Chantel T Debert1, Troy M Herter, Stephen H Scott, Sean Dukelow. 1. The Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Robotic technology is commonly used to quantify aspects of typical sensorimotor function. We evaluated the feasibility of using robotic technology to assess visuomotor and position sense impairments following traumatic brain injury (TBI). We present results of robotic sensorimotor function testing in 12 subjects with TBI, who had a range of initial severities (9 severe, 2 moderate, 1 mild), and contrast these results with those of clinical tests. We also compared these with robotic test outcomes in persons without disability. METHODS: For each subject with TBI, a review of the initial injury and neuroradiologic findings was conducted. Following this, each subject completed a number of standardized clinical measures (Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Purdue Peg Board, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Rancho Los Amigos Scale), followed by two robotic tasks. A visually guided reaching task was performed to assess visuomotor control of the upper limb. An arm position-matching task was used to assess position sense. Robotic task performance in the subjects with TBI was compared with findings in a cohort of 170 person without disabilities. RESULTS: Subjects with TBI demonstrated a broad range of sensory and motor deficits on robotic testing. Notably, several subjects with TBI displayed significant deficits in one or both of the robotic tasks, despite normal scores on traditional clinical motor and cognitive assessment measures. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate the potential of robotic assessments for identifying deficits in visuomotor control and position sense following TBI. Improved identification of neurologic impairments following TBI may ultimately enhance rehabilitation.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Robotic technology is commonly used to quantify aspects of typical sensorimotor function. We evaluated the feasibility of using robotic technology to assess visuomotor and position sense impairments following traumatic brain injury (TBI). We present results of robotic sensorimotor function testing in 12 subjects with TBI, who had a range of initial severities (9 severe, 2 moderate, 1 mild), and contrast these results with those of clinical tests. We also compared these with robotic test outcomes in persons without disability. METHODS: For each subject with TBI, a review of the initial injury and neuroradiologic findings was conducted. Following this, each subject completed a number of standardized clinical measures (Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Purdue Peg Board, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Rancho Los Amigos Scale), followed by two robotic tasks. A visually guided reaching task was performed to assess visuomotor control of the upper limb. An arm position-matching task was used to assess position sense. Robotic task performance in the subjects with TBI was compared with findings in a cohort of 170 person without disabilities. RESULTS: Subjects with TBI demonstrated a broad range of sensory and motor deficits on robotic testing. Notably, several subjects with TBI displayed significant deficits in one or both of the robotic tasks, despite normal scores on traditional clinical motor and cognitive assessment measures. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate the potential of robotic assessments for identifying deficits in visuomotor control and position sense following TBI. Improved identification of neurologic impairments following TBI may ultimately enhance rehabilitation.
Authors: Vignesh Subbian; Jason M Meunier; Joseph J Korfhagen; Jonathan J Ratcliff; George J Shaw; Fred R Beyette Journal: Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2014
Authors: Vignesh Subbian; Jonathan J Ratcliff; Joseph J Korfhagen; Kimberly W Hart; Jason M Meunier; George J Shaw; Christopher J Lindsell; Fred R Beyette Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2016-03-21 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Andrea M Kuczynski; Sean P Dukelow; Jacquie A Hodge; Helen L Carlson; Catherine Lebel; Jennifer A Semrau; Adam Kirton Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Michael D Wood; Leif E R Simmatis; Jill A Jacobson; Sean P Dukelow; J Gordon Boyd; Stephen H Scott Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Morgan L Ingemanson; Justin B Rowe; Vicky Chan; Eric T Wolbrecht; Steven C Cramer; David J Reinkensmeyer Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 2.064
Authors: C Elaine Little; Carolyn Emery; Amanda Black; Stephen H Scott; Willem Meeuwisse; Alberto Nettel-Aguirre; Brian Benson; Sean Dukelow Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2015-09-05 Impact factor: 4.262