Deficit Fields for Stroke Recovery
2021年6月8日 更新者：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.
研究概览
地位
完全的
条件
研究类型
介入性
注册 (实际的)
45
阶段
- 不适用
联系人和位置
本节提供了进行研究的人员的详细联系信息，以及有关进行该研究的地点的信息。
学习地点
-
-
Illinois
-
Chicago、Illinois、美国、60611
- Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago
-
-
参与标准
研究人员寻找符合特定描述的人，称为资格标准。这些标准的一些例子是一个人的一般健康状况或先前的治疗。
资格标准
适合学习的年龄
18年 至 100年 (成人、年长者)
接受健康志愿者
是的
有资格学习的性别
全部
描述
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.
学习计划
本节提供研究计划的详细信息，包括研究的设计方式和研究的衡量标准。
研究是如何设计的？
设计细节
- 主要用途：治疗
- 分配：随机化
- 介入模型：并行分配
- 屏蔽：双倍的
武器和干预
参与者组/臂 |
干预/治疗 |
|---|---|
|
实验性的：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.
|
|
实验性的：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).
|
|
实验性的：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.
|
研究衡量的是什么？
主要结果指标
结果测量 |
措施说明 |
大体时间 |
|---|---|---|
|
Arm motor recovery scores on the Fugl-Meyer
大体时间：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
|
次要结果测量
结果测量 |
措施说明 |
大体时间 |
|---|---|---|
|
Number of blocks transferred in Box and Blocks Test
大体时间：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)
大体时间：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)
大体时间：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
大体时间：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)
大体时间：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
|
合作者和调查者
在这里您可以找到参与这项研究的人员和组织。
合作者
调查人员
- 首席研究员：James L Patton, PhD、Shirley Ryan Abilitylab
出版物和有用的链接
负责输入研究信息的人员自愿提供这些出版物。这些可能与研究有关。
研究记录日期
这些日期跟踪向 ClinicalTrials.gov 提交研究记录和摘要结果的进度。研究记录和报告的结果由国家医学图书馆 (NLM) 审查，以确保它们在发布到公共网站之前符合特定的质量控制标准。
研究主要日期
学习开始 (实际的)
2013年5月1日
初级完成 (实际的)
2019年6月30日
研究完成 (实际的)
2019年6月30日
研究注册日期
首次提交
2015年10月1日
首先提交符合 QC 标准的
2015年10月6日
首次发布 (估计)
2015年10月7日
研究记录更新
最后更新发布 (实际的)
2021年6月10日
上次提交的符合 QC 标准的更新
2021年6月8日
最后验证
2018年10月1日
更多信息
此信息直接从 clinicaltrials.gov 网站检索，没有任何更改。如果您有任何更改、删除或更新研究详细信息的请求，请联系 register@clinicaltrials.gov. clinicaltrials.gov 上实施更改，我们的网站上也会自动更新.