Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017-7-22
Does assist-as-needed upper limb robotic therapy promote participation in repetitive activity-based motor training in sub-acute stroke patients with severe paresis?
BACKGROUND: Repetitive, active movement-based training promotes brain plasticity and motor recovery after stroke. Robotic therapy provides highly repetitive therapy that reduces motor impairment. However, the effect of assist-as-needed algorithms on patient participation and movement quality is not known.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze patient participation and motor performance during highly repetitive assist-as-needed upper limb robotic therapy in a retrospective study.
METHODS: Sixteen patients with sub-acute stroke carried out a 16-session upper limb robotic training program combined with usual care. The Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) score was evaluated pre and post training. Robotic assistance parameters and Performance measures were compared within and across sessions.
RESULTS: Robotic assistance did not change within-session and decreased between sessions during the training program. Motor performance did not decrease within-session and improved between sessions. Velocity-related assistance parameters improved more quickly than accuracy-related parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: An assist-as-needed-based upper limb robotic training provided intense and repetitive rehabilitation and promoted patient participation and motor performance, facilitating motor recovery.
AbdollahiF., Case LazarroE. D., ListenbergerM., KenyonR. V., KovicM., BogeyR. A., ... & PattonJ. L. (2014). Error Augmentation Enhancing Arm Recovery in Individuals With Chronic Stroke: A Randomized Crossover Design. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 28(2), 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968313498649
2.
BasterisA., NijenhuisS. M., StienenA. H., BuurkeJ. H., PrangeG. B., & AmirabdollahianF. (2014). Training modalities in robot-mediated upper limb rehabilitation in stroke: A framework for classification based on a systematic review. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 11(1), 111. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-11-111
3.
BlankA. A., FrenchJ. A., PehlivanA. U., & O’MalleyM. K. (2014). Current trends in robot-assisted upper-limb stroke rehabilitation: Promoting patient engagement in therapy. Current Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Reports, 2(3), 184–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40141-014-0056-z
4.
BumaF., KwakkelG., & RamseyN. (2013). Understanding upper limb recovery after stroke. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 31(6), 707–722. https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-130332
5.
BütefischC., HummelsheimH., DenzlerP., & MauritzK. H. (1995). Repetitive training of isolated movements improves the outcome of motor rehabilitation of the centrally paretic hand. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 130(1), 59–68.
6.
CareyJ. R., DurfeeW. K., BhattE., NagpalA., WeinsteinS. A., AndersonK. M., & LewisS. M. (2007). Comparison of finger tracking versus simple movement training via telerehabilitation to alter hand function and cortical reorganization after stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 21(3), 216–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968306292381
7.
CasadioM., GiannoniP., MorassoP., SanguinetiV., SqueriV., & VergaroE. (2009). Training stroke patients with continuous tracking movements: Evaluating the improvement of voluntary control. Conference Proceedings: ...Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual Conference, 2009, 5961–5964. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2009.5334525
8.
CirsteaM. C., & LevinM. F. (2007). Improvement of arm movement patterns and endpoint control depends on type of feedback during practice in stroke survivors. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 21(5), 398–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968306298414
9.
CirsteaM. C., MitnitskiA. B., FeldmanA. G., & LevinM. F. (2003). Interjoint coordination dynamics during reaching in stroke. Experimental Brain Research, 151(3), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1438-0
10.
CollantesI., AsinG., MorenoJ. C., & PonsJ. L. (2012). Analysis of biomechanical data to determine the degree of users participation during robotic-assisted gait rehabilitation. Conference Proceedings: ...Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual Conference, 2012, 4855–4858. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2012.6347081
11.
ColomboR., PisanoF., MiceraS., MazzoneA., DelconteC., CarrozzaM. C., …& MinucoG. (2008). Assessing mechanisms of recovery during robot-aided neurorehabilitation of the upper limb. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 22(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968307303401
12.
CookeE. V., MaresK., ClarkA., TallisR. C., & PomeroyV. M. (2010). The effects of increased dose of exercise-based therapies to enhance motor recovery after stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medicine, 8, 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-60
13.
DalyJ. J., & RuffR. L. (2007). Construction of efficacious gait and upper limb functional interventions based on brain plasticity evidence and model-based measures for stroke patients. The Scientific World Journal, 7, 2031–2045. https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2007.299
14.
DuretC., CourtialO., lie GrosmaireA.-G., & lle HutinE. (2015). Use of a robotic device for the rehabilitation of severe upper limb paresis in subacute stroke: Exploration of patient/robot interactions and the motor recovery process. BioMed Research International. Retrieved from http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/482389/abs/
15.
DuretC., & HutinE. (2013). Effects of prolonged robot-assisted training on upper limb motor recovery in subacute stroke. Neuro Rehabilitation, 33(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-130926
16.
DuretC., HutinE., LehenaffL., & GraciesJ.-M. (2015). Do all sub acute stroke patients benefit from robot-assisted therapy? A retrospective study. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 33(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-140418
17.
EmkenJ. L., BenitezR., SiderisA., BobrowJ. E., & ReinkensmeyerD. J. (2007). Motor adaptation as a greedy optimization of error and effort. Journal of Neurophysiology, 97(6), 3997–4006. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01095.2006
18.
FeiginV. L., ForouzanfarM. H., KrishnamurthiR., MensahG. A., ConnorM., BennettD. A., …& Global Burden ofDiseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2010 (GBD 2010) and the GBD Stroke Experts Group. (2014). Global and regional burden of stroke during 1990-2010: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet (London, England), 383(9913), 245–254.
19.
FeysH., De WeerdtW., VerbekeG., SteckG. C., CapiauC., KiekensC., …& CrasP. (2004). Early and repetitive stimulation of the arm can substantially improve the long- term outcome after stroke: A 5-year follow-up study of a randomized trial. Stroke; a Journal of Cerebral Circulation, 35(4), 924–929. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000121645.44752.f7
20.
Fugl-MeyerA. R., JääsköL., LeymanI., OlssonS., & SteglindS. (1975). The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 7(1), 13–31.
21.
GilliauxM., LejeuneT., DetrembleurC., SapinJ., DehezB., SelvesC., & StoquartG. (2014). Using the robotic device REAplan as a valid, reliable, and sensitive tool to quantify upper limb impairments in stroke patients. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 46(2), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-1245
22.
HanC., WangQ., MengP., & QiM. (2013). Effects of intensity of arm training on hemiplegic upper extremity motor recovery in stroke patients: A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 27(1), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215512447223
HowardI. S., IngramJ. N., & WolpertD. M. (2011). Separate representations of dynamics in rhythmic and discrete movements: Evidence from motor learning. Journal of Neurophysiology, 105(4), 1722–1731. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00780.2010
25.
HsiehY., WuC., LinK., YaoG., WuK., & ChangY. (2012). Dose-response relationship of robot-assisted stroke motor rehabilitation: The impact of initial motor status. Stroke; a Journal of Cerebral Circulation, 43(10), 2729–2734. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.658807
26.
KahnL. E., LumP. S., RymerW. Z., & ReinkensmeyerD. J. (2006). Robot-assisted movement training for the stroke-impaired arm: Does it matter what the robot does?Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 43(5), 619–630.
27.
KantakS. S., Jones-LushL. M., NarayananP., JudkinsT. N., & WittenbergG. F. (2013). Rapid plasticity of motor corticospinal system with robotic reach training. Neuroscience, 247, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.05.001
28.
KimberleyT. J., SamargiaS., MooreL. G., ShakyaJ. K., & LangC. E. (2010). Comparison of amounts and types of practice during rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury and stroke. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 47(9), 851–862.
29.
KleimJ. A., BarbayS., CooperN. R., HoggT. M., ReidelC. N., RempleM. S., & NudoJ. (2002). Motor learning-dependent synaptogenesis is localized to functionally reorganized motor cortex. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 77(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1006/nlme.2000.4004
30.
KrakauerJ. W., CarmichaelS. T., CorbettD., & WittenbergG. F. (2012). Getting neurorehabilitation right: What can be learned from animal models?and Neural Repair, 26(8), 923–931. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968312440745
31.
KrishnanC., KotsapouikisD., DhaherY. Y., & RymerW. Z. (2013). Reducing robotic guidance during robot-assisted gait training improves gait function: A case report on a stroke survivor. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 94(6), 1202–1206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.11.016
32.
KrishnanC., RanganathanR., DhaherY. Y., & RymerW. Z. (2013). A pilot study on the feasibility of robot-aided leg motor training to facilitate active participation. PLoS One, 8(10), e77370. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077370
33.
KwakkelG., van PeppenR., WagenaarR. C., Wood DauphineeS., RichardsC., AshburnA., …& LanghorneP. (2004). Effects of augmented exercise therapy time after stroke: A meta-analysis. Stroke; a Journal of Cerebral Circulation, 35(11), 2529–2539. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000143153.76460.7d
34.
KwakkelG., WagenaarR. C., TwiskJ. W., LankhorstG. J., & KoetsierJ. C. (1999). Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: A randomised trial. Lancet (London England), 354(9174), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)09477-X.
35.
LangC. E., LohseK. R., & BirkenmeierR. L. (2015). Dose and timing in neurorehabilitation: Prescribing motor therapy after stroke. Current Opinion in Neurology, 28(6), 549–555.
36.
LangC. E., MacdonaldJ. R., ReismanD. S., BoydL., Jacobson KimberleyT., Schindler- IvensS. M., …& ScheetsP. L. (2009). Observation of amounts of movement practice provided during stroke rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 90(10), 1692–1698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2009.04.005
37.
LefebvreS., DricotL., LalouxP., GradkowskiW., DesfontainesP., EvrardF., …& VandermeerenY. (2015). Neural substrates underlying stimulation-enhanced motor skill learning after stroke. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 138(Pt 1), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awu336
38.
LevyC. E., NicholsD. S., SchmalbrockP. M., KellerP., & ChakeresD. W. (2001). Functional MRI evidence of cortical reorganization in upper-limb stroke hemiplegia treated with constraint-induced movement therapy. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation/Association of Academic Physiatrists, 80(1), 4–12.
