arm rehabilitation after stroke. Conclusion The outcomes of robotic-assisted arm training were comparable with conventional therapy. Indirect comparisons suggest that no one type of robotic device is any better or worse than any other device, providing no clear evidence to support the selection of specific types of robotic device to promote hand-arm recovery. Trial registration PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017075411
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jan Mehrholz
- Department of Public Health, Dresden Medical School, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
| | - Alex Pollock
- Nursing Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP) Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
| | - Marcus Pohl
- Vamed Klinik Schloss Pulsnitz, Pulsnitz, Germany
| | - Joachim Kugler
- Department of Public Health, Dresden Medical School, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Bernhard Elsner
- Department of Public Health, Dresden Medical School, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
130
|
Barclay RE, Stevenson TJ, Poluha W, Semenko B, Schubert J. Mental practice for treating upper extremity deficits in individuals with hemiparesis after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 5:CD005950. [PMID: 32449959 PMCID: PMC7387111 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd005950.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Stroke is caused by the interruption of blood flow to the brain (ischemic stroke) or the rupture of blood vessels within the brain (hemorrhagic stroke) and may lead to changes in perception, cognition, mood, speech, health-related quality of life, and function, such as difficulty walking and using the arm. Activity limitations (decreased function) of the upper extremity are a common finding for individuals living with stroke. Mental practice (MP) is a training method that uses cognitive rehearsal of activities to improve performance of those activities. OBJECTIVES To determine whether MP improves outcomes of upper extremity rehabilitation for individuals living with the effects of stroke. In particular, we sought to (1) determine the effects of MP on upper extremity activity, upper extremity impairment, activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, economic costs, and adverse effects; and (2) explore whether effects differed according to (a) the time post stroke at which MP was delivered, (b) the dose of MP provided, or (c) the type of comparison performed. SEARCH METHODS We last searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register on September 17, 2019. On September 3, 2019, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and REHABDATA. On October 2, 2019, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We reviewed the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult participants with stroke who had deficits in upper extremity function (called upper extremity activity). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors screened titles and abstracts of the citations produced by the literature search and excluded obviously irrelevant studies. We obtained the full text of all remaining studies, and both review authors then independently selected trials for inclusion. We combined studies when the review produced a minimum of two trials employing a particular intervention strategy and a common outcome. We considered the primary outcome to be the ability of the arm to be used for appropriate tasks, called upper extremity activity. Secondary outcomes included upper extremity impairment (such as quality of movement, range of motion, tone, presence of synergistic movement), activities of daily living (ADLs), health-related quality of life (HRQL), economic costs, and adverse events. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies and applied GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We completed subgroup analyses for time since stroke, dosage of MP, type of comparison, and type of arm activity outcome measure. MAIN RESULTS We included 25 studies involving 676 participants from nine countries. For the comparison of MP in addition to other treatment versus the other treatment, MP in combination with other treatment appears more effective in improving upper extremity activity than the other treatment without MP (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39 to 0.94; I² = 39%; 15 studies; 397 participants); the GRADE certainty of evidence score was moderate based on risk of bias for the upper extremity activity outcome. For upper extremity impairment, results were as follows: SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.87; I² = 43%; 15 studies; 397 participants, with a GRADE score of moderate, based on risk of bias. For ADLs, results were as follows: SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.39; I² = 0%; 4 studies; 157 participants; the GRADE score was low due to risk of bias and small sample size. For the comparison of MP versus conventional treatment, the only outcome with available data to combine (3 studies; 50 participants) was upper extremity impairment (SMD 0.34, 95% CI -0.33 to 1.00; I² = 21%); GRADE for the impairment outcome in this comparison was low due to risk of bias and small sample size. Subgroup analyses of time post stroke, dosage of MP, or comparison type for the MP in combination with other rehabilitation treatment versus the other treatment comparison showed no differences. The secondary outcome of health-related quality of life was reported in only one study, and no study noted the outcomes of economic costs and adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Moderate-certainty evidence shows that MP in addition to other treatment versus the other treatment appears to be beneficial in improving upper extremity activity. Moderate-certainty evidence also shows that MP in addition to other treatment versus the other treatment appears to be beneficial in improving upper extremity impairment after stroke. Low-certainty evidence suggests that ADLs may not be improved with MP in addition to other treatment versus the other treatment. Low-certainty evidence also suggests that MP versus conventional treatment may not improve upper extremity impairment. Further study is required to evaluate effects of MP on time post stroke, the volume of MP required to affect outcomes, and whether improvement is maintained over the long term.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ruth E Barclay
- Department of Physical Therapy, College of Rehabilitation Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | - Ted J Stevenson
- Rehabilitation Services, St Boniface General Hospital, Winnipeg, Canada
| | - William Poluha
- Sciences and Technology Library, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | - Brenda Semenko
- Occupational Therapy Department, Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Canada
| | - Julie Schubert
- Steelcity Physiotherapy & Wellness Centre, Selkirk, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
131
|
Platz T, Sandrini G. Specialty Grand Challenge for NeuroRehabilitation Research. Front Neurol 2020; 11:349. [PMID: 32528395 PMCID: PMC7257490 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2020.00349] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2020] [Accepted: 04/08/2020] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Platz
- BDH-Klinik Greifswald, Centre for Neurorehabilitation, Intensive and Ventilation Care, Spinal Cord Injury Unit, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.,Neurorehabilitation Research Group, University Medical Centre, Greifswald, Germany.,Special Interest Group Clinical Pathways, World Federation for NeuroRehabilitation, North Shields, United Kingdom
| | - Giorgio Sandrini
- Neurorehabilitation Unit, IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy.,Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
132
|
