Wearable myoelectric interface enables high-dose, home-based training in severely impaired chronic stroke survivors

Na-Teng Hung, Vivek Paul, Prashanth Prakash, Torin Kovach, Gene Tacy, Goran Tomic, Sangsoo Park, Tyler Jacobson, Alix Jampol, Pooja Patel, Anya Chappel, Erin King, Marc W Slutzky, Na-Teng Hung, Vivek Paul, Prashanth Prakash, Torin Kovach, Gene Tacy, Goran Tomic, Sangsoo Park, Tyler Jacobson, Alix Jampol, Pooja Patel, Anya Chappel, Erin King, Marc W Slutzky

Abstract

Background: High-intensity occupational therapy can improve arm function after stroke, but many people lack access to such therapy. Home-based therapies could address this need, but they don't typically address abnormal muscle co-activation, an important aspect of arm impairment. An earlier study using lab-based, myoelectric computer interface game training enabled chronic stroke survivors to reduce abnormal co-activation and improve arm function. Here, we assess feasibility of doing this training at home using a novel, wearable, myoelectric interface for neurorehabilitation training (MINT) paradigm.

Objective: Assess tolerability and feasibility of home-based, high-dose MINT therapy in severely impaired chronic stroke survivors.

Methods: Twenty-three participants were instructed to train with the MINT and game for 90 min/day, 36 days over 6 weeks. We assessed feasibility using amount of time trained and game performance. We assessed tolerability (enjoyment and effort) using a customized version of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory at the conclusion of training.

Results: Participants displayed high adherence to near-daily therapy at home (mean of 82 min/day of training; 96% trained at least 60 min/day) and enjoyed the therapy. Training performance improved and co-activation decreased with training. Although a substantial number of participants stopped training, most dropouts were due to reasons unrelated to the training paradigm itself.

Interpretation: Home-based therapy with MINT is feasible and tolerable in severely impaired stroke survivors. This affordable, enjoyable, and mobile health paradigm has potential to improve recovery from stroke in a variety of settings. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03401762.

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Slutzky reports non‐financial support from Myomo, Inc during the conduct of the study. In addition, Dr. Slutzky has a patent issued related to the MINT device, and has consulted for Battelle on their Strategic Advisory Board.

© 2021 The Authors. Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Neurological Association.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
MINT Device and electrodes. The MINT device (black case) was attached to a strap on the participant’s arm. The red line on the EMG sticker was used to guide participants to line up the recording electrodes (red clips) with the long axis of each muscle. The white clip is the reference electrode.
Figure 2
Figure 2
MINT training group screenshots and cursor mappings. Examples of screenshots and cursor mapping for the different MINT training groups. (A) In the sham control, participants controlled the cursor with one muscle in one direction (red arrow indicates mapping direction of increasing EMG activity). (B) The 2D group controlled the cursor as a vector sum of the two muscles (red arrows indicate mapping directions). (C) The Reach group provided similar feedback to the 2D group with the addition of prompting the participants to reach out in a direction using the targeted muscle (e.g., elbow flexion for biceps, green arrow). (D) The 3D group controlled the cursor as a vector sum of three muscles (dashed arrow, mapping into the screen). The game “skins” changed with each different set of muscles trained.
Figure 3
Figure 3
CONSORT flowchart.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Histogram of responses to questions assessing enjoyment (black) and effort (gray) from the modified IMI survey. Almost all participants enjoyed the training to some extent and were motivated to exert high effort.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Game performance and co‐activation improved with training. (A) Mean (±SE) performance (weighted TTT) over all trials on each day over participants from all groups, over all three muscle sets combined. Gray dashed line is best‐fit linear regression, R = −0.77, p = 0.008. (B) Co‐activation (R) over all experimental groups decreased significantly (*) from baseline (blue) to the last day of training (black). Data are combined over all three muscle sets.

References

    1. Cramer SC. Brain repair after stroke. N Engl J Med 2010;362(19):1827–1829.
    1. Virani Salim S, Alonso A, Benjamin Emelia J, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2020 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2020;141(9):e139–e596.
    1. Dobkin BH. Rehabilitation after stroke. N Engl J Med 2005;352(16):1677–1684.
    1. Sveen U, Bautz‐Holter E, Margrethe Sodring K, Bruun Wyller T, Laake K. Association between impairments, self‐care ability and social activities 1 year after stroke. Disabil Rehabil 1999;21(8):372–377.
    1. Nudo RJ, Wise BM, SiFuentes F, Milliken GW. Neural substrates for the effects of rehabilitative training on motor recovery after ischemic infarct. Science 1996;272(5269):1791.
    1. Ward NS, Brander F, Kelly K. Intensive upper limb neurorehabilitation in chronic stroke: outcomes from the Queen Square programme. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2019;90(5):498–506.
    1. Ayala C, Fang J, Luncheon C, et al. Use of outpatient rehabilitation among adult stroke survivors—20 states and the District of Columbia, 2013, and four states, 2015. Morb Mortal Weekly Rep 2018;67(20):575.
    1. McKevitt C, Fudge N, Redfern J, et al. Self‐reported long‐term needs after stroke. Stroke 2011;42(5):1398–1403.
    1. Kamalakannan S, Gudlavalleti Venkata M, Prost A, et al. Rehabilitation needs of stroke survivors after discharge from hospital in India. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2016;97(9):1526–32.e9.
    1. Cramer SC, Dodakian L, Le V, et al. Efficacy of home‐based telerehabilitation vs in‐clinic therapy for adults after stroke: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol 2019;76(9):1079–1087.
    1. Veerbeek JM, van Wegen E, van Peppen R, et al. What is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and meta‐analysis. PLoS ONE 2014;9(2):e87987.
    1. Hsieh Y‐W, Wu C‐Y, Liao W‐W, Lin K‐C, Wu K‐Y, Lee C‐Y. Effects of treatment intensity in upper limb robot‐assisted therapy for chronic stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2011;25(6):503–511.
    1. Chen Y, Abel KT, Janecek JT, Chen Y, Zheng K, Cramer SC. Home‐based technologies for stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review. Int J Med Informatics 2019;123:11–22.
    1. Buick AR, Kowalczewski J, Carson RG, Prochazka A. Tele‐supervised FES‐assisted exercise for hemiplegic upper limb. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2016;24(1):79–87.
    1. Wolf SL, Sahu K, Bay RC, et al. The HAAPI (Home Arm Assistance Progression Initiative) trial: a novel robotics delivery approach in stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2015;29(10):958–968.
    1. Dodakian L, McKenzie AL, Le V, et al. A home‐based telerehabilitation program for patients with stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2017;31(10–11):923–933.
    1. Krakauer JW. Arm function after stroke: from physiology to recovery. Semin Neurol 2005;25(4):384–395.
    1. Kitago T, Liang J, Huang VS, et al. Improvement after constraint‐induced movement therapy: recovery of normal motor control or task‐specific compensation? Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2013;27(2):99–109.
    1. Dewald J, Pope PS, Given JD, Buchanan TS, Rymer WZ. Abnormal muscle coactivation patterns during isometric torque generation at the elbow and shoulder in hemiparetic subjects. Brain 1995;118(2):495.
    1. Roh J, Rymer WZ, Perreault EJ, Yoo SB, Beer RF. Alterations in upper limb muscle synergy structure in chronic stroke survivors. J Neurophysiol 2013;109(3):768–781.
    1. Wright ZA, Rymer WZ, Slutzky MW. Reducing abnormal muscle coactivation after stroke using a myoelectric‐computer interface: a pilot study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2014;28(5):443–451.
    1. Mugler EM, Tomic G, Singh A, et al. Myoelectric computer interface training for reducing co‐activation and enhancing arm movement in chronic stroke survivors: a randomized trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2019;33(4):284–295.
    1. Woytowicz EJ, Rietschel JC, Goodman RN, et al. Determining levels of upper extremity movement impairment by applying a cluster analysis to the Fugl‐Meyer assessment of the upper extremity in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2017;98(3):456–462.
    1. McAuley E, Duncan T, Tammen VV. Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. Res Q Exerc Sport 1989;60(1):48–58.
    1. Lang CE, MacDonald JR, Reisman D, et al. Observation of amounts of movement practice provided during stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009;90(10):1692–1698.
    1. Parry R, Lincoln N, Vass C. Effect of severity of arm impairment on response to additional physiotherapy early after stroke. Clin Rehabil 1999;13(3):187–198.
    1. Winstein CJ, Rose DK, Tan SM, Lewthwaite R, Chui HC, Azen SP. A randomized controlled comparison of upper‐extremity rehabilitation strategies in acute stroke: a pilot study of immediate and long‐term outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85(4):620–628.
    1. Nowak DA, Grefkes C, Ameli M, Fink GR. Interhemispheric competition after stroke: brain stimulation to enhance recovery of function of the affected hand. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009;23(7):641.
    1. Buch ER, Modir Shanechi A, Fourkas AD, Weber C, Birbaumer N, Cohen LG. Parietofrontal integrity determines neural modulation associated with grasping imagery after stroke. Brain 2012;135(2):596–614.
    1. King M, Hijmans JM, Sampson M, Satherley J, Hale L. Home‐based stroke rehabilitation using computer gaming. New Zealand J Physiother. 2012;40:128+.
    1. Warland A, Paraskevopoulos I, Tsekleves E, et al. The feasibility, acceptability and preliminary efficacy of a low‐cost, virtual‐reality based, upper‐limb stroke rehabilitation device: a mixed methods study. Disabil Rehabil 2019;41(18):2119–2134.
    1. Duncan PW, Horner RD, Reker DM, et al. Adherence to postacute rehabilitation guidelines is associated with functional recovery in stroke. Stroke 2002;33(1):167–178.
    1. Benvenuti F, Stuart M, Cappena V, et al. Community‐based exercise for upper limb paresis: a controlled trial with telerehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2014;28(7):611–620.
    1. Donoso Brown EV, Nolfi D, Wallace SE, Eskander J, Hoffman JM. Home program practices for supporting and measuring adherence in post‐stroke rehabilitation: a scoping review. Top Stroke Rehabil 2020;27(5):377–400.
    1. Jurkiewicz MT, Marzolini S, Oh P. Adherence to a home‐based exercise program for individuals after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil 2011;18(3):277–284.
    1. Miller KK, Porter RE, DeBaun‐Sprague E, Van Puymbroeck M, Schmid AA. Exercise after stroke: patient adherence and beliefs after discharge from rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil 2017;24(2):142–148.
    1. Proffitt R, Lange B. Feasibility of a customized, in‐home, game‐based stroke exercise program using the Microsoft Kinect® Sensor. Int J Telerehabil 2015;7(2):23–34.
    1. Lewis GN, Woods C, Rosie JA, McPherson KM. Virtual reality games for rehabilitation of people with stroke: perspectives from the users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2011;6(5):453–463.
    1. Young SJ, van Doornik J, Sanger TD. Visual feedback reduces co‐contraction in children with dystonia. J Child Neurol 2011;26(1):37–43.

Source: PubMed

3
購読する