Robot-assisted mirroring exercise as a physical therapy for hemiparesis rehabilitation

Robot Assisted Treatment of Hand Functional Rehabilitation Based on Visual Motor Imagination

This pilot study implements a hybrid brain computer interface paradigm based on motor imagery (MI) and steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP), in order to explore the neural mechanism and clinical effect of MI-SSVEP intervention paradigm on upper limb functional rehabilitation. In this study, EEG data of 12 healthy participants were collected, and the activation regions of MI-SSVEP paradigm were identified by power spectral density (PSD). By analyzing the inter trial phase consistency (ITPC) of characteristic regions and the causal relationship of brain network, the motor cognitive process including high-level somatosensory joint cortex in the intervention process of MI-SSVEP was studied. Subsequently, this study verified the clinical effect of MI-SSVEP intervention paradigm for 61 stroke patients. The results show that the robot assisted therapy using MI-SSVEP intervention paradigm can more effectively improve the rehabilitation effect of patients.

Do Robotics and Virtual Reality Add Real Progress to Mirror Therapy Rehabilitation? A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Mirror therapy has been used in rehabilitation for multiple indications since the 1990s. Current evidence supports some of these indications, particularly for cerebrovascular accidents in adults and cerebral palsy in children. Since 2000s, computerized or robotic mirror therapy has been developed and marketed.

OBJECTIVES

To map the extent, nature, and rationale of research activity in robotic or computerized mirror therapy and the type of evidence available for any indication. To investigate the relevance of conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis on these therapies.

METHOD

Systematic scoping review. Searches were conducted (up to May 2018) in the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and PsycINFO databases. References from identified studies were examined.

RESULTS

In sum, 75 articles met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were publicly funded (57% of studies; n = 43), without disclosure of conflict of interest (59% of studies; n = 44). The main outcomes assessed were pain, satisfaction on the device, and body function and activity, mainly for stroke and amputees patients and healthy participants. Most design studies were case reports (67% of studies; n = 50), with only 12 randomized controlled trials with 5 comparing standard mirror therapy versus virtual mirror therapy, 5 comparing second-generation mirror therapy versus conventional rehabilitation, and 2 comparing other interventions.

CONCLUSION

Much of the research on second-generation mirror therapy is of very low quality. Evidence-based rationale to conduct such studies is missing. It is not relevant to recommend investment by rehabilitation professionals and institutions in such devices.