39.
LincolnN. B., ParryR. H., & VassC. D. (1999). Randomized, controlled trial to evaluate increased intensity of physiotherapy treatment of arm function after stroke. Stroke; a Journal of Cerebral Circulation, 30(3), 573–579.
40.
LoA. C., GuarinoP. D., RichardsL. G., HaselkornJ. K., WittenbergG. F., FedermanD. G., …& PeduzziP. (2010). Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. The New England Journal of Medicine, 362(19), 1772–1783. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0911341
41.
LohseK. R., LangC. E., & BoydL. A. (2014). Is more better? Using metadata to explore dose-response relationships in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke; a Journal of Cerebral Circulation, 45(7), 2053–2058. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.004695
42.
LumP. S., BurgarC. G., ShorP. C., MajmundarM., & Van der LoosM. (2002). Robot- assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83(7), 952–959.
43.
MalloyK. M., & MillingL. S. (2010). The effectiveness of virtual reality distraction for pain reduction: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(8), 1011–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.07.001
44.
MehrholzJ., HädrichA., PlatzT., KuglerJ., & PohlM. (2012). Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving generic activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 6, CD006876. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006876.pub3
45.
NudoR. J., WiseB. M., SiFuentesF., & MillikenG. W. (1996). Neural substrates for the effects of rehabilitative training on motor recovery after ischemic infarct. Science (New York, N.Y.), 272(5269), 1791–1794.
46.
PageS. J., SchmidA., & HarrisJ. E. (2012). Optimizing terminology for stroke motor rehabilitation: Recommendations from the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Stroke Movement Interventions Subcommittee. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93(8), 1395–1399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.03.005
47.
PattonJ. L., StoykovM. E., KovicM., & Mussa-IvaldiF. A. (2006). Evaluation of robotic training forces that either enhance or reduce error in chronic hemiparetic stroke survivors. Experimental Brain Research, 168(3), 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-005-0097-8
48.
PennycottA., WyssD., ValleryH., Klamroth-MarganskaV., & RienerR. (2012). Towards more effective robotic gait training for stroke rehabilitation: A review. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 9, 65. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-9-65
49.
RizzoJ.-R., HudsonT. E., AbdouA., RashbaumI. G., GeorgeA. E., RaghavanP., & LandyM. S. (2015). Motor planning poststroke: Impairment in vector-coded reach plans. Physiological Reports, 3(12). https://doi.org/10.14814/phy2.12650
50.
RosatiG., OscariF., ReinkensmeyerD. J., SecoliR., AvanziniF., SpagnolS., Masiero (2011). Improving robotics for neurorehabilitation: Enhancing engagement, performance, and learning with auditory feedback. IEEE ... International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics: [Proceedings], 2011, 5975373. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2011.5975373
51.
SecoliR., MilotM.-H., RosatiG., & ReinkensmeyerD. J. (2011). Effect of visual distraction and auditory feedback on patient effort during robot-assisted movement training after stroke. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 8, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-8-21
52.
ShirzadN., & Van der LoosH. F. M. (2015). Evaluating the user experience of exercising reaching motions with a robot that predicts desired movement difficulty. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2015.1035430
53.
ShirzadN., & Van der LoosH. F. M. (2016). Evaluating the user experience of exercising reaching motions with a robot that predicts desired movement difficulty. Journal of Motor Behavior, 48(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2015.1035430
54.
TakeuchiN., & IzumiS.-I. (2013). Rehabilitation with poststroke motor recovery: A review with a focus on neural plasticity. Stroke Research and Treatment, 2013, 128641. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/128641
55.
TingL. H., ChielH. J., TrumbowerR. D., AllenJ. L., McKayJ. L., HackneyM. E., & KesarT. M. (2015). Neuromechanical principles underlying movement modularity and their implications for rehabilitation. Neuron, 86(1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.02.042
56.
TropeaP., CesquiB., MonacoV., AliboniS., PosteraroF., & MiceraS. (2013). Effects of the alternate combination of “error-enhancing” and “active assistive” robot-mediated treatments on stroke patients. IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine, 1, 2100109–2100109. https://doi.org/10.1109/JTEHM.2013.2271898
57.
VolpeB. T., KrebsH. I., HoganN., EdelsteinO. T. R. L., DielsC., & AisenM. (2000). A novel approach to stroke rehabilitation: Robot-aided sensorimotor stimulation. Neurology, 54(10), 1938–1944.
58.
WaddellK. J., BirkenmeierR. L., MooreJ. L., HornbyT. G., & LangC. E. (2014). Feasibility of high-repetition, task-specific training for individuals with upper- extremity paresis. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(4), 444–453. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2014.011619
59.
WolfS. L., WinsteinC. J., MillerJ. P., TaubE., UswatteG., MorrisD., …& EXCITE Investigators.
(2006). Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: The EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 296(17), 2095–2104. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.17.2095
60.
ZolloL., RossiniL., BraviM., MagroneG., SterziS., & GuglielmelliE. (2011). Quantitative evaluation of upper-limb motor control in robot-aided rehabilitation. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, 49(10), 1131–1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-011-0808-1
