Does motivation matter in upper-limb rehabilitation after stroke? ArmeoSenso-Reward: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Mario Widmer, Jeremia P Held, Frieder Wittmann, Olivier Lambercy, Kai Lutz, Andreas R Luft, Mario Widmer, Jeremia P Held, Frieder Wittmann, Olivier Lambercy, Kai Lutz, Andreas R Luft

Abstract

Background: Fifty percent of all stroke survivors remain with functional impairments of their upper limb. While there is a need to improve the effectiveness of rehabilitative training, so far no new training approach has proven to be clearly superior to conventional therapy. As training with rewarding feedback has been shown to improve motor learning in humans, it is hypothesized that rehabilitative arm training could be enhanced by rewarding feedback. In this paper, we propose a trial protocol investigating rewards in the form of performance feedback and monetary gains as ways to improve effectiveness of rehabilitative training.

Methods: This multicentric, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial uses the ArmeoSenso virtual reality rehabilitation system to train 74 first-ever stroke patients (< 100 days post stroke) to lift their impaired upper limb against gravity and to improve the workspace of the paretic arm. Three sensors are attached to forearm, upper arm, and trunk to track arm movements in three-dimensional space while controlling for trunk compensation. Whole-arm movements serve as input for a therapy game. The reward group (n = 37) will train with performance feedback and contingent monetary reward. The control group (n = 37) uses the same system but without monetary reward and with reduced performance feedback. Primary outcome is the change in the hand workspace in the transversal plane. Standard clinical assessments are used as secondary outcome measures.

Discussion: This randomized controlled trial will be the first to directly evaluate the effect of rewarding feedback, including monetary rewards, on the recovery process of the upper limb following stroke. This could pave the way for novel types of interventions with significantly improved treatment benefits, e.g., for conditions that impair reward processing (stroke, Parkinson's disease).

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02257125 . Registered on 30 September 2014.

Keywords: Arm; Feedback; Rehabilitation; Reward; Stroke; Upper extremity; Virtual reality.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study will follow Good Clinical practice (GCP) guidelines and has been approved by the responsible local Ethics Committees “Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz,” the “Kantonale Ethikkommission Zürich” (LU2013-079 and PB_2016-01804) and the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic: 2014-MD-0033). All subjects have to give written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent was obtained from the participant (Fig. 2a) for publication of this photograph in this manuscript. The Informed Consent Form is held by the authors and is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief.

Competing interests

Andreas R. Luft is a scientific advisor to Hocoma AG (Volketswil). The remaining authors have no conflict of interest in the submission of this manuscript.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram illustrating the trial design and sequence
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a Healthy subject using the ArmeoSenso training system. b Arm workspace assessment: gray cubic voxels arranged in the transverse plane reflecting 10 cm × 10 cm active workspace relative to the patient’s trunk
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
a ArmeoSenso-Reward: “METEORS” therapy game. The hand of the virtual arm is used to catch the falling meteors before they crash onto the planet. If caught, the meteor explodes and a score appears. If missed, the planet gets damaged (note the impact crater). The current score (= PUNKTE) is displayed on the upper left (white font color) and compared to the patient’ all-time record (= REKORD; red font color, upper left). The green bar on the upper right indicates resting time. If completely black, the patient has to rest for 4 s before new meteors are spawned. During rest, the bar fills with green. The yellow bar on the left indicates how much playtime is left in the ongoing round (maximum 150 s). b Control game. The virtual hand is a green decagon that can be used to touch the pill-shaped, single-colored targets dropping in from the top of the screen, which then disappear with a delay of 1 s without producing a score. The green bar on the upper right fills up whenever the patient assumes the resting position
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
ArmeoSenso-Reward feedback screens. a “PLANETEN GERETTET”: planet saved. This screen is presented after each completed round. The number of meteors caught (“GEFANGEN”, top) and meteors hitting the planet (“EINGESCHLAGEN”, bottom) is indicated on the left. The monetary reward (“GEWINN”) for the current round (“DIESE RUNDE”, top), the current day (“HEUTE”, middle) and the total amount of money gathered over the course of the study (“TOTAL”, bottom) are displayed on the right. Note that a maximum of 1 Swiss Franc (CHF) can be won per round. b Hall of fame (“RUHMESHALLE”) with the patient’s top 10 scores. If the current score is in the top 10, it is highlighted in red
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Standard Protocol Items: Recommendation for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) Figure. The schedule of enrollment, interventions and assessments

References

    1. Parker VM, Wade DT, Langton HR. Loss of arm function after stroke: measurement, frequency, and recovery. Int Rehabil Med. 1986;8:69–73. doi: 10.3109/03790798609166178.
    1. Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, van der Grond J, Prevo AJ. Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke. 2003;34:2181–6. doi: 10.1161/.
    1. Nichols-Larsen DS, Clark PC, Zeringue A, Greenspan A, Blanton S. Factors influencing stroke survivors’ quality of life during subacute recovery. Stroke. 2005;36:1480–4. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000170706.13595.4f.
    1. Veerbeek JM, van Wegen E, van Peppen R, van der Wees PJ, Hendriks E, Rietberg M, et al. What is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One. 2014;9:e87987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087987.
    1. Cooke EV, Mares K, Clark A, Tallis RC, Pomeroy VM. The effects of increased dose of exercise-based therapies to enhance motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2010;8:60. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-60.
    1. Kwakkel G. Impact of intensity of practice after stroke: issues for consideration. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28:823–30. doi: 10.1080/09638280500534861.
    1. Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, Krebs HI. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22:111–21. doi: 10.1177/1545968307305457.
    1. Wachter T, Lungu OV, Liu T, Willingham DT, Ashe J. Differential effect of reward and punishment on procedural learning. J Neurosci. 2009;29:436–43. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4132-08.2009.
    1. Abe M, Schambra H, Wassermann EM, Luckenbaugh D, Schweighofer N, Cohen LG. Reward improves long-term retention of a motor memory through induction of offline memory gains. Curr Biol. 2011;21:557–62. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.02.030.
    1. Widmer M, Ziegler N, Held J, Luft A, Lutz K. Rewarding feedback promotes motor skill consolidation via striatal activity. Prog Brain Res. 2016;229:303–23.
    1. Galea JM, Mallia E, Rothwell J, Diedrichsen J. The dissociable effects of punishment and reward on motor learning. Nat Neurosci. 2015;18:597–602. doi: 10.1038/nn.3956.
    1. Knutson B, Delgado MR, Phillips PE. Representation of subjective value in the striatum. In: Glimcher PW, Camerer CF, Fehr E, Poldrack RA, editors. Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain. London; Academic Press; 2008. p. 398–406.
    1. Lutz K, Pedroni A, Nadig K, Luechinger R, Jancke L. The rewarding value of good motor performance in the context of monetary incentives. Neuropsychologia. 2012;50:1739–47. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.03.030.
    1. Schott BH, Minuzzi L, Krebs RM, Elmenhorst D, Lang M, Winz OH, et al. Mesolimbic functional magnetic resonance imaging activations during reward anticipation correlate with reward-related ventral striatal dopamine release. J Neurosci. 2008;28:14311–9. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2058-08.2008.
    1. Hosp JA, Pekanovic A, Rioult-Pedotti MS, Luft AR. Dopaminergic projections from midbrain to primary motor cortex mediate motor skill learning. J Neurosci. 2011;31:2481–7. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5411-10.2011.
    1. Molina-Luna K, Pekanovic A, Rohrich S, Hertler B, Schubring-Giese M, Rioult-Pedotti MS, et al. Dopamine in motor cortex is necessary for skill learning and synaptic plasticity. PLoS One. 2009;4:e7082. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007082.
    1. Krakauer JW. Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol. 2006;19:84–90. doi: 10.1097/.
    1. Wittmann F, Lambercy O, Gonzenbach RR, van Raai MA, Hover R, Held J, et al. Assessment-driven arm therapy at home using an IMU-based virtual reality system. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR). IEEE; 2015. p. 707–12.
    1. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P, Group C. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:295–309. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008.
    1. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gotzsche PC, Krleza-Jeric K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:200–7. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583.
    1. Wittmann F, Held JP, Lambercy O, Starkey ML, Curt A, Hover R, et al. Self-directed arm therapy at home after stroke with a sensor-based virtual reality training system. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13:75. doi: 10.1186/s12984-016-0182-1.
    1. Price TF, Peterson CK, Harmon-Jones E. The emotive neuroscience of embodiment. Motiv Emot. 2012;36:27–37. doi: 10.1007/s11031-011-9258-1.
    1. ICH. Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1). 1996.
    1. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41:1149–60. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
    1. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–91. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146.
    1. Sedgwick P. Explanatory trials versus pragmatic trials. BMJ. 2014;349:g6694. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g6694.
    1. Sedgwick P. Intention to treat analysis versus per protocol analysis of trial data. BMJ. 2015;350:h681. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h681.
    1. Nudo RJ. Adaptive plasticity in motor cortex: implications for rehabilitation after brain injury. J Rehabil Med. 2003;(Suppl 41):7–10.
    1. Nijenhuis SM, Prange GB, Amirabdollahian F, Sale P, Infarinato F, Nasr N, et al. Feasibility study into self-administered training at home using an arm and hand device with motivational gaming environment in chronic stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015;12:1. doi: 10.1186/s12984-015-0080-y.
    1. van Meulen FB, Reenalda J, Buurke JH, Veltink PH. Assessment of daily-life reaching performance after stroke. Ann Biomed Eng. 2015;43:478–86. doi: 10.1007/s10439-014-1198-y.
    1. Bailey RR, Klaesner JW, Lang CE. Quantifying real-world upper-limb activity in nondisabled adults and adults with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29:969–78. doi: 10.1177/1545968315583720.
    1. Ashford S, Slade M, Malaprade F, Turner-Stokes L. Evaluation of functional outcome measures for the hemiparetic upper limb: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40:787–95. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0276.
    1. Prabhakaran S, Zarahn E, Riley C, Speizer A, Chong JY, Lazar RM, et al. Inter-individual variability in the capacity for motor recovery after ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22:64–71. doi: 10.1177/1545968307305302.
    1. Zarahn E, Alon L, Ryan SL, Lazar RM, Vry MS, Weiller C, et al. Prediction of motor recovery using initial impairment and fMRI 48 h poststroke. Cereb Cortex. 2011;21:2712–21. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr047.
    1. Zeiler SR, Gibson EM, Hoesch RE, Li MY, Worley PF, O’Brien RJ, et al. Medial premotor cortex shows a reduction in inhibitory markers and mediates recovery in a mouse model of focal stroke. Stroke. 2013;44:483–9. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.676940.
    1. Krakauer JW, Carmichael ST, Corbett D, Wittenberg GF. Getting neurorehabilitation right: what can be learned from animal models? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26:923–31. doi: 10.1177/1545968312440745.
    1. Murphy TH, Corbett D. Plasticity during stroke recovery: from synapse to behaviour. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10:861–72. doi: 10.1038/nrn2735.

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner