| Literature DB >> 30057563 |
Abstract
Background: External auditory stimuli have been widely used for recovering arm function post-stroke. Rhythmic and real-time auditory stimuli have been reported to enhance motor recovery by facilitating perceptuomotor representation, cross-modal processing, and neural plasticity. However, a consensus as to their influence for recovering arm function post-stroke is still warranted because of high variability noted in research methods. Objective: A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to analyze the effects of rhythmic and real-time auditory stimuli on arm recovery post stroke. Method: Systematic identification of published literature was performed according to PRISMA guidelines, from inception until December 2017, on online databases: Web of science, PEDro, EBSCO, MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, and PROQUEST. Studies were critically appraised using PEDro scale.Entities:
Keywords: cognitive-motor interference; cueing; hemiplegia; paresis; rehabilitation; spasticity; stability
Year: 2018 PMID: 30057563 PMCID: PMC6053522 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00488
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Sample search strategy EMBASE.
| P | #1 | (“Stroke” OR “Apoplexy” OR “CVA” OR “Cerebral Stroke” OR “Cerebrovascular accident” OR “Cerebrovascular Accident, Acute” OR “Cerebrovascular Apoplexy” OR “Cerebrovascular Stroke” OR “Stroke, Acute” OR “Vascular Accident, Brain” OR “Hemiplegia, Crossed” OR “Hemiplegia, Flaccid” OR “Hemiplegia, Spastic” OR “Hemiplegia, Transient” OR “Monoplegia” OR “Upper Extremity Paresis” OR “Muscular Paresis” OR “Muscle Paresis” OR “Monoparesis” OR “Hemiparesis”)/de OR (Stroke OR Apoplexy OR CVA OR Cerebral Stroke OR Cerebrovascular accident OR Cerebrovascular Accident, Acute OR Cerebrovascular Apoplexy OR Cerebrovascular Stroke OR Stroke, Acute OR Vascular Accident, Brain OR Hemiplegia, Crossed OR Hemiplegia, Flaccid OR Hemiplegia, Spastic OR Hemiplegia, Transient OR Monoplegia OR Upper Extremity Paresis OR Muscular Paresis OR Muscle Paresis OR Monoparesis OR Hemiparesis):ti,ab |
| I | #2 | (“rhythmic auditory cueing” OR “rhythmic auditory cueing” OR “rhythmic acoustic cueing” OR “rhythmic auditory entrainment” OR “metronome cueing” OR “metronome” OR “rhythmic metronome cueing” OR “acoustic stimulus” OR “acoustic cueing” OR “acoustic cueing” OR “external stimuli” OR “external cueing” OR “external cueing” OR “music therapy” OR “Neurological music therapy” OR “tempo” OR “beat” OR “rhythm” OR “RAC” OR “NMT” OR “real-time auditory feedback” OR “sonification”)/de OR (rhythmic auditory cueing OR rhythmic auditory cueing OR rhythmic acoustic cueing OR rhythmic auditory entrainment OR metronome cueing OR metronome OR rhythmic metronome cueing OR acoustic stimulus OR acoustic cueing OR acoustic cueing OR external stimuli OR external cueing OR external cueing OR music therapy OR Neurological music therapy OR tempo OR beat OR rhythm OR RAC OR NMT OR real-time auditory feedback OR sonification)ti,ab |
| C | n/a | n/a |
| O | #3 | (“Range of Motion” OR “Passive Range of Motion” OR “Joint Range of Motion” OR “Joint Flexibility” “elbow” OR “shoulder” OR “wrist” OR “Fugl Meyer Assessment” OR “Fugl-Meyer assessment for upper extremity” OR “FMA” OR “Wolf motor assessment” OR “WMA” OR “Wolf motor test” OR “Nine hole peg test” OR “NHPT” OR “9HPT” OR “Action reach arm test” OR “ARAT” OR “Stroke index scale” OR “SIS” OR “BATRAC” OR “Bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing” OR “Unilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing” OR “Arm reach training” OR “BBT” OR “Box and block test” OR “Motor activity log” OR “MAL” OR “Cincinnati Stroke Scale” OR “Los Angeles Prehospital Stroke Scale” OR “ABCD Score” OR “Canadian Neurological Scale” OR “European Stroke Scale” OR “Hemispheric Stroke Scale” OR “NIH Stroke Scale” OR “Modified Rankin Scale” OR “Stroke Specific Quality of Life Measure” OR “Health Survey SF-36” OR “Health Survey SF-12”)/de OR (Range of Motion OR Passive Range of Motion OR Joint Range of Motion OR Joint Flexibility elbow OR shoulder OR wrist OR Fugl Meyer Assessment OR Fugl-Meyer assessment for upper extremity OR FMA OR Wolf motor assessment OR WMA OR Wolf motor test OR Nine hole peg test OR NHPT OR 9HPT OR Action reach arm test OR ARAT OR Stroke index scale OR SIS OR BATRAC OR Bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing OR Unilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing OR Arm reach training OR BBT OR Box and block test OR Motor activity log OR MAL OR Cincinnati Stroke Scale OR Los Angeles Prehospital Stroke Scale OR ABCD Score OR Canadian Neurological Scale OR European Stroke Scale OR Hemispheric Stroke Scale OR NIH Stroke Scale OR Modified Rankin Scale OR Stroke Specific Quality of Life Measure OR Health Survey SF-36 OR Health Survey SF-12);ti,ab |
| S | #6 | (“intervention study” OR “cohort analysis” OR “longitudinal study” OR “cluster analysis” OR “crossover trial” OR “cluster analysis” OR “randomized trial” OR “major clinical study”)/de OR (longitudinal OR cohort OR crossover trial OR cluster analysis OR randomized trial OR clinical trial OR controlled trial);ti,ab |
| #4 | (“rehabilitation” OR “treatment” OR “rehab” OR “management” OR “therapy” OR “physiotherapy” OR “physical therapy” OR “prevention” OR “risk prevention”)/de OR (rehabilitation OR treatment OR rehab OR management OR therapy OR physiotherapy OR physical therapy OR prevention OR risk prevention);ti,ab | |
| #5 | (“age groups” OR “adolescent” OR “young” OR “elderly” OR “old” AND (“gender” OR “male” OR “female”)/de OR [age groups OR adolescent OR young OR elderly OR old AND (gender OR male OR female)];ti;ab |
Effects of auditory stimuli on arm function post-stroke.
| Bang ( | Effect of R-af on arm function in patients affected from stroke | Exp: 4F, 6M (61.3 ± 4.8) Ct: 5F, 5M (58.2 ± 5.1) | 9 | Exp: 8.9 ± 3.1 years Ct: 10.3 ± 3.7 years | ARAT, FMA, motor activity log (quality of movement, amount of use) and modified Ashworth scale | Pre-test, modified constraint induced movement therapy with/without R-af for 1 h/day, 5 days/week for 4 weeks, post-test | R-af (proportional to reduced pressure by shoulder on the sensor) Frequency faded off with progression from every 1/3rd trial | Significant enhancement in ARAT, FMA, motor activity log (quality of movement, amount of use), modified ashworth scale after training with R-af and in Exp as compared to Ct |
| Scholz et al. ( | Effects of R-af on gross motor functions on participants affected from stroke (right hemiparesis). | Exp: 1F (59), 1M (85) Ct: 2M (61.5 ± 3.5) | 4 | – | FMA, ARAT, BBT, 9-HPT, and SIS | Patients moved their arms in a 3D R-af space, for 9 days of training with R-af (30 min/day) | X axis: Brightness mapped, increased from left to right Y axis: Pitch mapped, increased from bottom to up Z axis: Volume, increased when closed to the participant | Exp: Enhancements were observed for participants in FMA, ARAT, 9-HPT, and SIS Ct: No enhancements were observed for, but minimally for one participants in FMA, and the other in SIS |
| Malcolm et al. ( | Effect of RAC on arm kinematics in patients affected from stroke | 5M (72.8 ± 6.5) | 4 | 0.7 ± 0.4 years | Movement time, reach velocity, wolf motor function test, FMA, and motor activity log | Pre-test, 1-h session followed by 2 h of home training, 3 times/week for 2 weeks with RAC and reaching performed in sagittal, frontal and diagonal planes, post-test | RAC at patients preferred pace of movement | Significantly enhanced reaching velocity, FMA, and motor activity log after training with RAC Significantly reduced reaching time, wolf motor function test performance time after training from RAC |
| Speth ( | Effect of RAC on arm reaching in patients affected from stroke | 8 stroke patients | 4 | – | BBT for (paretic/non-paretic side) | BBT performance with/without RAC i.e., waltz music, metronome | RAC (200 bpm), waltz music (200 bpm) cueing | Enhanced performance for BBT with waltz music>RAC>no feedback for both paretic and non-paretic arms |
| Effect of RAC on robot-assisted arm reaching in patients affected from stroke | 11F, 22M (51.6 ± 15.9), severe: 18, moderate: 8, mild: 8 Exp: 14 [A; severe (11), moderate (4), mild (4)] [B: 2–6 months' post stroke (8), >12months post stroke (9)] Ct: 14 [A: severe (6), moderate (4), mild (4)] [B: 2-6 months' post stroke (9), >12months post stroke (5)] | 1.2 ± 1.3 years | BBT, 9-HPT, and intrinsic motivation inventory | Pre-test, robot assisted arm training “Amadeo” with (Exp)/without (Ct) RAC (polymetric music, game-related action feedback) for 45 min for 9 times for 3–4 weeks, post-test, retention measurement after 8 weeks' post-test | RAC by polymetric music (rhythmic adaptability to multi-joint movements in hand and finger movement e.g., first 3/4 m containing 2 bars, second 2/4 m containing 3 bars, 3rd 3/8 m containing 4 bars: all sounds played in one absolute time frame) and game related sounds (error feedback, natural sounds) together | Significant enhancement in mean BBT for moderate and mild affected patients, for Exp as compared to Ct Significant reduction in mean box and block test for severely affected patients, for Ct as compared to Exp Enhancement in 9-HPT for Exp as compared to Ct Significant enhancement in intrinsic motivation inventory for (interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, relaxation, perceived choice) for Exp as compared to Ct | ||
| Scholz et al. ( | Effects of R-af on gross motor functions on participants affected from stroke (right hemiparesis). | Exp: 7F, 8M (68.8 ± 13.6) Ct: 4F, 6M (72.2 ± 8.4) | 6 | Exp: 32.5 days Ct: 28 days | FMA, ARAT, BBT, 9-HPT, and SIS | Patients moved their arms in a 3D sonification space, for 10 days of sonification training (30 min/day). | X axis: Brightness mapped, increased from left to right Y axis: Pitch mapped, increased from bottom to up Z axis: Volume, increased when closed to the participant | Exp: Significant enhancements were observed for participants in movement smoothness, FMA, SIS as compared to Ct Enhancements were observed in ARAT, BBT and 9-HPT Ct: No significant enhancements were observed post sham training |
| van Delden et al. ( | Effects of RAC on arm reaching in patients affected from stroke | Exp: 8F, 11M (62.6 ± 9.8) Ct I: 3F, 16M (56.9 ± 12.7) CT II: 8F, 14M (59.8 ± 13.8) | 7 | Exp: 7.8 ± 4.9 weeks Ct I: 9.2 ± 6.8 weeks Ct II: 11.1 ± 6.8 weeks | ARAT, motricity index, FMA, 9-HPT, Erasmus modification of Nottingham sensory assessment, motor activity log test and SIS | Pre-test, BATRAC (Exp), modified constrained induced movement therapy (Ct I), conventional therapy (Ct II), for 60 min session, 3 times/week, post-test, 6 weeks follow up post-test | RAC (rhythmic flexion-extension at the wrist joint) | Significant enhancement in ARAT with BATRAC No differences in between Exp, Ct I, Ct II |
| Schmitz et al. ( | Effect of R-af on reaching task in patients affected from stroke | Exp: 1F, 3M (65 ± 14.8) Ct: 3F (56 ± 5.3) | 4 | - | ARAT, 9HPT, and BBT | I: Reaching and retraction task by affected arm. II: Patients repositioned a ball on objects of different shapes. Training for 5 days for 5 sessions of 20 min each | Arm velocity: modulates amplitude of sound Elevation angle: modulates frequencies between 133.3 and 266.6 Hz. Radial arm amplitude: modulates brightness | Significant enhancements were observed in BBT for Exp as compared to Ct. Enhancements were observed in 9HPT and ARAT. Ct: No significant enhancements were observed |
