Increasing upper limb training intensity in chronic stroke using embodied virtual reality: a pilot study

Daniel Perez-Marcos, Odile Chevalley, Thomas Schmidlin, Gangadhar Garipelli, Andrea Serino, Philippe Vuadens, Tej Tadi, Olaf Blanke, José D R Millán, Daniel Perez-Marcos, Odile Chevalley, Thomas Schmidlin, Gangadhar Garipelli, Andrea Serino, Philippe Vuadens, Tej Tadi, Olaf Blanke, José D R Millán

Abstract

Background: Technology-mediated neurorehabilitation is suggested to enhance training intensity and therefore functional gains. Here, we used a novel virtual reality (VR) system for task-specific upper extremity training after stroke. The system offers interactive exercises integrating motor priming techniques and embodied visuomotor feedback. In this pilot study, we examined (i) rehabilitation dose and training intensity, (ii) functional improvements, and (iii) safety and tolerance when exposed to intensive VR rehabilitation.

Methods: Ten outpatient stroke survivors with chronic (>6 months) upper extremity paresis participated in a ten-session VR-based upper limb rehabilitation program (2 sessions/week).

Results: All participants completed all sessions of the treatment. In total, they received a median of 403 min of upper limb therapy, with 290 min of effective training. Within that time, participants performed a median of 4713 goal-directed movements. Importantly, training intensity increased progressively across sessions from 13.2 to 17.3 movements per minute. Clinical measures show that despite being in the chronic phase, where recovery potential is thought to be limited, participants showed a median improvement rate of 5.3% in motor function (Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity; FMA-UE) post intervention compared to baseline, and of 15.4% at one-month follow-up. For three of them, this improvement was clinically significant. A significant improvement in shoulder active range of motion (AROM) was also observed at follow-up. Participants reported very low levels of pain, stress and fatigue following each session of training, indicating that the intensive VR intervention was well tolerated. No severe adverse events were reported. All participants expressed their interest in continuing the intervention at the hospital or even at home, suggesting high levels of adherence and motivation for the provided intervention.

Conclusions: This pilot study showed how a dedicated VR system could deliver high rehabilitation doses and, importantly, intensive training in chronic stroke survivors. FMA-UE and AROM results suggest that task-specific VR training may be beneficial for further functional recovery both in the chronic stage of stroke. Longitudinal studies with higher doses and sample sizes are required to confirm the therapy effectiveness.

Trial registration: This trial was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov database (registration number NCT03094650 ) on 14 March 2017.

Keywords: Embodied feedback; Motor rehabilitation; Neurorehabilitation; Rehabilitation dose; Stroke; Training intensity; Virtual reality.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The clinical protocol was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Canton Valais (Switzerland). All participants provided their written informed consent prior to enrolment.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient in Fig. 1 for use of her image for illustration of the institution and media needs. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.

Competing interests

The authors DPM, GG and TT were employees of MindMaze SA at the time of the study.

Publisher’s Note

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

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
a Participant performing an upper limb exercise (Grasping) with the MindMotion ™ PRO technology; b Participant doing the Reaching exercise; c Participant doing a Fruitchamp exercise
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Individual, median and IQR values for Goal-directed Movements (left) and Training Intensity (right) at each session
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Scatter plot and linear regression between changes in training intensity (session 10 vs. session 1) and changes in AROM of shoulder flexion scores (follow-up vs. baseline). ** Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p < 0.01

References

    1. Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, Cushman M, Das SR, de Ferranti S, Despres JP, Fullerton HJ, et al. Heart disease and stroke Statistics-2016 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2016;133:e38–e60.
    1. Wilkinson PR, Wolfe CD, Warburton FG, Rudd AG, Howard RS, Ross-Russell RW, Beech RR. A long-term follow-up of stroke patients. Stroke. 1997;28:507–512. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.28.3.507.
    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. Coupar F, Pollock A, Rowe P, Weir C, Langhorne P. Predictors of upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26:291–313. doi: 10.1177/0269215511420305.
    1. Winstein CJ, Stein J, Arena R, Bates B, Cherney LR, Cramer SC, Deruyter F, Eng JJ, Fisher B, Harvey RL, et al. Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2016;47:e98–e169. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000098.
    1. Kleim JA, Jones TA. Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008;51:S225–S239. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/018).
    1. Schaechter JD. Motor rehabilitation and brain plasticity after hemiparetic stroke. Prog Neurobiol. 2004;73:61–72. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2004.04.001.
    1. Ward N. Treatment of arm and hand dysfunction after CNS damage. In: Oxford Texbook of Neurorehabilitation. Edited by Dietz V, Ward NS. Oxford; 2015. 238–250.[Christopher K (Series Editor).
    1. Lang CE, Lohse KR, Birkenmeier RL. Dose and timing in neurorehabilitation: prescribing motor therapy after stroke. Curr Opin Neurol. 2015;28:549–55.
    1. Stroke Rehabilitation: Therapy . Accessed 6 Nov 2017.
    1. Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Lindeman E. Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: facts and theories. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2004;22:281–299.
    1. Zeiler SR, Krakauer JW. The interaction between training and plasticity in the poststroke brain. Curr Opin Neurol. 2013;26:609–616. doi: 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000025.
    1. Page SJ, Gater DR, Bach YRP. Reconsidering the motor recovery plateau in stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:1377–1381. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.12.031.
    1. Demain S, Wiles R, Roberts L, McPherson K. Recovery plateau following stroke: fact or fiction? Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28:815–821. doi: 10.1080/09638280500534796.
    1. Laver KE, George S, Thomas S, Deutsch JE, Crotty M. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2:Cd008349.
    1. Anguera JA, Boccanfuso J, Rintoul JL, Al-Hashimi O, Faraji F, Janowich J, Kong E, Larraburo Y, Rolle C, Johnston E, Gazzaley A. Video game training enhances cognitive control in older adults. Nature. 2013;501:97–101. doi: 10.1038/nature12486.
    1. Saposnik G, Cohen LG, Mamdani M, Pooyania S, Ploughman M, Cheung D, Shaw J, Hall J, Nord P, Dukelow S, et al. Efficacy and safety of non-immersive virtual reality exercising in stroke rehabilitation (EVREST): a randomised, multicentre, single-blind, controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2016.
    1. Sin H, Lee G. Additional virtual reality training using Xbox Kinect in stroke survivors with hemiplegia. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;92:871–880. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e3182a38e40.
    1. Thieme H, Mehrholz J, Pohl M, Behrens J, Dohle C. Mirror therapy for improving motor function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012:Cd008449.
    1. Franceschini M, Ceravolo MG, Agosti M, Cavallini P, Bonassi S, Dall'Armi V, Massucci M, Schifini F, Sale P. Clinical relevance of action observation in upper-limb stroke rehabilitation: a possible role in recovery of functional dexterity. A randomized clinical trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26:456–462. doi: 10.1177/1545968311427406.
    1. Garrison KA, Aziz-Zadeh L, Wong SW, Liew SL, Winstein CJ. Modulating the motor system by action observation after stroke. Stroke. 2013;44:2247–2253. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.001105.
    1. Holden MK. Virtual environments for motor rehabilitation: review. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2005;8:187–211. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2005.8.187.
    1. Adamovich SV, Fluet GG, Tunik E, Merians AS. Sensorimotor training in virtual reality: a review. NeuroRehabilitation. 2009;25:29–44.
    1. Lohse KR, Hilderman CG, Cheung KL, Tatla S, Van der Loos HF. Virtual reality therapy for adults post-stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis exploring virtual environments and commercial games in therapy. PLoS One 2014; 9:e93318.
    1. Brunner I, Skouen JS, Hofstad H, Assmuss J, Becker F, Pallesen H, Thijs L, Verheyden G. Is upper limb virtual reality training more intensive than conventional training for patients in the subacute phase after stroke? An analysis of treatment intensity and content. BMC Neurol. 2016;16:219. doi: 10.1186/s12883-016-0740-y.
    1. Sirtori V, Corbetta D, Moja L, Gatti R. Constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremities in stroke patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009:Cd004433.
    1. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7:13–31.
    1. Page SJ, Fulk GD, Boyne P. Clinically important differences for the upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer scale in people with minimal to moderate impairment due to chronic stroke. Phys Ther. 2012;92:791–798. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20110009.
    1. Marx RG, Bombardier C, Wright JG. What do we know about the reliability and validity of physical examination tests used to examine the upper extremity? J Hand Surg Am. 1999;24:185–193. doi: 10.1053/jhsu.1999.jhsu24a0185.
