| Literature DB >> 30223840 |
Sandra Ricklin1,2,3,4, Andreas Meyer-Heim5,6, Hubertus J A van Hedel5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Walking in daily life is complex entailing various prerequisites such as leg strength, trunk stability or cognitive and motor dual task (DT) activities. Conventional physiotherapy can be complemented with robot-assisted gait therapy (RAGT) and exergames to enhance the number of step repetitions, feedback, motivation, and additional simultaneously performed tasks besides walking (e.g., dual-task (DT) activities). Although DT gait training leads to improvements in daily ambulation in adult patient groups, no study has evaluated RAGT with a DT exergame in children with neurological gait disorders. Therefore, we investigated children's functional and cognitive prerequisites to walk physiologically during RAGT with a DT exergame and analysed the influence of DT on leg muscle activity.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescents; Computer game; Driven gait orthosis; Exergame; Lokomat; Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis; Surface electromyography
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30223840 PMCID: PMC6142352 DOI: 10.1186/s12984-018-0426-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil ISSN: 1743-0003 Impact factor: 4.262
Fig. 1Game and game setting in the DGO. Setting in the Lokomat with a young boy playing the exergame. A short explanation of how the participant’s leg activity changes the virtual avatar animal the wizard is riding on. Thresholds for the transitions between the animals are individually adjusted but calculated in a standardised way
Fig. 2Measurement procedure. Measurement procedure, two test conditions: walking in the DGO with or without reaching movements, two game conditions: walking in the DGO while playing the game with or without reaching movements, within conditions random order. Abbreviations: DGO, Driven Gait Orthosis.
Participants‘characteristics
| ID | Age (Y) | Diagnosis | GMFCSb | MACSb | FAC | WeeFIM mob | SCALE mleg | Toni4% | pw DT | pw nDT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9.9 | Bilateral spastic CP | II | II | 4 | 30 | 2 | 48 | P | P |
| 2 | 16.3 | Hemiparesis left after cerebral haemorrhage right (23 months ago) | I | II | 5 | 35 | 6 | 95 | P | P |
| 3 | 16.2 | TBI (20 months ago) | IV | IV | 3 | 18 | 4 | 13 | C | C |
| 4 | 8.8 | Bilateral spastic CP | II | I | 4 | 33 | 6 | 48 | P | P |
| 5 | 13.2 | Tetraparesis after Stroke (7 years ago) | I | I | 5 | 33 | 7 | 84 | P | P |
| 6 | 16.1 | Tetraspastic CP | III | I | 5 | 33 | 5 | 37 | P | P |
| 7 | 15.3 | TBI (25 months ago), with pre-existing CP | IV | IV | 1 | 19 | 2 | 16 | C | P |
| 8 | 12.3 | Tetraspastic CP | IV | I | 4 | 28 | 3 | 21 | C | P |
| 9 | 17.3 | MMC with Chiari II Malformation and corpus colossum agnesia | III | I | 4 | 32 | 2 | 32 | C | P |
| 10 | 15.2 | Unilateral CP | I | I | 5 | 35 | 9 | 66 | P | P |
| 11 | 9.3 | Spastic bilateral CP | III | I | 4 | 29 | 2 | 50 | P | P |
| 12 | 6.5 | Spastic hemiparesis left after HHV-6-Enzephalitis (5 years ago) | II | II | 5 | 34 | 5 | 52 | P | P |
| 13 | 9.8 | Bilateral spastic CP | III | I | 4 | 26 | 2 | 66 | C | P |
| 14a | 6.9 | Spastic dystonic tetraparesis after cerebral haemorrhage (4 years ago) | IV | II | 1 | 11 | 1 | 19 | – | – |
| 15 | 14.5 | Bilateral spastic CP | III | II | 4 | 26 | 1 | 26 | P | P |