Wuennemann MJ, Mackenzie SW, Lane HP, Peltz AR, Ma X, Gerber LM, Edwards DJ, Kitago T. Dose and staffing comparison study of upper limb device-assisted therapy. NeuroRehabilitation 2020; 46:287-297. [DOI: 10.3233/nre-192993] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Marissa J. Wuennemann
- Human Motor Recovery Laboratory, Burke Neurological Institute, White Plains, NY, USA
| | - Stuart W. Mackenzie
- Human Motor Recovery Laboratory, Burke Neurological Institute, White Plains, NY, USA
| | - Heather Pepper Lane
- Human Motor Recovery Laboratory, Burke Neurological Institute, White Plains, NY, USA
| | - Avrielle R. Peltz
- Human Motor Recovery Laboratory, Burke Neurological Institute, White Plains, NY, USA
| | - Xiaoyue Ma
- Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Healthcare Policy & Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Linda M. Gerber
- Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Healthcare Policy & Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Dylan J. Edwards
- Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, Elkins Park, PA, USA
- Edith Cown University, Joondalup, Australia
| | - Tomoko Kitago
- Human Motor Recovery Laboratory, Burke Neurological Institute, White Plains, NY, USA
- Department of Neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
133
|
Szelenberger R, Kostka J, Saluk-Bijak J, Miller E. Pharmacological Interventions and Rehabilitation Approach for Enhancing Brain Self-repair and Stroke Recovery. Curr Neuropharmacol 2020; 18:51-64. [PMID: 31362657 PMCID: PMC7327936 DOI: 10.2174/1570159x17666190726104139] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2019] [Revised: 06/25/2019] [Accepted: 07/19/2019] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Neuroplasticity is a natural process occurring in the brain for the entire life. Stroke is the leading cause of long term disability and a huge medical and financial problem throughout the world. Research conducted over the past decade focused mainly on neuroprotection in the acute phase of stroke while very little studies target the chronic stage. Recovery after stroke depends on the ability of our brain to reestablish the structural and functional organization of neurovascular networks. Combining adjuvant therapies and drugs may enhance the repair processes and restore impaired brain functions. Currently, there are some drugs and rehabilitative strategies that can facilitate brain repair and improve clinical effect even years after stroke onset. Moreover, some of the compounds such as citicoline, fluoxetine, niacin, levodopa, etc. are already in clinical use or are being trialed in clinical issues. Many studies are also testing cell therapies; in our review, we focused on studies where cells have been implemented at the early stage of stroke. Next, we discuss pharmaceutical interventions. In this section, we selected methods of cognitive, behavioral, and physical rehabilitation as well as adjuvant interventions for neuroprotection including noninvasive brain stimulation and extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field. The modern rehabilitation represents a new model of physical interventions with the limited therapeutic window up to six months after stroke. However, previous studies suggest that the time window for stroke recovery is much longer than previously thought. This review attempts to present the progress in neuroprotective strategies, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological that can stimulate the endogenous neuroplasticity in post-stroke patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rafał Szelenberger
- Department of General Biochemistry, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection. University of Lodz, Pomorska 141/143, 90-236 Lodz, Poland
| | - Joanna Kostka
- Department of Neurological Rehabilitation, Medical University of Lodz, Milionowa 14, 93-113 Lodz, Poland
| | - Joanna Saluk-Bijak
- Department of General Biochemistry, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection. University of Lodz, Pomorska 141/143, 90-236 Lodz, Poland
| | - Elżbieta Miller
- Department of Neurological Rehabilitation, Medical University of Lodz, Milionowa 14, 93-113 Lodz, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
134
|
Amano Y, Noma T, Etoh S, Miyata R, Kawamura K, Shimodozono M. Reaching exercise for chronic paretic upper extremity after stroke using a novel rehabilitation robot with arm-weight support and concomitant electrical stimulation and vibration: before-and-after feasibility trial. Biomed Eng Online 2020; 19:28. [PMID: 32375788 PMCID: PMC7203976 DOI: 10.1186/s12938-020-00774-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2019] [Accepted: 04/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Our group developed a rehabilitation robot to assist with repetitive, active reaching movement of a paretic upper extremity. The robot is equipped with a servo motor-controlled arm-weight support and works in conjunction with neuromuscular electrical stimulation and vibratory stimulation to facilitate agonist-muscle contraction. In this before-and-after pilot study, we assessed the feasibility of applying the robot to improve motor control and function of the hemiparetic upper extremity in patients who suffered chronic stroke. Methods We enrolled 6 patients with chronic stroke and hemiparesis who, while sitting and without assistance, could reach 10 cm both sagitally and vertically (from a starting position located 10 cm forward from the patient’s navel level) with the affected upper extremity. The patients were assigned to receive reaching exercise intervention with the robot (Yaskawa Electric Co., Ltd. Fukuoka, Japan) for 2 weeks at 15 min/day in addition to regular occupational therapy for 40 min/day. Outcomes assessed before and after 2 weeks of intervention included the upper extremity component of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (UE-FMA), the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and, during reaching movement, kinematic analysis. Results None of the patients experienced adverse events. The mean score of UE-FMA increased from 44.8 [SD 14.4] to 48.0 [SD 14.4] (p = 0.026, r = 0.91), and both the shoulder–elbow and wrist–hand scores increased after 2-week intervention. An increase was also observed in ARAT score, from mean 29.8 [SD 16.3] to 36.2 [SD 18.1] (p = 0.042, r = 0.83). Kinematic analysis during the reaching movement revealed a significant increase in active range of motion (AROM) at the elbow, and movement time tended to decrease. Furthermore, trajectory length for the wrist (“hand path”) and the acromion (“trunk compensatory movement”) showed a decreasing trend. Conclusions This robot-assisted modality is feasible and our preliminary findings suggest it improved motor control and motor function of the hemiparetic upper extremity in patients with chronic stroke. Training with this robot might induce greater AROM for the elbow and decrease compensatory trunk movement, thus contributing to movement efficacy and efficiency. Trial registration UMIN Clinical Trial Registry, as UMIN000018132, on June 30, 2015. https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000020398
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yumeko Amano
- Department of Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8520, Japan
| | - Tomokazu Noma
- Kagoshima University Hospital Kirishima Rehabilitation Center, Kagoshima, Japan.,Department of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Nihon Fukushi University, Higashi-nukumi-cho 26-2, Handa, Aichi, 475-0012, Japan
| | - Seiji Etoh
- Department of Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8520, Japan
| | - Ryuji Miyata
- Department of Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8520, Japan
| | - Kentaro Kawamura
- Department of Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8520, Japan
| | - Megumi Shimodozono
- Department of Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8520, Japan.
| |
Collapse
|
135
|
Bai Z, Fong KNK, Zhang JJ, Chan J, Ting KH. Immediate and long-term effects of BCI-based rehabilitation of the upper extremity after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2020; 17:57. [PMID: 32334608 PMCID: PMC7183617 DOI: 10.1186/s12984-020-00686-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 93] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2019] [Accepted: 04/07/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND A substantial number of clinical studies have demonstrated the functional recovery induced by the use of brain-computer interface (BCI) technology in patients after stroke. The objective of this review is to evaluate the effect sizes of clinical studies investigating the use of BCIs in restoring upper extremity function after stroke and the potentiating effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on BCI training for motor recovery. METHODS The databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and PEDro) were systematically searched for eligible single-group or clinical controlled studies regarding the effects of BCIs in hemiparetic upper extremity recovery after stroke. Single-group studies were qualitatively described, but only controlled-trial studies were included in the meta-analysis. The PEDro scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the controlled studies. A meta-analysis of upper extremity function was performed by pooling the standardized mean difference (SMD). Subgroup meta-analyses regarding the use of external devices in combination with the application of BCIs were also carried out. We summarized the neural mechanism of the use of BCIs on stroke. RESULTS A total of 1015 records were screened. Eighteen single-group studies and 15 controlled studies were included. The studies showed that BCIs seem to be safe for patients with stroke. The single-group studies consistently showed a trend that suggested BCIs were effective in improving upper extremity function. The meta-analysis (of 12 studies) showed a medium effect size favoring BCIs for improving upper extremity function after intervention (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.18-0.66; I2 = 48%; P < 0.001; fixed-effects model), while the long-term effect (five studies) was not significant (SMD = 0.12; 95% CI = - 0.28 - 0.52; I2 = 0%; P = 0.540; fixed-effects model). A subgroup meta-analysis indicated that using functional electrical stimulation as the external device in BCI training was more effective than using other devices (P = 0.010). Using movement attempts as the trigger task in BCI training appears to be more effective than using motor imagery (P = 0.070). The use of tDCS (two studies) could not further facilitate the effects of BCI training to restore upper extremity motor function (SMD = - 0.30; 95% CI = - 0.96 - 0.36; I2 = 0%; P = 0.370; fixed-effects model). CONCLUSION The use of BCIs has significant immediate effects on the improvement of hemiparetic upper extremity function in patients after stroke, but the limited number of studies does not support its long-term effects. BCIs combined with functional electrical stimulation may be a better combination for functional recovery than other kinds of neural feedback. The mechanism for functional recovery may be attributed to the activation of the ipsilesional premotor and sensorimotor cortical network.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhongfei Bai
- Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR.,Department of Occupational Therapy, Shanghai YangZhi Rehabilitation Hospital (Shanghai Sunshine Rehabilitation Center), Shanghai, China.,Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Kenneth N K Fong
- Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR.
| | - Jack Jiaqi Zhang
- Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR
| | - Josephine Chan
- School of Occupational Therapy, Institute of Health Sciences, Texas Woman's University, Houston Center, USA
| | - K H Ting
- University Research Facility in Behavioral and Systems Neuroscience, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR
| |
Collapse
|
136
|
Saita K, Morishita T, Hyakutake K, Ogata T, Fukuda H, Kamada S, Inoue T. Feasibility of Robot-assisted Rehabilitation in Poststroke Recovery of Upper Limb Function Depending on the Severity. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2020; 60:217-222. [PMID: 32173715 PMCID: PMC7174245 DOI: 10.2176/nmc.oa.2019-0268] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
The single-joint Hybrid Assistive Limb (HAL-SJ) robot is an exoskeleton-type suit developed for the neurorehabilitation of upper limb function. Several studies have addressed the usefulness of the robot; however, the appropriate patient selection remains unclear. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of the HAL-SJ exoskeleton in improving upper limb function in the subacute phase after a stroke, as a function of the severity of arm paralysis. Our analysis was based on a retrospective review of 35 patients, treated using the HAL-SJ exoskeleton in the subacute phase after their stroke, between October 2014 and December 2018. The severity of upper limb impairment was quantified using the Brunnstrom recovery stage (BRS) as follows: severe, BRS score 1–2, n = 10; moderate, BRS 3–4, n = 12; and mild, BRS 5–6, n = 13. The primary endpoint was the improvement in upper limb function, from baseline to post-intervention, measured using the Fugl-Meyer assessment upper limb motor score (ΔFMA-UE; range 0–66). The ΔFMA-UE score was significant for all three severity groups (P <0.05). The magnitude of improvement was greater in the moderate group than in the mild group (P <0.05). The greatest improvement was attained for patients with a moderate level of upper limb impairment at baseline. Our findings support the feasibility of the HAL-SJ to improve upper limb function in the subacute phase after a stroke with appropriate patient selection. This study is the first report showing the effect of robot-assisted rehabilitation using the HAL-SJ, according to the severity of paralysis in acute stroke patients with upper extremity motor deficits.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kazuya Saita
- Department of Neurosurgery, Fukuoka University Hospital.,Department of Rehabilitation, Fukuoka University Hospital
| | | | - Koichi Hyakutake
- Department of Neurosurgery, Fukuoka University Hospital.,Department of Rehabilitation, Fukuoka University Hospital
| | | | - Hiroyuki Fukuda
- Department of Neurosurgery, Fukuoka University Hospital.,Department of Rehabilitation, Fukuoka University Hospital
| | - Satoshi Kamada
- Department of Rehabilitation, Fukuoka University Hospital
| | - Tooru Inoue
- Department of Neurosurgery, Fukuoka University Hospital
| |
Collapse
|
137
|
Takebayashi T, Takahashi K, Domen K, Hachisuka K. Impact of initial flexor synergy pattern scores on improving upper extremity function in stroke patients treated with adjunct robotic rehabilitation: A randomized clinical trial. Top Stroke Rehabil 2020; 27:516-524. [PMID: 32151236 DOI: 10.1080/10749357.2020.1738660] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