| Kim et al. ( | Effects of RAC on arm reaching performance in patients affected from stroke | 7F, 9M (49.2 ± 17.6) | 4 | 1.9 ± 2.2 years | Movement time, movement unit, elbow extension range of motion by 3D motion detection, triceps, biceps brachii muscle activation and co-contraction ratio from EMG | Repetitive reaching task performed with/without RAC from affected arm | RAC at patients preferred pace of movement | Significant enhancement in elbow range of motion, tricpes brachii activation with RAC Significant reduction in co-contraction ratio, movement time and movement unit with RAC |
| Shahine and Shafshak ( | Effect of RAC on arm function in patients affected from stroke | Exp: 19F, 21M (61.4 ± 5.5) Ct: 17F, 19M (62.7 ± 3.1) | 9 | Exp: 2.6 ± 1.8 years Ct: 2.9 ± 0.7 years | FMA and transcutaneous magnetic stimulation eliciting motor evoked potential in paretic abductor pollicis brevis (motor evoked potential resting threshold, central motor conduction time) | Pre-test, BATRAC for 1-h session/day, 3seesions/week, for 8 weeks, post-test | RAC at patients preferred pace of movement (frequency 0.25–1/s) | Significant enhancement in FMA, motor evoked potential amplitude ratio after BATRAC Significant reduction in motor evoked potential resting threshold, central motor conduction time after bilateral arm training with RAC, and in Exp as compared to Ct |
| Dispa et al. ( | Effect of RAC on arm reaching in patients affected from stroke | 1F, 9M (66 ± 11.1) | 8 | 2.3 ± 2.6 years | Grip lift parameters (preloading-loading phase, maximum grip force, hold ratio, cross correlation coefficient, time shift), digital dexterity, activity limitation manual ability, satisfaction in activities, and participation | Pre-test, post-test after 4 weeks of no-training, unilateral-bilateral (modified BBT) repetitive grip lift task oriented training with RAC for 1-h session, 3 days/week for 4 weeks, post-test at 4 weeks after training, retention measurement after 4 weeks | RAC at patients preferred pace of movement | Reduction in preloading phase of grip lift parameters for the paretic hand after 4 weeks of training and during retention measurement. Enhancement in loading phase of grip lift parameters for the paretic hand after 4 weeks of training and during retention measurement. No effect on grip lift parameters (maximum grip force, hold ratio, cross correlation coefficient, time shift), digital dexterity, activity limitation manual ability, satisfaction in activities, and participation after 4 weeks of training or during retention measurement. |
| Whitall et al. ( | Effect of RAC in arm reaching patients affected from stroke | Exp: 16F, 26M (59.8 ± 9.9) Ct: 26F, 24M (57.7 ± 12.5) fMRI: Exp: 10F, 7M (61.2 ± 13.8) Ct: 10F, 11M (54.8 ± 13.1) | 6 | Exp: 4.5 ± 4.1 years Ct: 4.1 ± 5.2 years | FMA, wolf motor test (time, weight, function, SIS (emotion, hand, strength), isokinetic strength (elbow flexion-extension nonparetic side, elbow extension paretic side) and isometric strength (shoulder extension, wrist flexion-extension nonparetic side, shoulder extension, wrist extension, elbow flexion paretic side) | Pre-test, BATRAC for 1-h session, 3 times/week for 6 weeks, post-test | RAC at patients preferred pace of movement | Significant enhancement in FMA, wolf motor test (weight, function), SIS (hand, strength), isokinetic strength (elbow extension nonparetic side, elbow extension paretic side), isometric strength (shoulder extension, wrist extension nonparetic side, shoulder extension) assessment in Exp after training with RAC Significant reduction in wolf motor test (time) in Exp after training with RAC Significant enhancement in isokinetic strength (elbow flexion nonparetic side), isometric strength (wrist flexion, nonparetic side, wrist extension paretic side) in Exp as compared to Ct |
| Exp: 3.9 2.7 Ct: 3.3 2.1 | Significant enhancement in activation for ipsilesional precentral, anterior cingulate, postcentral gyri, supplementary motor area in Exp after training with RAC as compared to Ct. Significant enhancement in contralesional superior frontal gyrus in Exp after training with RAC, as compared to Ct | |||||||
| Chouhan and Kumar ( | Effect of RAC on gait and arm reaching in patients affected from stroke | Exp: 3F, 12M (56.7 ± 5.9) Ct I: 3F, 12M (58.1 ± 4.1) Ct II: 3F, 12M (57.3 ± 5.5) | 5 | – | Dynamic gait index and FMA | Pre-test, gait, reaching task training with RAC (0% of preferred cadence initially, increased by +10% every week if comfortable for patient: for gait) (Exp) or visual feedback (Ct I) for 2 h training, 3 time/week session for 3 weeks, post-tests at 7, 14, 21, 28 days | RAC at 0% and +10% on following weeks of preferred movement pace, and gait (cadence) | Significant enhancements in FMA, dynamic gait index (14, 21, 28 days only) after 7, 14, 21, 28 days of training with RAC and in Exp as compared to Ct II |
| Secoli et al. ( | Effect of RAC on tracking task in patients affected from stroke. | Exp: (affect left hemisphere) 8F, 6M (56.3 ± 12.3) Ct: (affect right hemisphere) 1F, 4M (61.8 ± 5) Healthy: 2F, 12M (27 ± 7.5) | 4 | 4.6 ± 1 years | Arm movements with robot assisted force production to execute task in Z dimension Positioning error in Z dimension | Patients performed tracking task with robot assisted device in with/without visual distractor task and/or with/without RAC | Tonal beeps sampled at frequency of 800 Hz and lasting for 0.1 s Frequency manipulated proportionally to vector magnitude of position tracking error within dead-zone. Error direction determined by left and right channel of auditory input | Significant reduction in robot assisted force in Exp when auditory input was delivered, suggesting significant enhancement in arm functioning Significant reduction in robot assisted force for the paretic side as compared to healthy side with RAC No effect on position tracking accuracy |
| Thielman ( | Effect of RAC on arm reaching in patients affected from stroke | Exp: 2F, 6M (62.9 ± 6.5) Ct: 4F, 4M (63 ± 9.2) | 4 | Exp: 2.2 ± 0.7 years Ct: 1.8 ± 1.4 years | Reaching performance scale for near and far targets, FMA, wolf motor function test, shoulder flexion range of motion, motor activity log, grip strength and elbow active range of motion | Pre-test (< 5days before training), training for arm reaching with pressure sensor generated auditory feedback (Exp), stabilizer (restrained Ct) on arm reaching for 40-45 minutes' session, 2-3days/week (12 total sessions), post-test (< 2days after training) | R-af (proportional to reduced pressure by shoulder on the sensor) Frequency faded off with progression from every 1/3rd trial. | Significant enhancement in reaching performance scale for near-far targets, FMA in Exp after training with R-af Significant reduction in wolf motor function test in Exp after training with R-af Enhancement in shoulder flexion, motor activity log and elbow active range of motion in Exp after training with R-af |
| Johannsen et al. ( | Effect of RAC on arm reaching and gait in patients affected from stroke | Exp I: 3F, 8M (59.5 ± 13.4) Exp II: 3F, 7M (68.1 ± 10.1) | 6 | 5.2 ± 4.2 years | FMA (upper/lower extremity), 10-m walking test, treadmill (step length) and repetitive foot/hand aiming task | Pre-test, BATRAC (arm: Exp I/leg: Exp II) for 45 min session, 2 times/week for 5 weeks, post-test, follow up post-test after 18 weeks | RAC at patients preferred pace of movement (increased at patient's preference) Bilateral training for lower extremities: increased pacing during training from 36.7 ± 6.5 to 45.9 ± 9.5 beats per minute BATRAC: increased pacing during training from 39.8 ± 5.6 to 46.3 ± 5.9 beats per minute | Significant enhancement in treadmill step length on both paretic and non-paretic side after bilateral leg training in Exp II as compared to Exp I (no effects), during immediate follow-up test. No effects in follow up post-test. Enhancement in FMA test for lower extremity in Exp II> Exp I at post-test. No enhancements in follow up post-test Enhancement in fugl meyer motor test for upper extremity in Exp I> Exp II at post-test. No enhancements in follow up post-test Enhancement in treadmill step length on both paretic and non-paretic side after bilateral arm training in Exp I as compared to Exp II for 18 week follow up post-test Enhancement in repetitive foot and arm aiming task on both paretic and non-paretic side after bilateral leg training in Exp II during immediate post-tests. No effects on follow up post-tests |
| Stoykov et al. ( | Effects of RAC on arm reaching in patients affected from stroke | Exp I: 3F, 9M (63.8 ± 12.6) Exp II: 5F, 7M (64.7 ± 11.1) | 6 | Exp I: 9.5 ± 5.4 years Exp II: 10.2 ± 10.1 years | Motor assessment scale (upper arm function, hand movements, upper limb items, advanced hand activities), motor status scale (total, shoulder-elbow, wrist-hand scale), shoulder flexion strength and wrist flexion-extension strength | Pre-test, arm reach training with bilateral (Exp I), unilateral (Exp II) arm training with RAC (for 4 tasks), for 60 minutes' session, 3 times/week for 8 weeks, post-test, RAC (rhythmic flexion-extension at the wrist joint) | RAC at patients preferred pace of movement (0.25-1.5 Hz) incremented gradually during training | Significant enhancement in motor assessment scale (upper arm function, upper limb items) for Exp I Significant enhancement in motor status scale (total, shoulder-elbow, wrist-hand scale), shoulder flexion strength, wrist flexion-extension strength for Exp I and Exp II Enhancement in motor assessment scale (advanced hand activities) in Exp I No differences in motor assessment scale for unilateral arm training for Exp II |
| Richards et al. ( | Effects of RAC on arm reaching in patients affected from stroke | 5F, 9M (64.4 ± 12.8) | 4 | 5.4 ± 4 years | FMA, wolf motor function test and motor activity log (use, ability) | Pre-test, BATRAC for 1-hour session, 3 times/week, for 6 weeks, post-test | RAC at patients preferred pace of movement | Enhancement in FMA, motor activity log (ability and use) in Exp after training with RAC No effect on wolf motor function test in Exp after training with RAC |
| Jeong and Kim ( | Effects of RAC on range of motion, flexibility in patients affected from stroke | Exp: 5F, 11M (58 ± 7.1) Ct: 5F, 12 M (62.2 ± 8.1) | 4 | Exp: 5.4 ± 4.5 years Ct: 7.2 ± 5.3 years | Shoulder flexion, ankle flexion-extension range of motion and back-scratch test for flexibility upwards/downward the affected arm, profile of mood states, relationship change scale and stroke specific quality of life scale | Pre-test, training for motor activities with RAC for 2 hours/ week for 8 weeks (functional ambulatory training), and self-training at home, post-test | RAC (music) at patients preferred pace of movement | Significant enhancement of range of motion for shoulder flexion, ankle flexion-extension, shoulder flexibility in Exp as compared to Ct, on the affected side Significant enhancement of mood states, interpersonal relationships in Exp Enhancement in quality of life in Exp |
| Waller and Whitall ( | Effects of RAC on arm reaching in patients affected from stroke | Right hemisphere lesion: 2F, 9M (64.3 ± 10) Left hemisphere lesion: 3F, 8M (58.6 ± 17) | 5 | 6.5 ± 4.1 years | FMA, University of Maryland questionnaire for stroke, wolf motor arm test (weight, time), active range of motion elbow flexion, shoulder extension and strength (shoulder extension-abduction-adduction, wrist flexion-extension) | Pre-test, BATRAC for 1-h session, 3 times/week for 6 weeks, post-test | RAC at patients preferred pace of movement | Significant enhancement in FMA, University of Maryland questionnaire, active range of motion elbow flexion, shoulder extension (left hemisphere only), strength (shoulder extension (left hemisphere only)-abduction (left only)-adduction, wrist flexion-extension), wolf motor arm test (weight) for stroke for right and left hemisphere lesion patients after training with RAC Significant reduction in wolf motor arm test (time) for patients with left hemisphere lesions as compared right hemisphere lesions after training with RAC Significant enhancement in University of Maryland questionnaire for stroke, wolf motor assessment test (weight, time), active range of motion elbow flexion, shoulder extension, strength (shoulder extension-abduction-adduction, wrist flexion-extension) for patients with left hemisphere lesions as compared to right hemisphere lesions after training with RAC |
| Luft et al. ( | Effect of RAC on arm function in patients affected from stroke | Exp: 2F, 7M (63.3 ± 15.3) Ct: 7F, 5M (59.6 ± 10.5) | 6 | 6.2 (3.1–7) years | FMA, shoulder, elbow strength, Wolf motor arm test (weight, time), University of Maryland arm questionnaire for stroke and functional magnetic resonance imaging | Pre-test, BATRAC for 1-h session/day, 3 times/week for 6 weeks, post-test | RAC at patients preferred pace of movement (0.67–0.97 Hz) | After exclusion of 3 patients from Exp: Significant enhancement in FMA in Exp as compared to Ct. Enhancement in shoulder, elbow strength, Wolf motor arm test (weight), University of Maryland arm questionnaire for stroke in Exp as compared to Ct. Reduction in wolf motor arm test (time) in Exp as compared to Ct. Significant enhancements in cerebellum, precentral and postcentral gyri activation after BATRAC |
| Thaut et al. ( | Effects of RAC on arm reaching task in patients affected from stroke | 8F, 13M (52.7 ± 13.7) | 4 | – | Wrist trajectory, elbow, shoulder kinematic and optimization model of peak acceleration of wrist joint coordinates | Reaching tasks initiated with/without rhythmic auditory feedback/external time cueing (counterbalanced) | RAC at patients preferred pace of movement 1,000 Hz square wave tone 50 ms pattern | Significant enhancement in elbow range of motion with RAC Significantly reduced trajectory variability of wrist joint, deviation of acceleration curves from optimal coordinates of wrist joint with RAC No effect on arm timing, shoulder joint displacement |
| Maulucci and Eckhouse ( | Effects of R-af on reaching task in patients affected from chronic stroke | Healthy: 15F, 9M Exp: 3F, 5M Ct:4F, 4M | 4 | – | Normal trajectory region for end effectors and reach parameters | Normal participants performed and established generalized repeatability for the experimental groups. Reach trials performed for 42 trials 3 times/week for 6 weeks. Residual performance evaluated post 2 weeks without auditory feedback | Regulated R-af of magnitude and existence of error from normal ellipsoid reach area. | Significant enhancement in trajectory performance for Exp group as compared to Ct group Significant enhancement in both Exp and Ct group for reach trajectory |
| Whitall et al. ( | Effects of RAC on arm motor function in patients affected from stroke | 6F, 8M (63.7 ± 12.6) | 6 | 5.5 ± 7.9 years | Active, passive range of motion of upper extremity, isometric shoulder, elbow, wrist force (flexion/extension) assessment, FMA, wolf motor function test and modified University of Maryland arm questionnaire for stroke | Pre-test, BATRAC for four 5-min sessions, 3 times a week for 6 weeks, post-test, 8-week retention post-test | RAC at patients preferred pace of movement | Significant enhancement in FMA, Wolf motor function test and modified University of Maryland arm questionnaire for stroke with RAC Significant enhancement in elbow, wrist flexion for paretic and non-paretic arm with RAC Significant enhancement in active range of motion for shoulder extension, wrist flexion and thumb opposition and passive range of motion for wrist flexion on the paretic side with RAC Significant enhancements sustained during the 8-week retention post-test across all range of motion, strength variables and qualitative assessment tools with RAC |
ARAT, Action reach arm test; 9HPT, 9-hole peg test; FMA, Fugl Meyer assessment for upper extremity; BBT, Box and block test; EMG, Electromyography; RAC, Rhythmic auditory cueing; BATRAC, Bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing; R-af, Real-time auditory feedback; SIS, Stroke impact scale; Exp, Experimental group; Ct, Control group; F, Females; M, Males.
Figure 1PRISMA flow chart for the inclusion of studies.
Figure 2Risk of bias across studies.
Figure 3Funnel plot for Hedge's g and standardized effect for each value in the meta-analysis. Each of the effect is represented in the plot as a circle. Funnel boundaries represent area where 95% of the effects are expected to lie if there were no publication biases. The vertical line represents the mean standardized effect of zero. Absence of publication bias is represented by symmetrical distribution of effect's around the mid-line.
Figure 4Forest plot illustrating individual studies evaluating the effects of rhythmic auditory cueing, and real-time auditory feedback on Fugl Meyer assessment scores on arm function amongst post stroke patients. Weighted effect sizes; Hedge's g (boxes) and 95% C.I (whiskers) are presented, demonstrating repositioning errors for individual studies. The (Diamond) represents pooled effect sizes and 95% CI. A negative effect size indicated reduction in Fugl Meyer scores depicting poor arm functioning; a positive effect size indicated enhancement in Fugl Meyer scores depicting better arm functioning. (r-af, Real-time auditory feedback; low, Low performance group; high, High performance group; left CVA, Left sided cerebrovascular accident; right CVA, Right sided cerebrovascular accident).
Figure 5Forest plot illustrating individual studies evaluating the effects of rhythmic auditory cueing, and real-time auditory feedback on Wolf motor time assessment scores for arm function amongst post stroke patients. Weighted effect sizes; Hedge's g (boxes) and 95% C.I (whiskers) are presented, demonstrating repositioning errors for individual studies. The (Diamond) represents pooled effect sizes and 95% CI. A negative effect size indicated reduction in Wolf motor scores depicting a better arm functioning; a positive effect size indicated enhancement in Wolf motor scores depicting poor arm functioning. (r-af, Real-time auditory feedback; low, Low performance group; high, High performance group; left CVA, Left sided cerebrovascular accident; right CVA, Right sided cerebrovascular accident).
Figure 6Forest plot illustrating individual studies evaluating the effects of rhythmic auditory cueing, and real-time auditory feedback on elbow range of motion among post stroke patients. Weighted effect sizes; Hedge's g (boxes) and 95% C.I (whiskers) are presented, demonstrating repositioning errors for individual studies. The (Diamond) represents pooled effect sizes and 95% CI. A negative effect size indicated reduction in elbow range of motion depicting poor arm functioning; a positive effect size indicated enhancement in elbow range of motion depicting better arm functioning. (r-af, Real-time auditory feedback; low, Low performance group; high, High performance group; left CVA, Left sided cerebrovascular accident; right CVA, Right sided cerebrovascular accident).