BACKGROUND: Robots that physically assist movement are increasingly used in rehabilitation therapy after stroke, yet some studies suggest robotic assistance discourages effort and reduces motor learning. OBJECTIVE: To determine the therapeutic effects of high and low levels of robotic assistance during finger training. METHODS: We designed a protocol that varied the amount of robotic assistance while controlling the number, amplitude, and exerted effort of training movements. Participants (n = 30) with a chronic stroke and moderate hemiparesis (average Box and Blocks Test 32 ± 18 and upper extremity Fugl-Meyer score 46 ± 12) actively moved their index and middle fingers to targets to play a musical game similar to GuitarHero 3 h/wk for 3 weeks. The participants were randomized to receive high assistance (causing 82% success at hitting targets) or low assistance (55% success). Participants performed ~8000 movements during 9 training sessions. RESULTS: Both groups improved significantly at the 1-month follow-up on functional and impairment-based motor outcomes, on depression scores, and on self-efficacy of hand function, with no difference between groups in the primary endpoint (change in Box and Blocks). High assistance boosted motivation, as well as secondary motor outcomes (Fugl-Meyer and Lateral Pinch Strength)-particularly for individuals with more severe finger motor deficits. Individuals with impaired finger proprioception at baseline benefited less from the training. CONCLUSIONS:Robot-assisted training can promote key psychological outcomes known to modulate motor learning and retention. Furthermore, the therapeutic effectiveness of robotic assistance appears to derive at least in part from proprioceptive stimulation, consistent with a Hebbian plasticity model.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Robots that physically assist movement are increasingly used in rehabilitation therapy after stroke, yet some studies suggest robotic assistance discourages effort and reduces motor learning. OBJECTIVE: To determine the therapeutic effects of high and low levels of robotic assistance during finger training. METHODS: We designed a protocol that varied the amount of robotic assistance while controlling the number, amplitude, and exerted effort of training movements. Participants (n = 30) with a chronic stroke and moderate hemiparesis (average Box and Blocks Test 32 ± 18 and upper extremity Fugl-Meyer score 46 ± 12) actively moved their index and middle fingers to targets to play a musical game similar to GuitarHero 3 h/wk for 3 weeks. The participants were randomized to receive high assistance (causing 82% success at hitting targets) or low assistance (55% success). Participants performed ~8000 movements during 9 training sessions. RESULTS: Both groups improved significantly at the 1-month follow-up on functional and impairment-based motor outcomes, on depression scores, and on self-efficacy of hand function, with no difference between groups in the primary endpoint (change in Box and Blocks). High assistance boosted motivation, as well as secondary motor outcomes (Fugl-Meyer and Lateral Pinch Strength)-particularly for individuals with more severe finger motor deficits. Individuals with impaired finger proprioception at baseline benefited less from the training. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted training can promote key psychological outcomes known to modulate motor learning and retention. Furthermore, the therapeutic effectiveness of robotic assistance appears to derive at least in part from proprioceptive stimulation, consistent with a Hebbian plasticity model.
Authors: Neville Hogan; Hermano I Krebs; Brandon Rohrer; Jerome J Palazzolo; Laura Dipietro; Susan E Fasoli; Joel Stein; Richard Hughes; Walter R Frontera; Daniel Lynch; Bruce T Volpe Journal: J Rehabil Res Dev Date: 2006 Aug-Sep
Authors: Bruce T Volpe; Mark Ferraro; Daniel Lynch; Paul Christos; Jennifer Krol; Christine Trudell; Hermano I Krebs; Neville Hogan Journal: Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 5.081
Authors: Joseph Hidler; Diane Nichols; Marlena Pelliccio; Kathy Brady; Donielle D Campbell; Jennifer H Kahn; T George Hornby Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Duncan L Turner; Ander Ramos-Murguialday; Niels Birbaumer; Ulrich Hoffmann; Andreas Luft Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: S L Norman; D J McFarland; A Miner; S C Cramer; E T Wolbrecht; J R Wolpaw; D J Reinkensmeyer Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Eric T Wolbrecht; Justin B Rowe; Vicky Chan; Morgan L Ingemanson; Steven C Cramer; David J Reinkensmeyer Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2018-02-03 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Morgan L Ingemanson; Justin R Rowe; Vicky Chan; Eric T Wolbrecht; David J Reinkensmeyer; Steven C Cramer Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Quentin Sanders; Vicky Chan; Renee Augsburger; Steven C Cramer; David J Reinkensmeyer; An H Do Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 4.528