Brain-computer interface-based robotic end effector system for wrist and hand rehabilitation: results of a three-armed randomized controlled trial for chronic stroke

Kai Keng Ang, Cuntai Guan, Kok Soon Phua, Chuanchu Wang, Longjiang Zhou, Ka Yin Tang, Gopal J Ephraim Joseph, Christopher Wee Keong Kuah, Karen Sui Geok Chua, Kai Keng Ang, Cuntai Guan, Kok Soon Phua, Chuanchu Wang, Longjiang Zhou, Ka Yin Tang, Gopal J Ephraim Joseph, Christopher Wee Keong Kuah, Karen Sui Geok Chua

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of an Electroencephalography (EEG)-based Motor Imagery (MI) Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) coupled with a Haptic Knob (HK) robot for arm rehabilitation in stroke patients. In this three-arm, single-blind, randomized controlled trial; 21 chronic hemiplegic stroke patients (Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FMMA) score 10-50), recruited after pre-screening for MI BCI ability, were randomly allocated to BCI-HK, HK or Standard Arm Therapy (SAT) groups. All groups received 18 sessions of intervention over 6 weeks, 3 sessions per week, 90 min per session. The BCI-HK group received 1 h of BCI coupled with HK intervention, and the HK group received 1 h of HK intervention per session. Both BCI-HK and HK groups received 120 trials of robot-assisted hand grasping and knob manipulation followed by 30 min of therapist-assisted arm mobilization. The SAT group received 1.5 h of therapist-assisted arm mobilization and forearm pronation-supination movements incorporating wrist control and grasp-release functions. In all, 14 males, 7 females, mean age 54.2 years, mean stroke duration 385.1 days, with baseline FMMA score 27.0 were recruited. The primary outcome measure was upper extremity FMMA scores measured mid-intervention at week 3, end-intervention at week 6, and follow-up at weeks 12 and 24. Seven, 8 and 7 subjects underwent BCI-HK, HK and SAT interventions respectively. FMMA score improved in all groups, but no intergroup differences were found at any time points. Significantly larger motor gains were observed in the BCI-HK group compared to the SAT group at weeks 3, 12, and 24, but motor gains in the HK group did not differ from the SAT group at any time point. In conclusion, BCI-HK is effective, safe, and may have the potential for enhancing motor recovery in chronic stroke when combined with therapist-assisted arm mobilization.

Keywords: brain-computer interface; electroencephalography; motor imagery; robotic; stroke rehabilitation.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT Diagram: a flow from recruitment through follow-up and analysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cues used in BCI-HK and HK interventions. (A) Hand opening; (B) hand closing; (C) wrist pronation; and (D) wrist supination.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Setup of BCI-HK and HK intervention for stroke rehabilitation at a local hospital. The setup comprised Electroencephalography (EEG) cap, Electromyography (EMG) electrodes, EEG amplifier, and Haptic Knob (HK) robot.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Acquisition of EEG for BCI-HK intervention. (A) Timing of performing kinesthetic MI of the stroke-impaired hand and idle condition for the calibration session; (B) timing of performing kinesthetic MI of the stroke-impaired coupled with HK robot-assisted PP for the rehabilitation session.
Figure 5
Figure 5
EEG Spatial patterns and frequency bands used to classify motor imagery of stroke-impaired hand vs. idle condition. (A) Spatial patterns of patient A006 with right stroke-impaired hand; (B) spatial pattern of patient A031 with left stroke-impaired hand; (C) frequency bands used for patients A006 and A031. Blue and red colors in the spatial patterns correspond to negative (ERD) and positive (ERS) values respectively.
Figure 6
Figure 6
FMMA improvements for BCI-HK, HK and SAT interventions relative to week 0.

