Robotically facilitated virtual rehabilitation of arm transport integrated with finger movement in persons with hemiparesis

Alma S Merians, Gerard G Fluet, Qinyin Qiu, Soha Saleh, Ian Lafond, Amy Davidow, Sergei V Adamovich, Alma S Merians, Gerard G Fluet, Qinyin Qiu, Soha Saleh, Ian Lafond, Amy Davidow, Sergei V Adamovich

Abstract

Background: Recovery of upper extremity function is particularly recalcitrant to successful rehabilitation. Robotic-assisted arm training devices integrated with virtual targets or complex virtual reality gaming simulations are being developed to deal with this problem. Neural control mechanisms indicate that reaching and hand-object manipulation are interdependent, suggesting that training on tasks requiring coordinated effort of both the upper arm and hand may be a more effective method for improving recovery of real world function. However, most robotic therapies have focused on training the proximal, rather than distal effectors of the upper extremity. This paper describes the effects of robotically-assisted, integrated upper extremity training.

Methods: Twelve subjects post-stroke were trained for eight days on four upper extremity gaming simulations using adaptive robots during 2-3 hour sessions.

Results: The subjects demonstrated improved proximal stability, smoothness and efficiency of the movement path. This was in concert with improvement in the distal kinematic measures of finger individuation and improved speed. Importantly, these changes were accompanied by a robust 16-second decrease in overall time in the Wolf Motor Function Test and a 24-second decrease in the Jebsen Test of Hand Function.

Conclusions: Complex gaming simulations interfaced with adaptive robots requiring integrated control of shoulder, elbow, forearm, wrist and finger movements appear to have a substantial effect on improving hemiparetic hand function. We believe that the magnitude of the changes and the stability of the patient's function prior to training, along with maintenance of several aspects of the gains demonstrated at retention make a compelling argument for this approach to training.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Simulations. Screen shots for simulations utilized during this training study a. Plasma Pong, b. Hummingbird Hunt, c. Hammer Task, d. Virtual Piano. e. Training setup.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Piano trainer kinematic analyses. a. Daily averages during Virtual Piano training for finger fractionation defined as the difference between the angle of the MCP joint of the cued finger and of the most flexed non-cued finger. Higher scores indicate better performance. Averages for 10 subjects are shown (two subjects who used the CyberGrasp haptic device during virtual piano training are not included in this analysis). 2b. Daily averages for all 12 subjects in the time to press each key during piano training. 2c.Daily averages of number of correct keys pressed divided by total keys pressed for all 12 subjects. Error bars = Standard Error of the Mean.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Hammer simulation kinematic analyses. Daily average for all twelve subjects during Hammer Task training in a. the length of the path required to complete ten targets. b. time required to hammer each virtual cylinder c. in hand trajectory smoothness quantified as normalized integrated jerk (values are dimensionless, lower scores indicate smoother path with fewer subunits). d. peak finger extension. 3e. hand deviation calculated as the cumulative excursion of the hand position in 3D space from the center of the target starting at the time target is acquired until completion of hammering (lower scores indicate more stability). 3f. Individual subjects start measure (average of first two training days), and end measure (average of last two training days) for all twelve subjects in average hand deviation during hammer task training. Error bars = Standard Error of the Mean.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Jebsen test of hand function comparison. The composite time for the Jebsen Test of Hand Function at three testing points for the 12 subjects with strokes (JTHF1 = Pre-test, JTHF2 = Post-test, JTHF3 = Retention, Impaired Hand = open circles, Unimpaired Hand = solid circles), and the seven aged matched controls (Non-Dominant Hand = open triangles, Dominant hand = solid triangles). Error bars = Standard Error of the Mean.

References

    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;34:2181–2186. doi: 10.1161/.
    1. Carey JR, Bhatt E, Nagpal A. Neuroplasticity promoted by task complexity. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2005;33:24–31.
    1. Hlustik P, Solodkin A, Noll DC, Small SL. Cortical plasticity during three-week motor skill learning. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2004;21:180–191. doi: 10.1097/00004691-200405000-00006.
    1. Nudo RJ, Milliken GW. Reorganization of movement representations in primary motor cortex following focal ischemic infarcts in adult squirrel monkeys. J Neurophysiol. 1996;75:2144–2149.
    1. Frost SB, Milliken GW, Plautz EJ, Masterton RB, Nudo RJ. Somatosensory and motor representations in cerebral cortex of a primitive mammal (Monodelphis domestica): a window into the early evolution of sensorimotor cortex. J Comp Neurol. 2000;421:29–51. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(20000522)421:1<29::AID-CNE3>;2-9.
    1. Merians AS, Poizner H, Boian R, Burdea G, Adamovich S. Sensorimotor training in a virtual reality environment: does it improve functional recovery poststroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2006;20:252–267. doi: 10.1177/1545968306286914.
    1. Merians AS, Tunik E, Fluet GG, Qiu Q, Adamovich SV. Innovative approaches to the rehabilitation of upper extremity hemiparesis using virtual environments. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2008.
    1. Adamovich S, Qiu Q, Mathai A, Fluet G, Merians A. Recovery of hand function in virtual reality: training hemiparetic hand and arm together or separately. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Conference; Vancouver, Canada. 2008. pp. 3475–3478.
    1. Krebs HI, Volpe BT, Ferraro M, Fasoli S, Palazzolo J, Rohrer B, Edelstein L, Hogan N. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: from evidence-based to science-based rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2002;8:54–70. doi: 10.1310/6177-QDJJ-56DU-0NW0.
    1. Sanchez RJ, Liu J, Rao S, Shah P, Smith R, Rahman T, Cramer SC, Bobrow JE, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Automating arm movement training following severe stroke: functional exercises with quantitative feedback in a gravity-reduced environment. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2006;14:378–389. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2006.881553.
    1. Kahn LE, Lum PS, Rymer WZ, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Robot-assisted movement training for the stroke-impaired arm: Does it matter what the robot does? J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43:619–630. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2005.03.0056.
    1. Lum PS, Burgar CG, Van der Loos M, Shor PC, Majmundar M, Yap R. MIME robotic device for upper-limb neurorehabilitation in subacute stroke subjects: A follow-up study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43:631–642. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2005.02.0044.
    1. Hesse S, Schmidt H, Werner C, Bardeleben A. Upper and lower extremity robotic devices for rehabilitation and for studying motor control. Curr Opin Neurol. 2003;16:705–710. doi: 10.1097/00019052-200312000-00010.
    1. Adamovich SV, Fluet GG, Merians AS, Mathai A, Qiu Q. Incorporating haptic effects into three-dimensional virtual environments to train the hemiparetic upper extremity. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2009;17:512–520.
    1. Adamovich SV, Fluet GG, Mathai A, Qiu Q, Lewis J, Merians AS. Design of a complex virtual reality simulation to train finger motion for persons with hemiparesis: a proof of concept study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009;6:28. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-6-28.
    1. Merians AS, Tunik E, Adamovich SV. Virtual reality to maximize function for hand and arm rehabilitation: exploration of neural mechanisms. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;145:109–125.
    1. Gowland C, Stratford P, Ward M, Moreland J, Torresin W, Van Hullenaar S, Sanford J, Barreca S, Vanspall B, Plews N. Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment. Stroke. 1993;24:58–63.
    1. Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Ellis M, Archer AL, Morgan B, Piacentino A. Assessing Wolf motor function test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Stroke. 2001;32:1635–1639.
    1. Jebsen RH, Taylor N, Trieschmann RB, Trotter MJ, Howard LA. An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1969;50:311–319.
    1. Charles JR, Wolf SL, Schneider JA, Gordon AM. Efficacy of a child-friendly form of constraint-induced movement therapy in hemiplegic cerebral palsy: a randomized control trial. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006;48:635–642. doi: 10.1017/S0012162206001356.
    1. Conforto AB, Ferreiro KN, Tomasi C, dos Santos RL, Moreira VL, Marie SK, Baltieri SC, Scaff M, Cohen LG. Effects of somatosensory stimulation on motor function after subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. pp. 263–272.
    1. Qiu Q, Fluet GG, Lafond I, Merians AS, Adamovich SV. Coordination changes demonstrated by subjects with hemiparesis performing hand-arm training using the NJIT-RAVR robotically assisted virtual rehabilitation system. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2009;1:1143–1146.
    1. Rohrer B, Fasoli S, Krebs HI, Volpe B, Frontera WR, Stein J, Hogan N. Submovements grow larger, fewer, and more blended during stroke recovery. Motor Control. 2004;8:472–483.
    1. Adamovich S, Merians A, Boian R, Tremaine M, Burdea G, Recce M, Poizner H. A virtual reality (VR)-based exercise system for hand rehabilitation post stroke. Presence. 2005;14:161–174. doi: 10.1162/1054746053966996.
    1. Krakauer JW. Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol. 2006;19:84–90. doi: 10.1097/.
    1. Lang CE, Beebe JA. Relating movement control at 9 upper extremity segments to loss of hand function in people with chronic hemiparesis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21:279–291. doi: 10.1177/1545968306296964.
    1. Lin KC, Hsieh YW, Wu CY, Chen CL, Jang Y, Liu JS. Minimal detectable change and clinically important difference of the Wolf Motor Function Test in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:429–434. doi: 10.1177/1545968308331144.
    1. Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP, Taub E, Uswatte G, Morris D, Giuliani C, Light KE, Nichols-Larsen D. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. Jama. 2006;296:2095–2104. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.17.2095.
    1. Kwakkel G. Impact of intensity of practice after stroke: issues for consideration. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28:823–830. 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;22:111–121.
    1. Mehrholz J, Platz T, Kugler J, Pohl M. Electromechanical and Robot-Assisted Arm Training for Improving Arm Function and Activities of Daily Living After Stroke. Stroke. 2009.
    1. Aisen ML, Krebs HI, Hogan N, McDowell F, Volpe BT. The effect of robot-assisted therapy and rehabilitative training on motor recovery following stroke. Arch Neurol. 1997;54:443–446.
    1. Ferraro M, Palazzolo JJ, Krol J, Krebs HI, Hogan N, Volpe BT. Robot-aided sensorimotor arm training improves outcome in patients with chronic stroke. Neurology. 2003;61:1604–1607.
    1. Dipietro L, Krebs HI, Fasoli SE, Volpe BT, Hogan N. Submovement changes characterize generalization of motor recovery after stroke. Cortex. 2008.
    1. Lang CE, MacDonald JR, Gnip C. Counting repetitions: an observational study of outpatient therapy for people with hemiparesis post-stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2007;31:3–10.
    1. Daly JJ, Hogan N, Perepezko EM, Krebs HI, Rogers JM, Goyal KS, Dohring ME, Fredrickson E, Nethery J, Ruff RL. Response to upper-limb robotics and functional neuromuscular stimulation following stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42:723–736. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2005.02.0048.
    1. Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC. Evidence for improved muscle activation patterns after retraining of reaching movements with the MIME robotic system in subjects with post-stroke hemiparesis. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2004;12:186–194. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2004.827225.
    1. Fasoli SE, Krebs HI, Stein J, Frontera WR, Hogan N. Effects of robotic therapy on motor impairment and recovery in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:477–482. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2003.50110.
    1. Wulf G, McNevin NH, Fuchs T, Ritter F, Toole T. Attentional focus in complex skill learning. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2000;71:229–239.
    1. Wulf G, Landers M, Lewthwaite R, Tollner T. External focus instructions reduce postural instability in individuals with Parkinson disease. Phys Ther. 2009;89:162–168. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20080045.
    1. Underwood J, Clark PC, Blanton S, Aycock DM, Wolf SL. Pain, fatigue, and intensity of practice in people with stroke who are receiving constraint-induced movement therapy. Phys Ther. 2006;86:1241–1250. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20050357.

Source: PubMed

3
購読する