    1. Paternostro-Sluga T, Grim-Stieger M, Posch M, Schuhfried O, Vacariu G, Mittermaier C, Bittner C, Fialka-Moser V. Reliability and validity of the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale and a modified scale for testing muscle strength in patients with radial palsy. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40:665–671. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0235.
    1. Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil. 1987;1:6–18.
    1. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain), numeric rating scale for pain (NRS pain), McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), chronic pain grade scale (CPGS), short Form-36 bodily pain scale (SF-36 BPS), and measure of intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP) Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63(Suppl 11):S240–S252. doi: 10.1002/acr.20543.
    1. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R foundation for statistical Computing; 2015.
    1. Julie P. SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows version 15: Open University Press; 2007.
    1. Krakauer JW, Marshall RS. The proportional recovery rule for stroke revisited. Ann Neurol. 2015;78:845–847. doi: 10.1002/ana.24537.
    1. Birkenmeier RL, Prager EM, Lang CE. Translating animal doses of task-specific training to people with chronic stroke in 1-hour therapy sessions: a proof-of-concept study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24:620–635. doi: 10.1177/1545968310361957.
    1. Lang CE, Macdonald JR, Reisman DS, Boyd L, Jacobson Kimberley T, Schindler-Ivens SM, Hornby TG, Ross SA, Scheets PL. Observation of amounts of movement practice provided during stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:1692–1698. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.04.005.
    1. Mehrholz J, Pohl M, Platz T, Kugler J, Elsner B. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015:Cd006876.
    1. Kimberley TJ, Samargia S, Moore LG, Shakya JK, Lang CE. Comparison of amounts and types of practice during rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury and stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47:851–862. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2010.02.0019.
    1. Subramanian SK, Lourenco CB, Chilingaryan G, Sveistrup H, Levin MF. Arm motor recovery using a virtual reality intervention in chronic stroke: randomized control trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27:13–23. doi: 10.1177/1545968312449695.
    1. Turolla A, Dam M, Ventura L, Tonin P, Agostini M, Zucconi C, Kiper P, Cagnin A, Piron L. Virtual reality for the rehabilitation of the upper limb motor function after stroke: a prospective controlled trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013;10:85. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-10-85.
    1. Kwakkel G, Lannin NA, Borschmann K, English C, Ali M, Churilov L, Saposnik G, Winstein C, van Wegen EE, Wolf SL, et al. Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: consensus-based core recommendations from the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable. Int J Stroke. 2017;12:451–461. doi: 10.1177/1747493017711813.
    1. Demers M, Levin MF. Do activity level outcome measures commonly used in neurological practice assess upper-limb movement quality? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31:623–637. doi: 10.1177/1545968317714576.
    1. Shishov N, Melzer I, Bar-Haim S. Parameters and measures in assessment of motor learning in Neurorehabilitation; a systematic review of the literature. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017;11:82. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00082.
    1. Braun N, Emkes R, Thorne JD, Debener S. Embodied neurofeedback with an anthropomorphic robotic hand. Sci Rep. 2016;6:37696. doi: 10.1038/srep37696.
    1. Llobera J, Gonzalez-Franco M, Perez-Marcos D, Valls-Sole J, Slater M, Sanchez-Vives MV. Virtual reality for assessment of patients suffering chronic pain: a case study. Exp Brain Res. 2013;225:105–117. doi: 10.1007/s00221-012-3352-9.
    1. Martini M, Perez-Marcos D, Sanchez-Vives MV. What color is my arm? Changes in skin color of an embodied virtual arm modulates pain threshold. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:438. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00438.
    1. Martini M, Perez-Marcos D, Sanchez-Vives MV. Modulation of pain threshold by virtual body ownership. Eur J Pain. 2014;18:1040–1048. doi: 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2014.00451.x.
    1. Riva G. From virtual to real body: virtual reality as embodied technology. J Cyber Ther Rehabil. 2008;1:7–22.
    1. Calabro RS, Naro A, Russo M, Leo A, De Luca R, Balletta T, Buda A, La Rosa G, Bramanti A, Bramanti P. The role of virtual reality in improving motor performance as revealed by EEG: a randomized clinical trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017;14:53. doi: 10.1186/s12984-017-0268-4.
    1. Rizzolatti G, Craighero L. The mirror-neuron system. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2004;27:169–192. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230.
    1. Padrao G, Gonzalez-Franco M, Sanchez-Vives MV, Slater M, Rodriguez-Fornells A. Violating body movement semantics: neural signatures of self-generated and external-generated errors. NeuroImage. 2016;124:147–156. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.08.022.
    1. Garipelli G, Liakoni V, D. P-M, Duc C, Gilart de Keranflec'h C, Kinzner H, Johr J, Tadi T, Michel P, Diserens K. Virtual Reality based Neuroreabilitation in Acute Stroke: A feasibility study.submitted.
    1. Kinzner H, Garipelli G, Perez-Marcos D, Tadi T, Diserens K. Virtual reality based upper limb Neurorehabilitation in acute stroke: A single-case study. In 45th annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience; Oct 17–21; Chicago,USA. 2015.
    1. Rizzo A, Kim GJASWOT. Analysis of the field of virtual reality rehabilitation and therapy. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual. Environments. 2005;13:119–146.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonneren