The effects of FES cycling combined with virtual reality racing biofeedback on voluntary function after incomplete SCI: a pilot study

Lynsey D Duffell, Sue Paddison, Ahmad F Alahmary, Nick Donaldson, Jane Burridge, Lynsey D Duffell, Sue Paddison, Ahmad F Alahmary, Nick Donaldson, Jane Burridge

Abstract

Background: Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) cycling can benefit health and may lead to neuroplastic changes following incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI). Our theory is that greater neurological recovery occurs when electrical stimulation of peripheral nerves is combined with voluntary effort. In this pilot study, we investigated the effects of a one-month training programme using a novel device, the iCycle, in which voluntary effort is encouraged by virtual reality biofeedback during FES cycling.

Methods: Eleven participants (C1-T12) with incomplete SCI (5 sub-acute; 6 chronic) were recruited and completed 12-sessions of iCycle training. Function was assessed before and after training using the bilateral International Standards for Neurological Classification of SCI (ISNC-SCI) motor score, Oxford power grading, Modified Ashworth Score, Spinal Cord Independence Measure, the Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury and 10 m-walk test. Power output (PO) was measured during all training sessions.

Results: Two of the 6 participants with chronic injuries, and 4 of the 5 participants with sub-acute injuries, showed improvements in ISNC-SCI motor score > 8 points. Median (IQR) improvements were 3.5 (6.8) points for participants with a chronic SCI, and 8.0 (6.0) points for those with sub-acute SCI. Improvements were unrelated to other measured variables (age, time since injury, baseline ISNC-SCI motor score, baseline voluntary PO, time spent training and stimulation amplitude; p > 0.05 for all variables). Five out of 11 participants showed moderate improvements in voluntary cycling PO, which did not correlate with changes in ISNC-SCI motor score. Improvement in PO during cycling was positively correlated with baseline voluntary PO (R2 = 0.50; p < 0.05), but was unrelated to all other variables (p > 0.05). The iCycle was not suitable for participants who were too weak to generate a detectable voluntary torque or whose effort resulted in a negative torque.

Conclusions: Improved ISNC-SCI motor scores in chronic participants may be attributable to the iCycle training. In sub-acute participants, early spontaneous recovery and changes due to iCycle training could not be distinguished. The iCycle is an innovative progression from existing FES cycling systems, and positive results should be verified in an adequately powered controlled trial.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03834324. Registered 06 February 2019 - Retrospectively registered, https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03834324. Protocol V03, dated 06.08.2015.

Keywords: Biofeedback; Cycling; Functional electrical stimulation; ISNC-SCI motor score; Spinal cord injury; Virtual reality.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
a Block Diagram of iCycle. The cadence control sets the voltage applied to the DC motor. The measured torque-cadence curves are shown in (d); the stiffness was made intentionally low to avoid musculo-skeletal damage. When the torque is positive, the power supply is absorbing power which is dissipated in a heat sink. Stimulation was applied during alternate revolutions of the pedals and the output of the torque transducer is averaged over revolutions without stimulation to give the signal called effort. For each of the six stimulation channels, the output was gated so that the 30 Hz pulses were applied from a switch-on to a switch-off angle, which could be set for each participant. A commercial virtual reality cycling game was adapted for the iCycle. The hardware interface for this game has an output which is approximately the slope of the road in the rolling scenery. This slope is subtracted from the effort and the difference frequency-modulated by a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO) before being fed back as the wheelspeed. There is also a pulse signal for every revolution of the crankshaft which is switched on to start the game and synchronises the avatar’s pedals with the real pedals. The VCO has an S-shaped characteristic, shown in (c), which limits the avatar’s speed to 0–12 m/s. The controls labelled effort, offset and slope are used to set the working range as indicated below the graph. The feint lines in (d) are the function where V is the voltage applied to the motor, T is the torque (N.m) and Ω is cadence (r.p.m.). The iCycle can deliver or absorb 30 W. b The iCycle is used with participants sitting in their own wheelchairs in front of the VR screen
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a Time schedule of outcome measures and intervention (b) CONSORT flow diagram
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Change in ISNC-SCI motor scores at baseline (B), end of training (EOT) and follow up (FU). Participant number is provided beside each data set. Participants with chronic injuries are shown in the left panel and those with sub-acute injuries are shown on the right. The graph shows the changes on a scale from 0 (complete paralysis) to 100 (able-bodied)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Change in ISNC-SCI motor scores at follow up (FU) relative to baseline (B), plotted against (a) age (years) at time of enrolment to the study, (b) time since injury (years), (c) initial ISNC-SCI score, (d) initial power output (watts), (e) cycling duration per session (min), (f) average stimulation amplitude (stimulator setting). Participants with chronic injuries are shown in black, those with sub-acute injuries in grey
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Raw plots from two participants during an iCycle session. The plots show torque data from the stimulated (yellow) and non-stimulated (orange) revolutions, and the game on signal (blue traces). The three velodrome laps (V1, V2, V3) and free cycling (route) are indicated. The upper panel represents a typical plot when no negative torque was recorded, and the lower panel represents a typical plot when negative torque occurred at the onset of voluntary effort
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Power output from the stimulated (black) and non-stimulated (grey) revolutions during one velodrome lap for each participant across sessions 1–12
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Change in power output (regression slopes taken from Fig. 6) plotted against (a) initial ISNC-SCI score, (b) initial power output (watts), (c) cycling duration per session (min). Participants with chronic injuries are shown in black, those with sub-acute injuries in grey

References

    1. Levin MF, Kleim JA, Wolf SL. What do motor “recovery” and “compensation” mean in patients following stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(4):313–319. doi: 10.1177/1545968308328727.
    1. Harness ET, Yozbatiran N, Cramer SC. Effects of intense exercise in chronic spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2008;46(11):733–737. doi: 10.1038/sc.2008.56.
    1. Dobkin B, Apple D, Barbeau H, Basso M, Behrman A, Deforge D, et al. Weight-supported treadmill vs over-ground training for walking after acute incomplete SCI. Neurology. 2006;66(4):484–493. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000202600.72018.39.
    1. Remple MS, Bruneau RM, VandenBerg PM, Goertzen C, Kleim JA. Sensitivity of cortical movement representations to motor experience: evidence that skill learning but not strength training induces cortical reorganization. Behav Brain Res. 2001;123(2):133–141. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4328(01)00199-1.
    1. Edgerton VR, Roy RR. Robotic training and spinal cord plasticity. Brain Res Bull. 2009;78(1):4–12. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2008.09.018.
    1. Duffell LD, Donaldson NN, Perkins TA, Rushton DN, Hunt KJ, Kakebeeke TH, et al. Long-term intensive electrically stimulated cycling by spinal cord-injured people: effect on muscle properties and their relation to power output. Muscle Nerve. 2008;38(4):1304–1311. doi: 10.1002/mus.21060.
    1. Taylor PN, Burridge JH, Dunkerley AL, Wood DE, Norton JA, Singleton C, et al. Clinical use of the Odstock dropped foot stimulator: its effect on the speed and effort of walking. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(12):1577–1583. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90333-7.
    1. Field-Fote EC. Combined use of body weight support, functional electric stimulation, and treadmill training to improve walking ability in individuals with chronic incomplete spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(6):818–824. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2001.23752.
    1. Barbeau H, Ladouceur M, Mirbagheri MM, Kearney RE. The effect of locomotor training combined with functional electrical stimulation in chronic spinal cord injured subjects: walking and reflex studies. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 2002;40(1–3):274–291. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0173(02)00210-2.
    1. Postans NJ, Hasler JP, Granat MH, Maxwell DJ. Functional electric stimulation to augment partial weight-bearing supported treadmill training for patients with acute incomplete spinal cord injury: a pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(4):604–610. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.08.083.
    1. Ambrosini E, Ferrante S, Pedrocchi A, Ferrigno G, Molteni F. Cycling induced by electrical stimulation improves motor recovery in postacute hemiparetic patients: a randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 2011;42(4):1068–1073. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.599068.
    1. McDonald JW, Becker D, Sadowsky CL, Jane JA, Sr, Conturo TE, Schultz LM. Late recovery following spinal cord injury. Case report and review of the literature. J Neurosurg. 2002;97(2 Suppl):252–265.
    1. Sadowsky CL, Hammond ER, Strohl AB, Commean PK, Eby SA, Damiano DL, et al. Lower extremity functional electrical stimulation cycling promotes physical and functional recovery in chronic spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2013;36(6):623–631. doi: 10.1179/2045772313Y.0000000101.
    1. Yasar E, Yilmaz B, Goktepe S, Kesikburun S. The effect of functional electrical stimulation cycling on late functional improvement in patients with chronic incomplete spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2015;53(12):900. doi: 10.1038/sc.2015.47.
    1. Prior MM, Stinear JW. Phasic spike-timing-dependent plasticity of human motor cortex during walking. Brain Res. 2006;1110(1):150–158. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.057.
    1. Urbin MA, Ozdemir RA, Tazoe T, Perez MA. Spike-timing-dependent plasticity in lower-limb motoneurons after human spinal cord injury. J Neurophysiol. 2017;118(4):2171–2180. doi: 10.1152/jn.00111.2017.
    1. Jochumsen M, Niazi IK, Signal N, Nedergaard RW, Holt K, Haavik H, et al. Pairing voluntary movement and muscle-located electrical stimulation increases cortical excitability. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:482. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00482.
    1. Rushton DN. Functional electrical stimulation and rehabilitation--an hypothesis. Med Eng Phys. 2003;25(1):75–78. doi: 10.1016/S1350-4533(02)00040-1.
    1. Gandolla M, Ferrante S, Molteni F, Guanziroli E, Frattini T, Martegani A, et al. Re-thinking the role of motor cortex: context-sensitive motor outputs? NeuroImage. 2014;91:366–374. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.011.