Background: Robot-assisted rehabilitation is an appealing strategy for patients after stroke, as it generates repetitive movements in a consistent, precise, and automated manner. Objective: To identify patients who will benefit most from robotic rehabilitation for upper extremity (UE) hemiparesis. Methods:We used data from our previous randomized clinical trial comparing 6 weeks of robotic therapy (ReoGeo system) plus standard therapy (n=30) with self-guided therapy plus standard therapy (n=26) for sub-acute phase rehabilitation in adults with mild to moderate UE hemiparesis. The outcome measures were three Fugl-Meyer (FMA) motor scores: total UE score, proximal UE score, and UE flexor synergy score. Based on pre-therapy UE flexor synergy scores, participants were categorized into mild (10-12 points), moderate (6-9 points), and severe (0-5 points) impairment classes. Results: In the robotic group, all outcome measures improved after therapy in patients with moderate or severe impairment. In the self-guided therapy, most outcomes did not improve, regardless of the impairment class. When changes from pre- to post-therapy were compared between robotic and self-guided groups, most outcomes were similar in all impairment classes. However, robotic therapy was associated with greater improvement in UE flexor synergy than self-guided therapy in patients with moderate impairment (2.3±1.3 vs. -0.1±2.8, P=0.027). Conclusions: Post-strokerobot-assisted rehabilitation, as an adjunct to standard rehabilitation therapy, improved UE function in patients with moderate or severe pre-therapy UE flexor synergy impairment. Adjunct robotic therapy produced greater improvement in UE flexor synergy motor function than adjunct self-guided rehabilitation in patients with moderate pre-therapy impairment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takashi Takebayashi
- School of Comprehensive Rehabilitation, College of Health and Human Science, Osaka Prefecture University , Osaka, Japan.,Graduate School of Comprehensive Rehabilitation, Osaka Prefecture University , Osaka, Japan
| | - Kayoko Takahashi
- Department of Occupational Therapy, School of Allied Health Science, Kitasato University , Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Kazuhisa Domen
- Department of Rehabilitation Science, Hyogo College of Medicine , Hyogo, Japan
| | | |
Collapse
|
138
|
Morone G, Cocchi I, Paolucci S, Iosa M. Robot-assisted therapy for arm recovery for stroke patients: state of the art and clinical implication. Expert Rev Med Devices 2020; 17:223-233. [PMID: 32107946 DOI: 10.1080/17434440.2020.1733408] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
Introduction: Robot-assisted therapy is an emerging approach that performs highly repetitive, intensive, task oriented and quantifiable neuro-rehabilitation. In the last decades, it has been increasingly used in a wide range of neurological central nervous system conditions implying an upper limb paresis. Results from the studies are controversial, for the many types of robots and their features often not accompanied by specific clinical indications about the target functions, fundamental for the individualized neurorehabilitation program.Areas covered: This article reviews the state of the art and perspectives of robotics in post-stroke rehabilitation for upper limb recovery. Classifications and features of robots have been reported in accordance with technological and clinical contents, together with the definition of determinants specific for each patient, that could modify the efficacy of robotic treatments. The possibility of combining robotic intervention with other therapies has also been discussed.Expert commentary: The recent wide diffusion of robots in neurorehabilitation has generated a confusion due to the commingling of technical and clinical aspects not previously clarified. Our critical review provides a possible hypothesis about how to match a robot with subject's upper limb functional abilities, but also highlights the need of organizing a clinical consensus conference about the robotic therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giovanni Morone
- Clinical Laboratory of Experimental Neurorehabilitation, Fondazione Santa Lucia IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Ilaria Cocchi
- Clinical Laboratory of Experimental Neurorehabilitation, Fondazione Santa Lucia IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Stefano Paolucci
- Clinical Laboratory of Experimental Neurorehabilitation, Fondazione Santa Lucia IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Marco Iosa
- Clinical Laboratory of Experimental Neurorehabilitation, Fondazione Santa Lucia IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
139
|
Yurkewich A, Kozak IJ, Hebert D, Wang RH, Mihailidis A. Hand Extension Robot Orthosis (HERO) Grip Glove: enabling independence amongst persons with severe hand impairments after stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2020; 17:33. [PMID: 32102668 PMCID: PMC7045638 DOI: 10.1186/s12984-020-00659-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2019] [Accepted: 02/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Hand Extension Robot Orthosis (HERO) Grip Glove was iteratively designed to meet requests from therapists and persons after a stroke who have severe hand impairment to create a device that extends all five fingers, enhances grip strength and is portable, lightweight, easy to put on, comfortable and affordable. METHODS Eleven persons who have minimal or no active finger extension (Chedoke McMaster Stage of Hand 1-4) post-stroke were recruited to evaluate how well they could perform activities of daily living and finger function assessments with and without wearing the HERO Grip Glove. RESULTS The 11 participants showed statistically significant improvements (p < 0.01), while wearing the HERO Grip Glove, in the water bottle grasp and manipulation task (increase of 2.3 points, SD 1.2, scored using the Chedoke Hand and Arm Inventory scale from 1 to 7) and in index finger extension (increase of 147o, SD 44) and range of motion (increase of 145o, SD 36). The HERO Grip Glove provided 12.7 N (SD 8.9 N) of grip force and 11.0 N (SD 4.8) of pinch force to their affected hands, which enabled those without grip strength to grasp and manipulate blocks, a fork and a water bottle, as well as write with a pen. The participants were 'more or less satisfied' with the HERO Grip Glove as an assistive device (average of 3.3 out of 5 on the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 Scale). The highest satisfaction scores were given for safety and security (4.6) and ease of use (3.8) and the lowest satisfaction scores were given for ease of donning (2.3), which required under 5 min with assistance. The most common requests were for greater grip strength and a smaller glove size for small hands. CONCLUSIONS The HERO Grip Glove is a safe and effective tool for enabling persons with a stroke that have severe hand impairment to incorporate their affected hand into activities of daily living, which may motivate greater use of the affected upper extremity in daily life to stimulate neuromuscular recovery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aaron Yurkewich
- Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
- University Health Network - Toronto Rehabilitation Institute - KITE, Toronto, Canada.
- Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, UK.
| | - Illya J Kozak
- University Health Network - Toronto Rehabilitation Institute - KITE, Toronto, Canada
| | - Debbie Hebert
- University Health Network - Toronto Rehabilitation Institute - KITE, Toronto, Canada
- Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Rosalie H Wang
- University Health Network - Toronto Rehabilitation Institute - KITE, Toronto, Canada
- Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Alex Mihailidis
- University Health Network - Toronto Rehabilitation Institute - KITE, Toronto, Canada
- Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
140
|
Picelli A, Munari D, Modenese A, Filippetti M, Saggioro G, Gandolfi M, Corain M, Smania N. Robot-assisted arm training for treating adult patients with distal radius fracture: a proof-of-concept pilot study. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2020; 56:444-450. [PMID: 32096616 DOI: 10.23736/s1973-9087.20.06112-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fracture of the distal radius is a common wrist injury. As to its management after orthopedic (conservative or surgical) treatment, there is weak evidence for conventional rehabilitation interventions. Despite the increasing interest for robot-assisted arm therapy as to neurological disabilities and its growing diffusion in rehabilitation facilities, no previous study investigated the feasibility of robotic training on arm orthopedic impairment. AIM To evaluate the feasibility in terms of efficacy of robot-assisted arm training on upper limb impairment in patients with fracture of the distal radius. DESIGN Proof-of-concept, pilot, randomized controlled trial. SETTING University hospital. POPULATION Twenty adult outpatients with distal radius fracture due to wrist injury. METHODS All participants underwent ten, 1-hour (40 minutes of arm training + 20 minutes of conventional occupational therapy) training sessions, five days a week for two consecutive weeks. They were randomly assigned to two groups: patients allocated to the Robotic Arm Training group received arm training by means of a robotic device and patients allocated to the Conventional Arm Training group performed arm training following a conventional rehabilitation program. All patients were evaluated before, immediately after treatment and at four weeks of follow-up. The following outcomes were considered at the affected arm: forearm pronation/supination and wrist extension/flexion passive and active range of motion; maximal pinch and grip strength; the Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation. RESULTS No difference was found between groups as to the primary (wrist active and passive range of motion) and secondary (pinch and grip strength; Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation Score) outcomes at all time points. Within-group comparisons showed similar improvements at all time points as to all outcomes considered in both groups. CONCLUSIONS Our preliminary findings support the hypothesis that robot-assisted arm training might be a feasible tool for treating upper limb impairment in adult patients with distal radius fracture treated conservatively or surgically. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT The treatment of arm impairment consequent to distal radius fractures by means of robot-assisted arm training may allow therapists to focus on functional rehabilitation during occupational (individual) therapy and supervise (more than one) patients simultaneously during robotic training sessions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessandro Picelli
- Neuromotor and Cognitive Rehabilitation Research Center, Section of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy - .,Unit of Neurorehabilitation, Department of Neurosciences, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy -
| | - Daniele Munari
- Unit of Neurorehabilitation, Department of Neurosciences, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Angela Modenese
- Unit of Neurorehabilitation, Department of Neurosciences, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Mirko Filippetti
- Neuromotor and Cognitive Rehabilitation Research Center, Section of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Gabriele Saggioro
- Unit of Neurorehabilitation, Department of Neurosciences, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Marialuisa Gandolfi
- Neuromotor and Cognitive Rehabilitation Research Center, Section of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.,Unit of Neurorehabilitation, Department of Neurosciences, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Massimo Corain
- Unit of Hand Surgery, Department of Surgery and Odontology, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Nicola Smania
- Neuromotor and Cognitive Rehabilitation Research Center, Section of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.,Unit of Neurorehabilitation, Department of Neurosciences, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
141
|
Evaluation of Commercial Ropes Applied as Artificial Tendons in Robotic Rehabilitation Orthoses. APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL 2020. [DOI: 10.3390/app10030920] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
This study aims to present the design, selection and testing of commercial ropes (artificial tendons) used on robotic orthosis to perform the hand movements for stroke individuals over upper limb rehabilitation. It was determined the load applied in the rope would through direct measurements performed on four individuals after stroke using a bulb dynamometer. A tensile strength test was performed using eight commercial ropes in order to evaluate the maximum breaking force and select the most suitable to be used in this application. Finally, a pilot test was performed with a user of the device to ratify the effectiveness of the rope. The load on the cable was 12.38 kgf (121.4 N) in the stroke-affected hand, which is the maximum tensile force that the rope must to supports. Paragliding rope (DuPont™ Kevlar ® ) supporting a load of 250 N at a strain of 37 mm was selected. The clinical test proved the effectiveness of the rope, supporting the requested efforts, without presenting permanent deformation, effectively performing the participant’s finger opening.
Collapse
|
142
|
Carpinella I, Lencioni T, Bowman T, Bertoni R, Turolla A, Ferrarin M, Jonsdottir J. Effects of robot therapy on upper body kinematics and arm function in persons post stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2020; 17:10. [PMID: 32000790 PMCID: PMC6990497 DOI: 10.1186/s12984-020-0646-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2019] [Accepted: 01/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robot-based rehabilitation for persons post-stroke may improve arm function and daily-life activities as measured by clinical scales, but its effects on motor strategies during functional tasks are still poorly investigated. This study aimed at assessing the effects of robot-therapy versus arm-specific physiotherapy in persons post-stroke on motor strategies derived from upper body instrumented kinematic analysis, and on arm function measured by clinical scales. METHODS Forty persons in the sub-acute and chronic stage post-stroke were recruited. This sample included all those subjects, enrolled in a larger bi-center study, who underwent instrumented kinematic analysis and who were randomized in Center 2 into Robot (R_Group) and Control Group (C_Group). R_Group received robot-assisted training. C_Group received arm-specific treatment delivered by a physiotherapist. Pre- and post-training assessment included clinical scales and instrumented kinematic analysis of arm and trunk during a virtual untrained task simulating the transport of an object onto a shelf. Instrumented outcomes included shoulder/elbow coordination, elbow extension and trunk sagittal compensation. Clinical outcomes included Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment of Upper Extremity (FM-UE), modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) and Functional Independence Measure (FIM). RESULTS R_Group showed larger post-training improvements of shoulder/elbow coordination (Cohen's d = - 0.81, p = 0.019), elbow extension (Cohen's d = - 0.71, p = 0.038), and trunk movement (Cohen's d = - 1.12, p = 0.002). Both groups showed comparable improvements in clinical scales, except proximal muscles MAS that decreased more in R_Group (Cohen's d = - 0.83, p = 0.018). Ancillary analyses on chronic subjects confirmed these results and revealed larger improvements after robot-therapy in the proximal portion of FM-UE (Cohen's d = 1.16, p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS Robot-assisted rehabilitation was as effective as arm-specific physiotherapy in reducing arm impairment (FM-UE) in persons post-stroke, but it was more effective in improving motor control strategies adopted during an untrained task involving vertical movements not practiced during training. Specifically, robot therapy induced larger improvements of shoulder/elbow coordination and greater reduction of abnormal trunk sagittal movements. The beneficial effects of robot therapy seemed more pronounced in chronic subjects. Future studies on a larger sample should be performed to corroborate present findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03530358. Registered 21 May 2018. Retrospectively registered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ilaria Carpinella
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, via Capecelatro 66, 20148, Milan, Italy
| | - Tiziana Lencioni
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, via Capecelatro 66, 20148, Milan, Italy.
| | - Thomas Bowman
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, via Capecelatro 66, 20148, Milan, Italy
| | - Rita Bertoni
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, via Capecelatro 66, 20148, Milan, Italy
| | - Andrea Turolla
- Movement Neuroscience Research Group, IRCCS San Camillo Hospital, Via Alberoni 70, 30126, Venezia, Lido, Italy
| | - Maurizio Ferrarin
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, via Capecelatro 66, 20148, Milan, Italy
| | - Johanna Jonsdottir
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, via Capecelatro 66, 20148, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
143
|
Raghavan P, Bilaloglu S, Ali SZ, Jin X, Aluru V, Buckley MC, Tang A, Yousefi A, Stone J, Agrawal SK, Lu Y. The Role of Robotic Path Assistance and Weight Support in Facilitating 3D Movements in Individuals With Poststroke Hemiparesis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2020; 34:134-147. [PMID: 31959040 DOI: 10.1177/1545968319887685] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
Background. High-intensity repetitive training is challenging to provide poststroke. Robotic approaches can facilitate such training by unweighting the limb and/or by improving trajectory control, but the extent to which these types of assistance are necessary is not known. Objective. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which robotic path assistance and/or weight support facilitate repetitive 3D movements in high functioning and low functioning subjects with poststroke arm motor impairment relative to healthy controls. Methods. Seven healthy controls and 18 subjects with chronic poststroke right-sided hemiparesis performed 300 repetitions of a 3D circle-drawing task using a 3D Cable-driven Arm Exoskeleton (CAREX) robot. Subjects performed 100 repetitions each with path assistance alone, weight support alone, and path assistance plus weight support in a random order over a single session. Kinematic data from the task were used to compute the normalized error and speed as well as the speed-error relationship. Results. Low functioning stroke subjects (Fugl-Meyer Scale score = 16.6 ± 6.5) showed the lowest error with path assistance plus weight support, whereas high functioning stroke subjects (Fugl-Meyer Scale score = 59.6 ± 6.8) moved faster with path assistance alone. When both speed and error were considered together, low functioning subjects significantly reduced their error and increased their speed but showed no difference across the robotic conditions. Conclusions. Robotic assistance can facilitate repetitive task performance in individuals with severe arm motor impairment, but path assistance provides little advantage over weight support alone. Future studies focusing on antigravity arm movement control are warranted poststroke.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Preeti Raghavan
- New York University, New York, NY, USA.,Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | - Syed Zain Ali
- New York University, New York, NY, USA.,NYIT College of Osteopathic Medicine, Old Westbury, NY, USA
| | - Xin Jin
- Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Megan C Buckley
- New York University, New York, NY, USA.,NYIT College of Osteopathic Medicine, Old Westbury, NY, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Ying Lu
- New York University, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
144
|
Germanotta M, Gower V, Papadopoulou D, Cruciani A, Pecchioli C, Mosca R, Speranza G, Falsini C, Cecchi F, Vannetti F, Montesano A, Galeri S, Gramatica F, Aprile I. Reliability, validity and discriminant ability of a robotic device for finger training in patients with subacute stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2020; 17:1. [PMID: 31900169 PMCID: PMC6942416 DOI: 10.1186/s12984-019-0634-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2019] [Accepted: 12/12/2019] [Indexed: 02/14/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The majority of stroke survivors experiences significant hand impairments, as weakness and spasticity, with a severe impact on the activity of daily living. To objectively evaluate hand deficits, quantitative measures are needed. The aim of this study is to assess the reliability, the validity and the discriminant ability of the instrumental measures provided by a robotic device for hand rehabilitation, in a sample of patients with subacute stroke. Material and methods In this study, 120 patients with stroke and 40 controls were enrolled. Clinical evaluation included finger flexion and extension strength (using the Medical Research Council, MRC), finger spasticity (using the Modified Ashworth Scale, MAS) and motor control and dexterity during ADL performance (by means of the Frenchay Arm Test, FAT). Robotic evaluations included finger flexion and extension strength, muscle tone at rest, and instrumented MAS and Modified Tardieu Scale. Subjects were evaluated twice, one day apart, to assess the test-retest reliability of the robotic measures, using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). To estimate the response stability, the standard errors of measurement and the minimum detectable change (MDC) were also calculated. Validity was assessed by analyzing the correlations between the robotic metrics and the clinical scales, using the Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient (r). Finally, we investigated the ability of the robotic measures to distinguish between patients with stroke and healthy subjects, by means of Mann-Whitney U tests. Results All the investigated measures were able to discriminate patients with stroke from healthy subjects (p < 0.001). Test-retest reliability was found to be excellent for finger strength (in both flexion and extension) and muscle tone, with ICCs higher than 0.9. MDCs were equal to 10.6 N for finger flexion, 3.4 N for finger extension, and 14.3 N for muscle tone. Conversely, test-retest reliability of the spasticity measures was poor. Finally, finger strength (in both flexion and extension) was correlated with the clinical scales (r of about 0.7 with MRC, and about 0.5 with FAT). Discussion Finger strength (in both flexion and extension) and muscle tone, as provided by a robotic device for hand rehabilitation, are reliable and sensitive measures. Moreover, finger strength is strongly correlated with clinical scales. Changes higher than the obtained MDC in these robotic measures could be considered as clinically relevant and used to assess the effect of a rehabilitation treatment in patients with subacute stroke.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Germanotta
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Via di Scandicci, 269, 50143, Florence, Italy.
| | - Valerio Gower
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Piazzale Morandi 6, 20121, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Arianna Cruciani
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Piazzale Morandi 6, 20121, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Rita Mosca
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Piazzale Morandi 6, 20121, Milan, Italy
| | - Gabriele Speranza
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Piazzale Morandi 6, 20121, Milan, Italy
| | - Catuscia Falsini
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Via di Scandicci, 269, 50143, Florence, Italy
| | - Francesca Cecchi
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Via di Scandicci, 269, 50143, Florence, Italy
| | - Federica Vannetti
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Via di Scandicci, 269, 50143, Florence, Italy
| | - Angelo Montesano
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Piazzale Morandi 6, 20121, Milan, Italy
| | - Silvia Galeri
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Piazzale Morandi 6, 20121, Milan, Italy
| | - Furio Gramatica
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Piazzale Morandi 6, 20121, Milan, Italy
| | - Irene Aprile
- IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Piazzale Morandi 6, 20121, Milan, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
145
|
Schladen MM, Koumpouros Y, Sandison M, Casas R, Lum P. Conceptualization of Hand-TaPS to measure the subjective experience of dynamic hand orthoses in promoting functional recovery at home after stroke. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2020; 32:285-294. [PMID: 34421288 DOI: 10.3233/tad-200289] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Dynamic exoskeleton orthoses provide assistance needed to complete movements that would otherwise be impossible after stroke. Beyond the demonstration of their effectiveness, the subjective experience of dynamic orthoses also needs to be considered. OBJECTIVE To support functional recovery after stroke through the development of Hand-TaPS (Task Practice after Stroke), an instrument to evaluate dynamic hand orthoses in home therapy. METHODS Dynamic hand orthosis subject matter experts (N = 14), professionals and consumers, considered the items of PYTHEIA, a valid and reliable instrument merging well-tested, assistive technology (AT) assessment items with those tuned to the greater complexity of emerging technologies. Experts reflected on how each item aligned with their personal experience of dynamic orthosis use. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis guided identification of themes. RESULTS Four themes (5/20 items) appraised highly relevant for Hand-TaPS. The remaining eight themes (15/20 items) were deemed in need of modification. CONCLUSIONS Dynamic hand orthoses constitute a special case of AT; the assistance they provide targets therapy, not ADLs. Our work to develop Hand-TaPS provides a clear example of the theoretical difference between rehabilitative and assistive technology and underscores the importance of consideration of how a device is used in its assessment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Manon M Schladen
- MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, MD, USA.,Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Yiannis Koumpouros
- Department of Informatics and Computer Engineering, University of West Attica, Aigaleio, Greece
| | - Melissa Sandison
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Rafael Casas
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Peter Lum
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
146
|
Berger A, Horst F, Steinberg F, Thomas F, Müller-Eising C, Schöllhorn WI, Doppelmayr M. Increased gait variability during robot-assisted walking is accompanied by increased sensorimotor brain activity in healthy people. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2019; 16:161. [PMID: 31882008 PMCID: PMC6935063 DOI: 10.1186/s12984-019-0636-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2019] [Accepted: 12/13/2019] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Gait disorders are major symptoms of neurological diseases affecting the quality of life. Interventions that restore walking and allow patients to maintain safe and independent mobility are essential. Robot-assisted gait training (RAGT) proved to be a promising treatment for restoring and improving the ability to walk. Due to heterogenuous study designs and fragmentary knowlegde about the neural correlates associated with RAGT and the relation to motor recovery, guidelines for an individually optimized therapy can hardly be derived. To optimize robotic rehabilitation, it is crucial to understand how robotic assistance affect locomotor control and its underlying brain activity. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the effects of robotic assistance (RA) during treadmill walking (TW) on cortical activity and the relationship between RA-related changes of cortical activity and biomechanical gait characteristics. METHODS Twelve healthy, right-handed volunteers (9 females; M = 25 ± 4 years) performed unassisted walking (UAW) and robot-assisted walking (RAW) trials on a treadmill, at 2.8 km/h, in a randomized, within-subject design. Ground reaction forces (GRFs) provided information regarding the individual gait patterns, while brain activity was examined by measuring cerebral hemodynamic changes in brain regions associated with the cortical locomotor network, including the sensorimotor cortex (SMC), premotor cortex (PMC) and supplementary motor area (SMA), using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). RESULTS A statistically significant increase in brain activity was observed in the SMC compared with the PMC and SMA (p < 0.05), and a classical double bump in the vertical GRF was observed during both UAW and RAW throughout the stance phase. However, intraindividual gait variability increased significantly with RA and was correlated with increased brain activity in the SMC (p = 0.05; r = 0.57). CONCLUSIONS On the one hand, robotic guidance could generate sensory feedback that promotes active participation, leading to increased gait variability and somatosensory brain activity. On the other hand, changes in brain activity and biomechanical gait characteristics may also be due to the sensory feedback of the robot, which disrupts the cortical network of automated walking in healthy individuals. More comprehensive neurophysiological studies both in laboratory and in clinical settings are necessary to investigate the entire brain network associated with RAW.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alisa Berger
- Department of Sport Psychology, Institute of Sport Science, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Albert Schweitzer Straße 22, 55128 Mainz, Germany
| | - Fabian Horst
- Department of Training and Movement Science, Institute of Sport Science, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany
| | - Fabian Steinberg
- Department of Sport Psychology, Institute of Sport Science, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Albert Schweitzer Straße 22, 55128 Mainz, Germany
- School of Kinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA
| | - Fabian Thomas
