Effect of Brain-Computer Interface-Controlled Ankle Robot Training on Post-Stroke Motor Rehabilitation and Resting QEEG Neuroplasticity: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
Effect of Brain-Computer Interface-Controlled Ankle Robot Training on Post-Stroke Motor Rehabilitation and Resting QEEG Neuroplasticity: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Persistent post-stroke ankle impairment hinders functional recovery. Brain-computer interface (BCI)-controlled ankle robot show rehabilitation potential, but their efficacy and underlying neuroplasticity remain unclear.
Objective.
To assess BCI-controlled ankle robot training on post-stroke lower-limb motor recovery and neuroplasticity using quantitative EEG (qEEG).
Methods.
Thirty-two stroke patients were randomized to BCI (n = 16, 40-minute BCI-robot training) or control (n = 16, 40-minute ankle-robot training) groups, receiving 5 sessions/week for 2 weeks. Outcomes included Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Lower Extremity (FMA-LE), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Functional Ambulatory Category (FAC), Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), active range of motion (AROM), and muscle strength. QEEG assessed the relative power of the delta (rδ), theta (rθ), alpha (rα), beta (rβ) bands, spectral power ratios, pairwise-derived Brain Symmetry Index (pdBSI), and functional connectivity.
Results.
Both groups showed significant within-group improvements in dorsiflexion AROM, dorsiflexor strength, FMA-LE, BBS, and FAC (P < .05). The BCI group demonstrated significantly greater FMA-LE improvement than controls (∆FMA-LE, P = .007) and reduced calf spasticity (MAS; P = .038). QEEG analysis in the BCI group revealed decreased rδ (P = .005), increased rα (P = .017), reduced DAR and DTABR (P < .05), reduced interhemispheric asymmetry (pdBSI-δ; P = .018), and enhanced Cz-parietal connectivity in α and β bands (P < .05).
Conclusion.
BCI-controlled ankle robot training significantly improved lower-limb motor function and reduced spasticity post-stroke. Associated neurophysiological changes, characterized by reduced slow-wave power and asymmetry, increased alpha power, and functional connectivity, indicated beneficial neuroplastic reorganization.
KatanMLuftA. Global burden of stroke. Semin Neurol. 2018;38(2):208-211.
2.
KludingPMDunningKO’DellMW, et al. Foot drop stimulation versus ankle foot orthosis after stroke: 30-week outcomes. Stroke. 2013;44(6):1660-1669.
3.
LanghornePCouparFPollockA. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(8):741-754.
4.
SivanMO’ConnorRJMakowerSLevesleyMBhaktaB. Systematic review of outcome measures used in the evaluation of robot-assisted upper limb exercise in stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(3):181-189.
5.
Mrachacz-KerstingNJiangNStevensonAJ, et al. Efficient neuroplasticity induction in chronic stroke patients by an associative brain-computer interface. J Neurophysiol. 2016;115(3):1410-1421.
6.
BiasiucciALeebRIturrateI, et al. Brain-actuated functional electrical stimulation elicits lasting arm motor recovery after stroke. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):2421.
7.
SoekadarSRBirbaumerNSlutzkyMWCohenLG. Brain-machine interfaces in neurorehabilitation of stroke. Neurobiol Dis. 2015;83:172-179.
8.
van DokkumLEHWardTLaffontI. Brain computer interfaces for neurorehabilitation – its current status as a rehabilitation strategy post-stroke. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2015;58(1):3-8.
9.
LennonOTonellatoMDel FeliceA, et al. A systematic review establishing the current state-of-the-art, the limitations, and the DESIRED checklist in studies of direct neural interfacing with robotic gait devices in stroke rehabilitation. Front Neurosci. 2020;14:578.
10.
ChungEParkSIJangYYLeeBH. Effects of brain-computer interface-based functional electrical stimulation on balance and gait function in patients with stroke: preliminary results. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27(2):513-516.
11.
RemsikAYoungBVermilyeaR, et al. A review of the progression and future implications of brain-computer interface therapies for restoration of distal upper extremity motor function after stroke. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2016;13(5):445-454.
12.
SheorajpandayRVNagelsGWeerenAJDe DeynPP. Quantitative EEG in ischemic stroke: correlation with infarct volume and functional status in posterior circulation and lacunar syndromes. Clin Neurophysiol. 2011;122(5):884-890.
13.
SheorajpandayRVNagelsGWeerenAJDe SurgelooseDDe DeynPP. Additional value of quantitative EEG in acute anterior circulation syndrome of presumed ischemic origin. Clin Neurophysiol. 2010;121(10):1719-1725.
14.
GrefkesCFinkGR. Connectivity-based approaches in stroke and recovery of function. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(2):206-216.
15.
MalouinFRichardsCLJacksonPLLafleurMFDurandADoyonJ. The Kinesthetic and Visual Imagery Questionnaire (KVIQ) for assessing motor imagery in persons with physical disabilities: a reliability and construct validity study. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2007;31(1):20-29.
16.
ZhaiXCaoYHaoZ. The effect of foot ankle brain-computer interface therapy based on motor imagery on lower limb motor and balance function in stroke patients. Chin J Rehabil Med. 2025;40(6):822-829.
17.
ZhaiXWuQLiX, et al. Effects of robot-aided rehabilitation on the ankle joint properties and balance function in stroke survivors: a randomized controlled trial. Front Neurol. 2021;12:719305.
18.
BohannonRWSmithMB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987;67(2):206-207.
19.
Fugl-MeyerARJääsköLLeymanIOlssonSSteglindS. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13-31.
20.
BergKOWood-DauphineeSLWilliamsJIMakiB. Measuring balance in the elderly: validation of an instrument. Can J Public Health. 1992;83Suppl 2:S7-11.
21.
ParkCSAnSH. Reliability and validity of the modified functional ambulation category scale in patients with hemiparalysis. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(8):2264-2267.
22.
HaoZZhaiXChengDPanYDouW. EEG microstate-specific functional connectivity and stroke-related alterations in brain dynamics. Front Neurosci. 2022;16:848737.
23.
ManeRChewEPhuaKS, et al. Prognostic and monitory EEG-biomarkers for BCI upper-limb stroke rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2019;27(8):1654-1664.
24.
HaoZZhaiXPengB, et al. CAMBA framework: Unveiling the brain asymmetry alterations and longitudinal changes after stroke using resting-state EEG. Neuroimage. 2023;282:120405.
25.
BaiOHuangDFeiDYKunzR. Effect of real-time cortical feedback in motor imagery-based mental practice training. NeuroRehabilitation. 2014;34(2):355-363.
26.
MunzertJLoreyBZentgrafK. Cognitive motor processes: the role of motor imagery in the study of motor representations. Brain Res Rev. 2009;60(2):306-326.
27.
Rodríguez-UgarteMIáñezEOrtízMAzorínJM. Personalized offline and pseudo-online BCI models to detect pedaling intent. Front Neuroinform. 2017;11:45.
28.
Romero-LaisecaMADelisle-RodriguezDCardosoV, et al. A low-cost lower-limb brain-machine interface triggered by pedaling motor imagery for post-stroke patients rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2020;28(4):988-996.
29.
KhanMADasRIversenHKPuthusserypadyS. Review on motor imagery based BCI systems for upper limb post-stroke neurorehabilitation: from designing to application. Comput Biol Med. 2020;123:103843.
30.
KruegerJKrauthRReichertC, et al. Hebbian plasticity induced by temporally coincident BCI enhances post-stroke motor recovery. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):18700.
31.
DoAHWangPTKingCESchombsACramerSCNenadicZ. Brain-computer interface controlled functional electrical stimulation device for foot drop due to stroke. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012;2012:6414-6417.
32.
RighettiLBuchliJIjspeertAJ. Dynamic Hebbian learning in adaptive frequency oscillators. Physica D. 2006;216(2):269-281.
33.
KilgoreKLAndersonKDPeckhamPH. Neuroprosthesis for individuals with spinal cord injury. Neurol Res. 2023;45(10):893-905.
34.
KwakkelGKollenBJKrebsHI. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22(2):111-121.
35.
XuRJiangNMrachacz-KerstingN, et al. A closed-loop brain-computer interface triggering an active ankle-foot orthosis for inducing cortical neural plasticity. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2014;61(7):2092-2101.
36.
ManeRChouhanTGuanC. BCI for stroke rehabilitation: motor and beyond. J Neural Eng. 2020;17(4):041001.
37.
Cantillo-NegreteJCarino-EscobarRICarrillo-MoraP, et al. Brain-computer interface coupled to a robotic hand orthosis for stroke patients’ neurorehabilitation: a crossover feasibility study. Front Hum Neurosci. 2021;15:656975.
38.
LotteFLarrueFMühlC. Flaws in current human training protocols for spontaneous Brain-Computer Interfaces: lessons learned from instructional design. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:568.
39.
GrigorevNASavosenkovAOLukoyanovMV, et al. A BCI-based vibrotactile neurofeedback training improves motor cortical excitability during motor imagery. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2021;29:1583-1592.
40.
ConfortoABKaelin-LangACohenLG. Increase in hand muscle strength of stroke patients after somatosensory stimulation. Ann Neurol. 2002;51(1):122-125.
41.
DeanJC. Proprioceptive feedback and preferred patterns of human movement. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2013;41(1):36-43.
42.
FleuryMLioiGBarillotCLécuyerA. A survey on the use of haptic feedback for brain-computer interfaces and neurofeedback. Front Neurosci. 2020;14:528.
43.
BundyDTSoudersLBaranyaiK, et al. Contralesional brain-computer interface control of a powered exoskeleton for motor recovery in chronic stroke survivors. Stroke. 2017;48(7):1908-1915.
44.
AngKKGuanC. EEG-based strategies to detect motor imagery for control and rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017;25(4):392-401.
45.
FrolovAAMokienkoOLyukmanovR, et al. Post-stroke rehabilitation training with a motor-imagery-based brain-computer interface (BCI)-controlled hand exoskeleton: a randomized controlled multicenter trial. Front Neurosci. 2017;11:400.
46.
FinniganSWongAReadS. Defining abnormal slow EEG activity in acute ischaemic stroke: Delta/alpha ratio as an optimal QEEG index. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;127(2):1452-1459.
47.
ForemanBClaassenJ. Quantitative EEG for the detection of brain ischemia. Crit Care. 2012;16(2):216.
48.
AngKKChuaKSPhuaKS, et al. A randomized controlled trial of EEG-based motor imagery brain-computer interface robotic rehabilitation for stroke. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2015;46(4):310-320.
49.
SheorajpandayRVNagelsGWeerenAJvan PuttenMJDe DeynPP. Quantitative EEG in ischemic stroke: correlation with functional status after 6 months. Clin Neurophysiol. 2011;122(5):874-883.
50.
DubovikSPignatJMPtakR, et al. The behavioral significance of coherent resting-state oscillations after stroke. Neuroimage. 2012;61(1):249-257.
51.
NicoloPRizkSMagninCPietroMDSchniderAGuggisbergAG. Coherent neural oscillations predict future motor and language improvement after stroke. Brain. 2015;138(Pt 10):3048-3060.
52.
HoshinoTOguchiKInoueKHoshinoAHoshiyamaM. Relationship between lower limb function and functional connectivity assessed by EEG among motor-related areas after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2021;28(8):614-623.
