Deficit Fields for Stroke Recovery
8 de junho de 2021 atualizado por: James Patton, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab
Error-enhanced Learning & Recovery in 2 & 3 Dimensions
This study investigates the potential of customized robotic and visual feedback interaction to improve recovery of movements in stroke survivors.
While therapists widely recognize that customization is critical to recovery, little is understood about how take advantage of statistical analysis tools to aid in the process of designing individualized training.
Our approach first creates a model of a person's own unique movement deficits, and then creates a practice environment to correct these problems.
Experiments will determine how the deficit-field approach can improve (1) reaching accuracy, (2) range of motion, and (3) activities of daily living.
The findings will not only shed light on how to improve therapy for stroke survivors, it will test hypotheses about fundamental processes of practice and learning.
This study will help us move closer to our long-term goal of clinically effective treatments using interactive devices.
Visão geral do estudo
Status
Concluído
Condições
Tipo de estudo
Intervencional
Inscrição (Real)
45
Estágio
- Não aplicável
Contactos e Locais
Esta seção fornece os detalhes de contato para aqueles que conduzem o estudo e informações sobre onde este estudo está sendo realizado.
Locais de estudo
-
-
Illinois
-
Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 60611
- Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago
-
-
Critérios de participação
Os pesquisadores procuram pessoas que se encaixem em uma determinada descrição, chamada de critérios de elegibilidade. Alguns exemplos desses critérios são a condição geral de saúde de uma pessoa ou tratamentos anteriores.
Critérios de elegibilidade
Idades elegíveis para estudo
18 anos a 100 anos (Adulto, Adulto mais velho)
Aceita Voluntários Saudáveis
Sim
Gêneros Elegíveis para o Estudo
Tudo
Descrição
Inclusion Criteria:
STROKE SURVIVORS:
- adult (age >18)
- Chronic stage stroke recovery (8+ months post)
- available medical records and radiographic information about lesion locations
- strokes caused by an ischemic infarct in the middle cerebral artery
- primary motor cortex involvement
- a Fugl-Meyer score (between 15-50) to evaluate arm motor impairment level
HEALTHY CONTROL PARTICIPANTS:
- adult (age >18)
- healthy individuals with no history of stroke or neural injury
Exclusion Criteria:
- bilateral paresis;
- severe sensory deficits in the limb
- severe spasticity (Modified Ashworth of 4) preventing movement
- aphasia, cognitive impairment or affective dysfunction that would influence the ability to perform the experiment
- inability to provide an informed consent
- severe current medical problems
- diffuse/multiple lesion sites or multiple stroke events
- hemispatial neglect or visual field cut that would prevent subjects from seeing the targets.
Plano de estudo
Esta seção fornece detalhes do plano de estudo, incluindo como o estudo é projetado e o que o estudo está medindo.
Como o estudo é projetado?
Detalhes do projeto
- Finalidade Principal: Tratamento
- Alocação: Randomizado
- Modelo Intervencional: Atribuição Paralela
- Mascaramento: Dobro
Armas e Intervenções
Grupo de Participantes / Braço |
Intervenção / Tratamento |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Deficit-fields to reduce error
We hypothesize that a deficit-field design, using the statistics of a patient's errors to customize training, will provide optimal augmentation that varies during motion as needed.
We will compare the training effects of error deficit-fields with previous methods of error augmentation to improve reaching ability.
|
Stroke survivors exhibit error in both reaching extent and abnormal curvatures of motion.
Prior error augmentation techniques multiply error by a constant at each instant during movement.
However, magnification of spurious errors may provoke over-compensation.
We hypothesize that a deficit-field design, using the statistics of a patient's errors to customize training, will provide optimal augmentation that varies during motion as needed.
We will compare the training effects of error deficit-fields with previous methods of error augmentation to improve reaching ability.
|
|
Experimental: Deficit-fields to expand range of motion
Amplifying augmentation can expand motor exploration and improve skill retention in patients.
Using motor exploration patterns from each patient, we will form customized deficit-fields to recover normal joint workspace.
We will compare augmentation training that either amplifies or diminishes the observed deficits (Expt-1).
We also compare deficit-fields with our prior augmentation methods to determine the added value of increased customization (Expt-2).
|
Motor deficits manifest in the workspace limitations of joints, i.e. reduced range of motion, uneven extension-flexion, inter-joint coupling, and unwanted synergies.
Our work builds upon these ideas by augmenting self-directed movement for training coordination.
We found that amplifying augmentation can expand motor exploration and improve skill retention in patients.
Using motor exploration patterns from each patient, we will form customized deficit-fields to recover normal joint workspace.
We will compare augmentation training that either amplifies or diminishes the observed deficits (Expt-1).
We also compare deficit-fields with our prior augmentation methods to determine the added value of increased customization (Expt-2).
|
|
Experimental: Deficit-fields to improve function
Here we present visual distortion of whole body movement during manual tasks during standing, including reaching, grasping, and object manipulation.
We compare the training effects of feedback based on deficit-fields versus practice with normal vision.
|
Clinicians have recognized the benefits of training on everyday tasks (Hubbard, Parsons et al. 2009), as well as practice with whole-body actions (Boehme 1988; Bohannon 1995).
However, typical robotic systems have only a single contact point and cannot drive the multiple joints involved in functional tasks.
Visual distortions (e.g. a shift, rotation or stretch) can promote adaptation even without forces.
Here we present visual distortion of whole body movement during manual tasks during standing, including reaching, grasping, and object manipulation.
We compare the training effects of feedback based on deficit-fields versus practice with normal vision.
|
O que o estudo está medindo?
Medidas de resultados primários
Medida de resultado |
Descrição da medida |
Prazo |
|---|---|---|
|
Arm motor recovery scores on the Fugl-Meyer
Prazo: Baseline at beginning of week 1 and 3 prior to intervention; post-evaluation at end of week 4; follow-up evaluation at end of week 5
|
Change from baseline in arm motor recovery as measured by Fugl-Meyer
|
Baseline at beginning of week 1 and 3 prior to intervention; post-evaluation at end of week 4; follow-up evaluation at end of week 5
|
Medidas de resultados secundários
Medida de resultado |
Descrição da medida |
Prazo |
|---|---|---|
|
Number of blocks transferred in Box and Blocks Test
Prazo: Baseline at beginning of week 1 and 3 prior to intervention; post-evaluation at end of week 4; follow-up evaluation at end of week 5
|
Change from baseline in number of blocks transferred during Box and Blocks Test
|
Baseline at beginning of week 1 and 3 prior to intervention; post-evaluation at end of week 4; follow-up evaluation at end of week 5
|
|
Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS)
Prazo: Baseline at beginning of week 1 and 3 prior to intervention; post-evaluation at end of week 4; follow-up evaluation at end of week 5
|
Change from baseline in amount of spasticity in elbow flexors and extensors
|
Baseline at beginning of week 1 and 3 prior to intervention; post-evaluation at end of week 4; follow-up evaluation at end of week 5
|
|
Elbow active range of motion (ROM)
Prazo: Baseline at beginning of week 1 and 3 prior to intervention; post-evaluation at end of week 4; follow-up evaluation at end of week 5
|
Change from baseline measured in degrees for elbow flexion and extension
|
Baseline at beginning of week 1 and 3 prior to intervention; post-evaluation at end of week 4; follow-up evaluation at end of week 5
|
|
Chedoke McMaster Stroke Assessment for Hand
Prazo: Baseline at beginning of week 1 and 3 prior to intervention; post-evaluation at end of week 4; follow-up evaluation at end of week 5
|
Change in baseline in amount of hand motor recovery as measured by Chedoke scale
|
Baseline at beginning of week 1 and 3 prior to intervention; post-evaluation at end of week 4; follow-up evaluation at end of week 5
|
|
Time and completion score for Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)
Prazo: Baseline at beginning of week 1 and 3 prior to intervention; post-evaluation at end of week 4; follow-up evaluation at end of week 5
|
Change in baseline score and time for completion of functional measures as part of ARAT
|
Baseline at beginning of week 1 and 3 prior to intervention; post-evaluation at end of week 4; follow-up evaluation at end of week 5
|
Colaboradores e Investigadores
É aqui que você encontrará pessoas e organizações envolvidas com este estudo.
Patrocinador
Colaboradores
Investigadores
- Investigador principal: James L Patton, PhD, Shirley Ryan Abilitylab
Publicações e links úteis
A pessoa responsável por inserir informações sobre o estudo fornece voluntariamente essas publicações. Estes podem ser sobre qualquer coisa relacionada ao estudo.
Datas de registro do estudo
Essas datas acompanham o progresso do registro do estudo e os envios de resumo dos resultados para ClinicalTrials.gov. Os registros do estudo e os resultados relatados são revisados pela National Library of Medicine (NLM) para garantir que atendam aos padrões específicos de controle de qualidade antes de serem publicados no site público.
Datas Principais do Estudo
Início do estudo (Real)
1 de maio de 2013
Conclusão Primária (Real)
30 de junho de 2019
Conclusão do estudo (Real)
30 de junho de 2019
Datas de inscrição no estudo
Enviado pela primeira vez
1 de outubro de 2015
Enviado pela primeira vez que atendeu aos critérios de CQ
6 de outubro de 2015
Primeira postagem (Estimativa)
7 de outubro de 2015
Atualizações de registro de estudo
Última Atualização Postada (Real)
10 de junho de 2021
Última atualização enviada que atendeu aos critérios de controle de qualidade
8 de junho de 2021
Última verificação
1 de outubro de 2018
Mais Informações
Termos relacionados a este estudo
Termos MeSH relevantes adicionais
Outros números de identificação do estudo
- RehabilitationIC
- 2R01NS053606-05A1 (Concessão/Contrato do NIH dos EUA)
Essas informações foram obtidas diretamente do site clinicaltrials.gov sem nenhuma alteração. Se você tiver alguma solicitação para alterar, remover ou atualizar os detalhes do seu estudo, entre em contato com register@clinicaltrials.gov. Assim que uma alteração for implementada em clinicaltrials.gov, ela também será atualizada automaticamente em nosso site .