References

    1. Ang K. K., Chin Z. Y., Wang C., Guan C., Zhang H. (2012). Filter bank common spatial pattern algorithm on BCI competition IV datasets 2a and 2b. Front. Neurosci. 6:39 10.3389/fnins.2012.00039
    1. Ang K. K., Chua K. S. G., Phua K. S., Wang C., Chin Z. Y., Kuah C. W. K., et al. (2014). A randomized controlled trial of EEG-based motor imagery brain-computer interface robotic rehabilitation for stroke. Clin. EEG Neurosci. [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1177/1550059414522229
    1. Ang K. K., Guan C. (2013). Brain-computer interface in stroke rehabilitation. J. Comput. Sci. Eng. 7, 139–146 10.5626/JCSE.2013.7.2.139
    1. Ang K. K., Guan C., Chua K. S. G., Ang B. T., Kuah C. W. K., Wang C., et al. (2011). A large clinical study on the ability of stroke patients to use EEG-based motor imagery brain-computer interface. Clin. EEG Neurosci. 42, 253–258 10.1177/155005941104200411
    1. Birbaumer N., Murguialday A. R., Cohen L. (2008). Brain-computer interface in paralysis. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 21, 634–638 10.1097/WCO.0b013e328315ee2d
    1. Blankertz B., Tomioka R., Lemm S., Kawanabe M., Muller K.-R. (2008). Optimizing spatial filters for robust EEG single-trial analysis. IEEE Signal Process Mag. 25, 41–56 10.1109/MSP.2008.4408441
    1. Bohannon R. W., Smith M. B. (1987). Interrater reliability of a modified ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys. Ther. 67, 206–207
    1. Braun S. M., Beurskens A. J., Borm P. J., Schack T., Wade D. T. (2006). The effects of mental practice in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 87, 842–852 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.02.034
    1. Buch E., Weber C., Cohen L. G., Braun C., Dimyan M. A., Ard T., et al. (2008). Think to move: a neuromagnetic brain-computer interface (BCI) system for chronic stroke. Stroke 39, 910–917 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.505313
    1. Compston A. (2010). Aids to the Investigation of Peripheral Nerve Injuries. Medical Research Council: Nerve Injuries Research Committee. His Majesty's Stationery Office: 1942; pp. 48 (iii) and 74 figures and 7 diagrams; with Aids to the Examination of the Peripheral Nervous System. By Michael O'Brien for the Guarantors of Brain. Saunders Elsevier: 2010; pp. [8] 64 and 94 Figures. Brain 133, 2838–2844 10.1093/brain/awq270
    1. Dimyan M. A., Cohen L. G. (2011). Neuroplasticity in the context of motor rehabilitation after stroke. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 7, 76–85 10.1038/nrneurol.2010.200
    1. Dobkin B. H. (2007). Brain-computer interface technology as a tool to augment plasticity and outcomes for neurological rehabilitation. J. Physiol. 579, 637–642 10.1113/jphysiol.2006.123067
    1. Fritz S. L., Light K. E., Patterson T. S., Behrman A. L., Davis S. B. (2005). Active finger extension predicts outcomes after constraint-induced movement therapy for individuals with hemiparesis after stroke. Stroke 36, 1172–1177 10.1161/01.STR.0000165922.96430.d0
    1. Fugl-Meyer A. R., Jääskö L., Leyman I., Olsson S., Steglind S. (1975). The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand. J. Rehabil. Med. 7, 13–31
    1. Gladstone D. J., Danells C. J., Black S. E. (2002). The fugl-meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 16, 232–240 10.1177/154596802401105171
    1. Guger C., Edlinger G., Harkam W., Niedermayer I., Pfurtscheller G. (2003). How many people are able to operate an EEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI)? IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 11, 145–147 10.1109/TNSRE.2003.814481
    1. Hankey G. J. (2013). The global and regional burden of stroke. Lancet Glob. Health 1, e239–e240 10.1016/S2214-109X(13)70095-0
    1. Howle J. M. (2002). Neuro-developmental Treatment Approach: Theoretical Foundations & Principles. Laguna Beach, CA: NDTA
    1. Ietswaart M., Johnston M., Dijkerman H. C., Joice S., Scott C. L., Macwalter R. S., et al. (2011). Mental practice with motor imagery in stroke recovery: randomized controlled trial of efficacy. Brain 134, 1373–1386 10.1093/brain/awr077
    1. Kasashima Y., Fujiwara T., Matsushika Y., Tsuji T., Hase K., Ushiyama J., et al. (2012). Modulation of event-related desynchronization during motor imagery with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with chronic hemiparetic stroke. Exp. Brain Res. 221, 263–268 10.1007/s00221-012-3166-9
    1. Lambercy O., Dovat L., Gassert R., Burdet E., Chee Leong T., Milner T. (2007). A haptic knob for rehabilitation of hand function. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 15, 356–366 10.1109/TNSRE.2007.903913
    1. Lambercy O., Dovat L., Yun H., Wee S. K., Kuah C., Chua K., et al. (2011). Effects of a robot-assisted training of grasp and pronation/supination in chronic stroke: a pilot study. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 8:63 10.1186/1743-0003-8-63
    1. Langhorne P., Bernhardt J., Kwakkel G. (2011). Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet 377, 1693–1702 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60325-5
    1. Lo A. C., Guarino P. D., Richards L. G., Haselkorn J. K., Wittenberg G. F., Federman D. G., et al. (2010). Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N. Engl. J. Med. 362, 1772–1783 10.1056/NEJMoa0911341
    1. Malouin F., Jackson P. L., Richards C. L. (2013). Towards the integration of mental practice in rehabilitation programs. A critical review. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7:576 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00576
    1. Mihara M., Hattori N., Hatakenaka M., Yagura H., Kawano T., Hino T., et al. (2013). Near-infrared spectroscopy-mediated neurofeedback enhances efficacy of motor imagery-based training in poststroke victims: a pilot study. Stroke 44, 1091–1098 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.674507
    1. Nilsen D. M., Gillen G., Gordon A. M. (2010). Use of mental practice to improve upper-limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 64, 695–708 10.5014/ajot.2010.09034
    1. Pfurtscheller G., Lopes Da Silva F. H. (1999). Event-related EEG/MEG synchronization and desynchronization: basic principles. Clin. Neurophysiol. 110, 1842–1857 10.1016/S1388-2457(99)00141-8
    1. Price C. I. M., Curless R. H., Rodgers H. (1999). Can stroke patients use visual analogue scales? Stroke 30, 1357–1361 10.1161/01.STR.30.7.1357
    1. Ramos-Murguialday A., Broetz D., Rea M., Läer L., Yilmaz Ö., Brasil F. L., et al. (2013). Brain-machine interface in chronic stroke rehabilitation: a controlled study. Ann. Neurol. 74, 100–108 10.1002/ana.23879
    1. Sharma N., Simmons L. H., Jones P. S., Day D. J., Carpenter T. A., Pomeroy V. M., et al. (2009). Motor imagery after subcortical stroke: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Stroke 40, 1315–1324 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.525766
    1. Shih J. J., Krusienski D. J., Wolpaw J. R. (2012). Brain-computer interfaces in medicine. Mayo Clin. Proc. 87, 268–279 10.1016/j.mayocp.2011.12.008
    1. Stinear C., Byblow W., Steyvers M., Levin O., Swinnen S. (2006). Kinesthetic, but not visual, motor imagery modulates corticomotor excitability. Exp. Brain Res. 168, 157–164 10.1007/s00221-005-0078-y
    1. Varkuti B., Guan C., Pan Y., Phua K. S., Ang K. K., Kuah C. W. K., et al. (2013). Resting state changes in functional connectivity correlate with movement recovery for BCI and robot-assisted upper-extremity training after stroke. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 27, 53–62 10.1177/1545968312445910
    1. Wolpaw J. R., Birbaumer N., Mcfarland D. J., Pfurtscheller G., Vaughan T. M. (2002). Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin. Neurophysiol. 113, 767–791 10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00057-3

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe