A control system for stroke rehabilitation is developed which combines electrical stimulation with a robotic support system to provide assistance to stroke patients performing three-dimensional upper-limb reaching tasks in a virtual reality environment. The electrical stimulation is applied to two muscles in the subject’s arm using an iterative learning control scheme which learns from data collected over previous trials of the task in order to achieve accurate movement. The principal components of the system are described and experimental results confirm its feasibility for application to upper-limb stroke rehabilitation.
National clinical guidelines for stroke. In Intercollegiate working party for stroke (Ed. WadeD.), 2000, Royal College of Physicians.
2.
BarrrecaS.WolfS. L.FasoliS.BohannonR.Treatment interventions for the paretic upper limb of stroke survivors: A critical review. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 2003, 17(4), 220–226.
3.
ErnstE.A review of stroke rehabilitation and physiotherapy. Stroke, 1990, 21, 1081–1085.
4.
TeasellR. W.KalraL.What’s new in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke, 2004, 35, 383–385.
5.
PrangeG. B.JannickM. A.Groothuis-OudshoornC. G. M.HermensH.IjzermanM. J.Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev., 2006, 43, 171–184.
6.
KwakkelG.Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: A systematic review. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 2008, 22(2), 111–121.
7.
FoleyN.TeasellR. W.JutaiJ.BhogalS.KrugerE.Evidence-based review of stroke rehabilitation: Upper extremity interventions, version 11. www.ebrsr.com/uploads/UpperExtremity.pdf, 2008.
8.
KroonJ. R. D.van der LeeJ. H.IzermanM. J.LankhorstG. J.Therapeutic electrical stimulation to improve motor control and functional abilities of the upper extremity after stroke: a systematic review. Clin. Rehabil., 2002, 16, 350–360.
9.
BurridgeJ. H.LadouceurM.Clinical and therapeutic applications of neuromuscular stimulation: A review of current use and speculation into future developments. Neuromodulation, 2001, 4(4), 147–154.
10.
SchmidtR. A.LeeT. D.Motor control and learning: a behavioural emphasis, 4th edition, 2005, Human Kinetics Europe Ltd.
11.
RushtonD. N.Functional electrical stimulation and rehabilitation – an hypothesis. Med. Engng Phys., 2003, 25(1), 75–78.
12.
de KroonJ. R.van der LeeJ. H.IjzermanM. J.LankhorstG. J.Therapeutic electrical stimulation to improve motor control and functional abilities of the upper extremity after stroke: a systematic review. Clin. Rehabil., 2002, 16, 350–360.
13.
de KroonJ. R.IjzermanM. J.ChaeJ. J.LankhorstG. J.ZilvoldG.Relation between stimulation characteristics and clinical outcome in studies using electrical stimulation to improve motor control of the upper extremity in stroke. J. Rehabil. Med., 2005, 37(2), 65–74.
14.
de KroonJ. R.IjzermanM. J.Electrical stimulation of the upper extremity in stroke: Cyclic versus EMG-triggered stimulation. Clin. Rehabil., 2008, 22, 690–697.
15.
FreemanC. T.HughesA. M.BurridgeJ. H.ChappellP. H.LewinP. L.RogersE.Iterative learning control of FES applied to the upper extremity for rehabilitation. Control Engng Pract., 2009, 17(3), 368–381.
16.
FreemanC. T.HughesA. M.BurridgeJ. H.ChappellP. H.LewinP. L.RogersE.A model of the upper extremity using FES for stroke rehabilitation. ASME J. Biomech. Engng, 2009, 131(3), 031011.
17.
HughesA. M.FreemanC. T.BurridgeJ. H.ChappellP. H.LewinP. L.RogersE.Feasibility of iterative learning control mediated by functional electrical stimulation for reaching after stroke. J. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 2009, 23(6), 559–568.
18.
LumP. S.BurgarC. G.ShorP. C.Evidence for improved muscle activation patterns after retraining of reaching movements with the mime robotic system in subjects with post-stroke hemiparesis. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Engng, 2004, 12(2), 186–194.
19.
LeF.MarkovskyI.FreemanC. T.RogersE.Identification of electrically stimulated muscle models of stroke patients. Control Engng Pract., 2010, 18, 396–407.
20.
McNealD.BakerL. L.McCaffreyS.LopezJ.Subject preference for pulse frequency with cutaneous stimulation of the quadriceps. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the Rehabilitation Engineering Society of North America, 1986, pp. 273–275.
21.
BristowD. A.TharayilM.AlleyneA. G.A survey of iterative learning control. IEEE Control Syst. Mag., 2010, 26(3), 96–114.
22.
AhnH.-S.ChenY.MooreK. L.Iterative learning control: brief survey and categorization. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. Part C, 2007, 37(6), 1109–1121.
23.
WolpertD. M.GhahramaniZ.FlanaganJ. R.Perspectives and problems in motor learning. TRENDS Cogn. Sci., 2001, 11(5), 487–494.
24.
KrakauerJ. W.Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Curr. Opin. Neurol., 2006, 19, 84–90.
25.
FreemanC. T.LewinP. L.RogersE.Experimental evaluation of iterative learning control algorithms for non-minimum phase plants. Int. J. Control, 2005, 78(11), 826–846.
26.
WangY.LongmanR. W.Use of non-causal digital signal processing in learning and repetitive control. Adv. Astron. Sci., 1996, 90(1), 649–668.
27.
LinT.OwensD. H.HätönenJ.Newton method based iterative learning control for discrete non-linear systems. Int. J. Control, 2006, 79(10), 1263–1276.