- Department of Sport Psychology, Institute of Sport Science, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Albert Schweitzer Straße 22, 55128 Mainz, Germany
| | | | - Wolfgang I. Schöllhorn
- Department of Training and Movement Science, Institute of Sport Science, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany
| | - Michael Doppelmayr
- Department of Sport Psychology, Institute of Sport Science, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Albert Schweitzer Straße 22, 55128 Mainz, Germany
- Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, Paris Lodron University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
147
|
Clark WE, Sivan M, O'Connor RJ. Evaluating the use of robotic and virtual reality rehabilitation technologies to improve function in stroke survivors: A narrative review. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng 2019; 6:2055668319863557. [PMID: 31763052 PMCID: PMC6854750 DOI: 10.1177/2055668319863557] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2018] [Accepted: 06/18/2019] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
This review evaluates the effectiveness of robotic and virtual reality technologies used for neurological rehabilitation in stroke survivors. It examines each rehabilitation technology in turn before considering combinations of these technologies and the complexities of rehabilitation outcome assessment. There is high-quality evidence that upper-limb robotic rehabilitation technologies improve movement, strength and activities of daily living, whilst the evidence for robotic lower-limb rehabilitation is currently not as convincing. Virtual reality technologies also improve activities of daily living. Whilst the benefit of these technologies over dose-controlled conventional rehabilitation is likely to be small, there is a role for both technologies as part of a broader rehabilitation programme, where they may help to increase the intensity and amount of therapy delivered. Combining robotic and virtual reality technologies in a rehabilitation programme may further improve rehabilitation outcomes and we would advocate randomised controlled trials of these technologies in combination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William E Clark
- Academic Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Manoj Sivan
- Academic Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.,National Demonstration Centre for Rehabilitation Medicine, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Rory J O'Connor
- Academic Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.,National Demonstration Centre for Rehabilitation Medicine, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.,National Institute of Health Research Devices for Dignity MedTech Co-operative, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, Sheffield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
148
|
Upper Limb Robotics in Rehabilitation: An Approach to Select the Devices, Based on Rehabilitation Aims, and Their Evaluation in a Feasibility Study. APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL 2019. [DOI: 10.3390/app9183920] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
Robot-mediated therapy is a viable approach for upper limb rehabilitation. The upper limb is a highly complex segment and the identification of the appropriate devices capable of rehabilitating it globally (from the shoulder to the hand) in clinical practice is crucial. In this work, we aimed: (i) to describe an approach used in identifying a set of technological and robotic devices to globally treat the upper limb, and (ii) to evaluate the feasibility of the identified set in clinical practice. Using an ad-hoc form, a multidisciplinary team identified a set of four robotic and sensor-based devices to treat globally the upper limb. Then, 30 stroke patients were enrolled and assigned to two groups: the robotic group (RG), where patients were treated with the robotic set, or the conventional group (CG). All patients were evaluated before and after the treatment. In the RG the patients used all the devices (one in each rehabilitation session); the treatment was well accepted, without drop-outs or adverse events. Using a multidisciplinary approach, we identified a set of technological and robotic devices to treat the upper limb globally, and then we experimented to ascertain its feasibility, in a pilot study. Robotics offers a considerable number of devices for rehabilitation that should be selected according to rehabilitation aims and feasibility in clinical practice.
Collapse
|
149
|
Abstract
People with hemiparesis after stroke appear to recover 70% to 80% of the difference between their baseline and the maximum upper extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFM) score, a phenomenon called proportional recovery (PR). Two recent commentaries explained that PR should be expected because of mathematical coupling between the baseline and change score. Here we ask, If mathematical coupling encourages PR, why do a fraction of stroke patients (the "nonfitters") not exhibit PR? At the neuroanatomical level of analysis, this question was answered by Byblow et al-nonfitters lack corticospinal tract (CST) integrity at baseline-but here we address the mathematical and behavioral causes. We first derive a new interpretation of the slope of PR: It is the average probability of scoring across remaining scale items at follow-up. PR therefore breaks when enough test items are discretely more difficult for a patient at follow-up, flattening the slope of recovery. For the UEFM, we show that nonfitters are most unlikely to recover the ability to score on the test items related to wrist/hand dexterity, shoulder flexion without bending the elbow, and finger-to-nose movement, supporting the finding that nonfitters lack CST integrity. However, we also show that a subset of nonfitters respond better to robotic movement training in the chronic phase of stroke. These persons are just able to move the arm out of the flexion synergy and pick up small blocks, both markers of CST integrity. Nonfitters therefore raise interesting questions about CST function and the basis for response to intensive movement training.
Collapse
|
150
|
Fong J, Crocher V, Tan Y, Oetomo D. Indirect Robotic Movement Shaping through Motor Cost Influence. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot 2019; 2019:977-982. [PMID: 31374756 DOI: 10.1109/icorr.2019.8779430] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
Movement patterns are commonly disrupted after a neurological incident. The correction and recovery of these movement patterns is part of therapeutic practice, and should be considered in the development of robotic device control strategies. This is an area which has limited exploration in rehabilitation robotics literature. This work presents a new strategy aiming at influencing the cost associated with a movement, based on the principle of optimal motor control. This approach is unique, in that it does not directly modify the movement pattern, but instead encourages this altered movement. This 'Indirect Shaping Control' is applied in a preliminary experiment using an end-effector based device with 5 healthy subjects. The study concludes that such an approach may encourage changes in movement patterns which do persist to out-of-robot reaching actions, but this was not consistent over all subjects and further experiments are required.
Collapse
|