Raquel Carvalho1,2, Nuno Dias2,3,4, João José Cerqueira2,3. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, CESPU, Institute of Research and Advanced Training in Health Sciences and Technologies, Gandra, Portugal. 2. Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Health Sciences, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal. 3. ICVS/3B's-PT Government Associate Laboratory, Braga/Guimarães, Portugal. 4. 2Ai - Polytechnic Institute of Cavado and Ave, Barcelos, Portugal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Technologies such as brain-computer interfaces are able to guide mental practice, in particular motor imagery performance, to promote recovery in stroke patients, as a combined approach to conventional therapy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to provide a status report regarding advances in brain-computer interface, focusing in particular in upper limb motor recovery. METHODS: The databases PubMed, Scopus, and PEDro were systematically searched for articles published between January 2010 and December 2017. The selected studies were randomized controlled trials involving brain-computer interface interventions in stroke patients, with upper limb assessment as primary outcome measures. Reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the trials, using the PEDro methodologic rating scale. RESULTS: From 309 titles, we included nine studies with high quality (PEDro ≥ 6). We found that the most common interface used was non-invasive electroencephalography, and the main neurofeedback, in stroke rehabilitation, was usually visual abstract or a combination with the control of an orthosis/robotic limb. Moreover, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale was a major outcome measure in eight out of nine studies. In addition, the benefits of functional electric stimulation associated to an interface were found in three studies. CONCLUSIONS: Neurofeedback training with brain-computer interface systems seem to promote clinical and neurophysiologic changes in stroke patients, in particular those with long-term efficacy.
BACKGROUND: Technologies such as brain-computer interfaces are able to guide mental practice, in particular motor imagery performance, to promote recovery in strokepatients, as a combined approach to conventional therapy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to provide a status report regarding advances in brain-computer interface, focusing in particular in upper limb motor recovery. METHODS: The databases PubMed, Scopus, and PEDro were systematically searched for articles published between January 2010 and December 2017. The selected studies were randomized controlled trials involving brain-computer interface interventions in strokepatients, with upper limb assessment as primary outcome measures. Reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the trials, using the PEDro methodologic rating scale. RESULTS: From 309 titles, we included nine studies with high quality (PEDro ≥ 6). We found that the most common interface used was non-invasive electroencephalography, and the main neurofeedback, in stroke rehabilitation, was usually visual abstract or a combination with the control of an orthosis/robotic limb. Moreover, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale was a major outcome measure in eight out of nine studies. In addition, the benefits of functional electric stimulation associated to an interface were found in three studies. CONCLUSIONS: Neurofeedback training with brain-computer interface systems seem to promote clinical and neurophysiologic changes in strokepatients, in particular those with long-term efficacy.
Authors: Alexander B Remsik; Peter L E van Kan; Shawna Gloe; Klevest Gjini; Leroy Williams; Veena Nair; Kristin Caldera; Justin C Williams; Vivek Prabhakaran Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 3.473
Authors: J Lanzone; M A Colombo; S Sarasso; F Zappasodi; M Rosanova; M Massimini; V Di Lazzaro; G Assenza Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: Emília M G S Silva; Ledycnarf J Holanda; Gustavo K B Coutinho; Fernanda S Andrade; Gabriel I S Nascimento; Danilo A P Nagem; Ricardo A de M Valentim; Ana Raquel Lindquist Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 4.677