| 16 | 15.3 | Hereditary Neuropathy with cerebellar components | I | I | 5 | 35 | 7 | 95 | P | P |
| 17 | 10.3 | Spastic tetraperetic CP | I | I | 4 | 32 | 7 | 84 | P | P |
| 18 | 10.3 | Tetraspastic CP | II | I | 5 | 33 | 7 | 55 | P | P |
| 19 | 14.6 | Bilateral partly dyston-kinetic CP | II | II | 4 | 29 | 7 | 13 | P | P |
| 20 | 13.7 | Spastic hemiparesis left after Ependymom WHO Ranking III and haemorrhage (4 years ago) | II | II | 4 | 30 | 2 | 14 | P | P |
| 21 | 11.5 | Hemiparesis left after cerebral haemorrhage right (1 month ago) | II | II | 4 | 32 | 2 | 90 | P | P |
Abbreviations: CP cerebral palsy, MMC meningomyelocele, TBI traumatic brain injury, GMFCS Gross Motor Function Classification System, MACS Manual Ability Classification System, FAC Functional Ambulation Category, WeeFIM mob Functional Independence Measure for children subscale mobility, SCALE m leg Selective Control Assessment of the Lower Extremity from the measured leg, TONI4% percentile rank score of the Test Of Nonverbal Intelligence 4th version, pw DT physiological walking dual-task, pw nDT physiological walking during no dual-task, P physiological, C compensatory
adrop out, did not understand the meaning of the game, bGMFCS and MACS levels are rated for all patients for better comparability, although not all were diagnosed with CP
Fig. 3Scatterplots of the prerequisite measures and the therapist rating. Scatterplots combining walking performance (physiological = p, compensatory = c) and the functional and cognitive prerequisites. Abbreviations: GMFCS, Gross Motor Function Classification Scale; MACS, Manual Ability Classification System; FAC, Functional Ambulation Classification; WeeFIM, Functional Independence Measure for children; TONI4%ile rank, percentile rank score of the Fourth version of the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence; SCALE mleg, Selective Control Ability of the Lower Extremity from the measured leg; AUC, area under the curve; sens, sensitivity; spec, specificity.
EMG-amplitudes/ - coefficients and results of Wilcoxon signed rank test
| Muscles | gait cycle | EMG-amplitudes [μV] game DT median, IQR 25–75 | EMG-amplitudes [μV] game nDT median, IQR 25–75 | N of analysed pairs | EMG-coeff. DT conditions median; IQR 25–75 | EMG-coeff. nDT conditions median; IQR 25–75 | N of analysed pairs | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VMO | stance | 30.6 (2.0–161.6) | 34.7 (2.0–246.6) | 19 | 0.001 | 1.0 (0.8–1.1) | 1.1 (0.9–1.3) | 15 | 0.003 |
| swing | 10.4 (2.9–137.4) | 10.6 (2.2–137.4) | 19 | 0.212 | 1.2 (0.7–1.4) | 1.0 (0.7–1.4) | 15 | 0.281 | |
| BF | stance | 15.0 (6.5–166.4) | 15.6 (4.3–170.9) | 20 | 0.313 | 1.1 (0.9–1.4) | 1.3 (1.0–2.1) | 16 | 0.023 |
| swing | 11.2 (4.9–59.7) | 11.3 (4.3–71.7) | 20 | 0.218 | 1.5 (1.2–1.8) | 1.4 (1.0–2.3) | 16 | 0.642 | |
| TA | swing | 14.8 (1.6–36.0) | 15.3 (1.6–60.1) | 18 | 0.064 | 1.1 (0.7–2.3) | 1.0 (0.9–2.3) | 14 | 0.594 |
| GL | stance | 12.6 (4.8–597) | 14.7 (2.0–28.9) | 18 | 0.122 | 1.2 (0.9–1.4) | 1.5 (1.1–1.8) | 14 | 0.009 |
*inconsistent normal distribution of data, therefore nonparametric analysis
Abbreviations: DT dual task, nDT no dual taks, VMO vastus medialis obliquus, BF biceps femoris, TA tibialis anterior, GL gastrocnemius lateralis, DA deltoideus acromialis, EMG-coeff., electromyography coefficients, IQR interquartile range