| Literature DB >> 18350129 |
Tomas E Ward1, Christopher J Soraghan, Fiachra Matthews, Charles Markham.
Abstract
This paper describes a concept for the extension of constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) through the use of feedback of primary motor cortex activity. CIMT requires residual movement to act as a source of feedback to the patient, thus preventing its application to those with no perceptible movement. It is proposed in this paper that it is possible to provide feedback of the motor cortex effort to the patient by measurement with near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). Significant changes in such effort may be used to drive rehabilitative robotic actuators, for example. This may provide a possible avenue for extending CIMT to patients hitherto excluded as a result of severity of condition. In support of such a paradigm, this paper details the current status of CIMT and related attempts to extend rehabilitation therapy through the application of technology. An introduction to the relevant haemodynamics is given including a description of the basic technology behind a suitable NIRS system. An illustration of the proposed therapy is described using a simple NIRS system driving a robotic arm during simple upper-limb unilateral isometric contraction exercises with healthy subjects.Entities:
Year: 2007 PMID: 18350129 PMCID: PMC2266825 DOI: 10.1155/2007/51363
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1The Armdroid-1 robotic arm used in the feedback protocol.
Optode locations referenced to EEG 10–20 system.
| Optode descriptions | Light source location | Detector location |
|---|---|---|
| Channel 1 (left-hand side) |
|
|
| Channel 1 (right-hand side) |
|
|
Figure 2Illustration of relative positioning of optode sources and detectors.
Figure 3Illustration of the experimental sequencing. Shaded boxes are motor task periods.
Success rate in moving robot arm. Figures indicate the percentage of time subjects were able to keep the robot moving during each trial. That is, subject 4 successfully moved the robot 96.7% of the time during all 10 stimulus trials for the first session of left-arm maximum voluntary contraction (left 1).
| Subject | Left 1 (%) | Left 2 (%) | Right 1 (%) | Right 2 (%) | Subject average (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 87.2±23.9 | 90.4±11.0 | 91.8±15.9 | 95.4±5.1 | 91.2±13.9 |
| 2 | 82.4±20.2 | 88.2±13.4 | 73.5±25.9 | 82±25.2 | 81.5±21.2 |
| 3* | 74.7±25.8 | 64.3±21.7 | 63.7±33.6 | 46.8±38.7 | 62.4±29.9 |
| 4 | 96.7±3.2 | 98.4±2.9 | 90.2±19.1 | 86.5±23.6 | 93±12.2 |
*Subject 3 experiments had low-light levels, thus a lower SNR. A previous X-ray has also shown that he has a relatively thick skull.
Figure 4Top row shows average Hb (dashed trace) and HbO (solid trace) levels SD for subject 2. The bottom row shows average readings for subject 1. The left-hand column shows activity during motor task (between vertical dashed lines) while the right-hand column shows corresponding activity during rest. The abscissa for all plots is in seconds.