    1. Gandolla M, Ward NS, Molteni F, Guanziroli E, Ferrigno G, Pedrocchi A. The neural correlates of long-term carryover following functional electrical stimulation for stroke. Neural Plast. 2016;2016:4192718. doi: 10.1155/2016/4192718.
    1. Luo R. Can the Voluntary Drive to a Paretic Muscle be Estimated from the Myoelectric Signal during Stimulation? Doctoral Thesis, UCL (University College London). 2013. .
    1. Marino RJ, Ditunno JF, Jr, Donovan WH, Maynard F., Jr Neurologic recovery after traumatic spinal cord injury: data from the model spinal cord injury systems. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(11):1391–1396. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90249-6.
    1. Geisler FH, Coleman WP, Grieco G, Poonian D. Measurements and recovery patterns in a multicenter study of acute spinal cord injury. Spine. 2001;26(24 Suppl):S68–S86. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200112151-00014.
    1. Fawcett JW, Curt A, Steeves JD, Coleman WP, Tuszynski MH, Lammertse D, et al. Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury as developed by the ICCP panel: spontaneous recovery after spinal cord injury and statistical power needed for therapeutic clinical trials. Spinal Cord. 2007;45(3):190–205. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3102007.
    1. Morrison SA, Lorenz D, Eskay CP, Forrest GF, Basso DM. Longitudinal recovery and reduced costs after 120 sessions of Locomotor training for motor incomplete spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(3):555–562. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.10.003.
    1. Wagner FB, Mignardot JB, Le Goff-Mignardot CG, Demesmaeker R, Komi S, Capogrosso M, et al. Targeted neurotechnology restores walking in humans with spinal cord injury. Nature. 2018;563(7729):65–71. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0649-2.
    1. Duchateau J, Enoka RM. Neural control of shortening and lengthening contractions: influence of task constraints. J Physiol. 2008;586(24):5853–5864. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2008.160747.
    1. Onifer SM, Smith GM, Fouad K. Plasticity after spinal cord injury: relevance to recovery and approaches to facilitate it. Neurotherapeutics. 2011;8(2):283–293. doi: 10.1007/s13311-011-0034-4.
    1. Martin R, Sadowsky C, Obst K, Meyer B, McDonald J. Functional electrical stimulation in spinal cord injury:: from theory to practice. Topics Spin Cord Injury Rehabil. 2012;18(1):28–33. doi: 10.1310/sci1801-28.
    1. Hitzig SL, Eng JJ, Miller WC, Sakakibara BM. An evidence-based review of aging of the body systems following spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2011;49(6):684–701. doi: 10.1038/sc.2010.178.
    1. Sadowsky CL, McDonald JW. Activity-based restorative therapies: concepts and applications in spinal cord injury-related neurorehabilitation. Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2009;15(2):112–116. doi: 10.1002/ddrr.61.
    1. Crameri RM, Weston A, Climstein M, Davis GM, Sutton JR. Effects of electrical stimulation-induced leg training on skeletal muscle adaptability in spinal cord injury. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2002;12(5):316–322. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0838.2002.20106.x.
    1. Mohr T, Andersen JL, Biering-Sorensen F, Galbo H, Bangsbo J, Wagner A, et al. Long-term adaptation to electrically induced cycle training in severe spinal cord injured individuals. Spinal Cord. 1997;35(1):1–16. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3100343.
    1. Frotzler A, Coupaud S, Perret C, Kakebeeke TH, Hunt KJ, Donaldson NN, et al. High-volume FES-cycling partially reverses bone loss in people with chronic spinal cord injury. Bone. 2008;43(1):169–176. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2008.03.004.
    1. Duffell LD, Donaldson NN, Newham DJ. Power output during functional electrically stimulated cycling in trained spinal cord injured people. Neuromodulation. 2010;13(1):50–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2009.00245.x.
    1. Rossini PM, Caramia MD, Zarola F. Mechanisms of nervous propagation along central motor pathways: noninvasive evaluation in healthy subjects and in patients with neurological disease. Neurosurgery. 1987;20(1):183–191. doi: 10.1097/00006123-198701000-00035.
    1. Boorman G, Becker WJ, Morrice BL, Lee RG. Modulation of the soleus H-reflex during pedalling in normal humans and in patients with spinal spasticity. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1992;55(12):1150–1156. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.55.12.1150.
    1. Boorman GI, Lee RG, Becker WJ, Windhorst UR. Impaired “natural reciprocal inhibition” in patients with spasticity due to incomplete spinal cord injury. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1996;101(2):84–92. doi: 10.1016/0924-980X(95)00262-J.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe