Crystal L Massie1, Yue Du2, Susan S Conroy3, H Igo Krebs4, George F Wittenberg5, Christopher T Bever5, Jill Whitall6. 1. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA massiec@iu.edu. 2. University of Maryland College Park, College Park, MD, USA. 3. VA Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. 5. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA VA Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robots designed for rehabilitation of the upper extremity after stroke facilitate high rates of repetition during practice of movements and record precise kinematic data, providing a method to investigate motor recovery profiles over time. OBJECTIVE: To determine how motor recovery profiles during robotic interventions provide insight into improving clinical gains. METHODS: A convenience sample (n = 22), from a larger randomized control trial, was taken of chronic stroke participants completing 12 sessions of arm therapy. One group received 60 minutes of robotic therapy (Robot only) and the other group received 45 minutes on the robot plus 15 minutes of translation-to-task practice (Robot + TTT). Movement time was assessed using the robot without powered assistance. Analyses (ANOVA, random coefficient modeling [RCM] with 2-term exponential function) were completed to investigate changes across the intervention, between sessions, and within a session. RESULTS: Significant improvement (P < .05) in movement time across the intervention (pre vs post) was similar between the groups but there were group differences for changes between and within sessions (P < .05). The 2-term exponential function revealed a fast and slow component of learning that described performance across consecutive blocks. The RCM identified individuals who were above or below the marginal model. CONCLUSIONS: The expanded analyses indicated that changes across time can occur in different ways but achieve similar goals and may be influenced by individual factors such as initial movement time. These findings will guide decisions regarding treatment planning based on rates of motor relearning during upper extremity stroke robotic interventions.
BACKGROUND: Robots designed for rehabilitation of the upper extremity after stroke facilitate high rates of repetition during practice of movements and record precise kinematic data, providing a method to investigate motor recovery profiles over time. OBJECTIVE: To determine how motor recovery profiles during robotic interventions provide insight into improving clinical gains. METHODS: A convenience sample (n = 22), from a larger randomized control trial, was taken of chronic stroke participants completing 12 sessions of arm therapy. One group received 60 minutes of robotic therapy (Robot only) and the other group received 45 minutes on the robot plus 15 minutes of translation-to-task practice (Robot + TTT). Movement time was assessed using the robot without powered assistance. Analyses (ANOVA, random coefficient modeling [RCM] with 2-term exponential function) were completed to investigate changes across the intervention, between sessions, and within a session. RESULTS: Significant improvement (P < .05) in movement time across the intervention (pre vs post) was similar between the groups but there were group differences for changes between and within sessions (P < .05). The 2-term exponential function revealed a fast and slow component of learning that described performance across consecutive blocks. The RCM identified individuals who were above or below the marginal model. CONCLUSIONS: The expanded analyses indicated that changes across time can occur in different ways but achieve similar goals and may be influenced by individual factors such as initial movement time. These findings will guide decisions regarding treatment planning based on rates of motor relearning during upper extremity stroke robotic interventions.
Authors: Elaine L Miller; Laura Murray; Lorie Richards; Richard D Zorowitz; Tamilyn Bakas; Patricia Clark; Sandra A Billinger Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Gerdienke B Prange; Michiel J A Jannink; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Hermie J Hermens; Maarten J Ijzerman Journal: J Rehabil Res Dev Date: 2006 Mar-Apr
Authors: Susan S Conroy; Jill Whitall; Laura Dipietro; Lauren M Jones-Lush; Min Zhan; Margaret A Finley; George F Wittenberg; Hermano I Krebs; Christopher T Bever Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Albert C Lo; Peter D Guarino; Lorie G Richards; Jodie K Haselkorn; George F Wittenberg; Daniel G Federman; Robert J Ringer; Todd H Wagner; Hermano I Krebs; Bruce T Volpe; Christopher T Bever; Dawn M Bravata; Pamela W Duncan; Barbara H Corn; Alysia D Maffucci; Stephen E Nadeau; Susan S Conroy; Janet M Powell; Grant D Huang; Peter Peduzzi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-04-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Elaine Little; Carolyn Emery; Stephen H Scott; Willem Meeuwisse; Luz Palacios-Derflingher; Sean P Dukelow Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2016-10-12 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Alexa B Keeling; Mark Piitz; Jennifer A Semrau; Michael D Hill; Stephen H Scott; Sean P Dukelow Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 4.262