INTRODUCTION: Gait impairments due to stroke impact millions of individuals throughout the world. Despite the growing interest in automating gait therapy with robotic devices, there is no clear evidence that robot-assisted gait therapy is superior to traditional treadmill-based therapy. METHODS: This work investigates the effect of perturbations to the compliance of the walking surface on the paretic leg of impaired walkers. Using a novel robotic device, the variable stiffness treadmill, we apply perturbations to the compliance of the walking surface underneath the non-paretic leg of two hemi-paretic walkers and analyze the kinematic and neuromuscular response of the contralateral (paretic) leg with motion capture and surface electromyography systems. RESULTS: We present results of evoked muscle activity (predominately tibialis anterior) and increased dorsiflexion in the paretic leg during the swing phase of gait at stiffness values of 60 kN/m and less for all subjects. CONCLUSIONS: This work provides evidence for the first time of reducing the drop-foot effect in the impaired leg of hemiparetic walkers in response to unilateral perturbations to the compliance of the treadmill platform, thus providing direction for targeted robot-assisted gait rehabilitation.
INTRODUCTION: Gait impairments due to stroke impact millions of individuals throughout the world. Despite the growing interest in automating gait therapy with robotic devices, there is no clear evidence that robot-assisted gait therapy is superior to traditional treadmill-based therapy. METHODS: This work investigates the effect of perturbations to the compliance of the walking surface on the paretic leg of impaired walkers. Using a novel robotic device, the variable stiffness treadmill, we apply perturbations to the compliance of the walking surface underneath the non-paretic leg of two hemi-paretic walkers and analyze the kinematic and neuromuscular response of the contralateral (paretic) leg with motion capture and surface electromyography systems. RESULTS: We present results of evoked muscle activity (predominately tibialis anterior) and increased dorsiflexion in the paretic leg during the swing phase of gait at stiffness values of 60 kN/m and less for all subjects. CONCLUSIONS: This work provides evidence for the first time of reducing the drop-foot effect in the impaired leg of hemiparetic walkers in response to unilateral perturbations to the compliance of the treadmill platform, thus providing direction for targeted robot-assisted gait rehabilitation.
Gait impairments due to stroke or other neurological disorders impact millions of
individuals throughout the world and have become an important problem of the 21st
century. Stroke is a leading cause of long-term disability with 795,000 new strokes
occurring each year in the United States alone.[1,2] Nearly 90% of stroke survivors
require therapy, but the majority of patients only achieve poor functional outcome
five years after the onset of stroke.[2,3] Since a primary goal of impaired
patients is to walk independently,[4] improved gait therapy will significantly improve the well-being of millions
of individuals.Neural plasticity, or the brain’s ability to learn and adapt, is believed to be the
basis for relearning after neurological injury.[5] Thus, the aim of gait therapy after stroke is to provide interventions that
facilitate neural plasticity in the brain.[6,7] The use of robotics in gait
rehabilitation is an emerging field in which gait training is largely
automated.[8,9]
A benefit of robot-assisted gait therapy is that robots can perform many repetitions
with high accuracy, thus replacing the physical effort required of a therapist and
allowing more intensive, repetitive motions which are important for facilitating
neural plasticity.[5] A variety of robotic rehabilitation devices have been developed in the last
several years for gait therapy.[10-15] However, there is no clear
evidence that robot-assisted gait training is superior to conventional physiotherapy
for either chronic or subacute stoke patients.[9,16-19]A limitation of the robotic devices used for gait therapy is that they do not
consider mechanisms of inter-leg coordination and how the sensory feedback from one
leg affects the motion of the other leg.[20] Rather, the state-of-the-art devices, ranging from kinematically controlled exoskeletons[21] to impedance controlled orthotic devices,[22,23] impose motion on the impaired
limb. A recent review suggests that utilizing inter-limb coupling in stroke
rehabilitation therapies will lead to improved functional outcome.[24] We have proposed, and are currently investigating, a novel approach to
robot-assisted gait therapy which takes advantage of mechanisms of inter-leg coordination.[25] This approach consists of providing therapy to the affected limb in
hemiparetic gait by only interacting with the unaffected leg. One of the most
significant advantages of this approach is the safety of the patient since there is
no direct manipulation of the paretic leg.Our previous work of investigating mechanisms of inter-leg coordination with healthy
subjects has shown a systematic and scalable contralateral response to unilateral
stiffness perturbations.[25] Moreover, recent electroencephalography (EEG) experiments have shown that
these responses in healthy subjects are mediated through the brain.[26] A particularly exciting result from a clinical perspective is the repeatable
evoked muscle activation in the tibialis anterior (TA), and resulting dorsiflexion,
during the swing phase of gait.[20] A major impairment after stroke or other neurological injury is insufficient
activity in the TA (which is the primary muscle creating dorsiflexion) in the swing
phase of gait which results in decreased dorsiflexion. Insufficient dorsiflexion
during walking, referred to as drop-foot, is a problem that most
impaired walkers suffer from, and is the leading cause of after-stroke
falls.[27,28] Therefore, the aim of this work is to investigate the evoked
contralateral response to unilateral perturbations to the walking surface stiffness
with hemiparetic subjects, thus providing additional insight into the applicability
of this approach in robot-assisted gait therapy.
Methods
Experimental setup
Unilateral perturbations to the walking surface stiffness were induced using the
variable stiffness treadmill (VST) system shown in Figure 1. The VST provides a unique
platform for investigating mechanisms of inter-leg coordination through
stiffness perturbations. Advantages of the VST over other experimental platforms
include (1) a wide range of controllable stiffness while maintaining high
resolution, (2) the ability to apply low stiffness perturbations at any phase of
the gait cycle and (3) body-weight support (BWS) for the walker in order to
suppress mechanisms of balance and posture. The system has been detailed in
previous work[29,30] and will not be described in this paper for brevity.
Two individuals who experience drop-foot on their right side
were recruited to participate in this study.The first subject was a 29-year-old female (weight 123 lbs) who had a hemorrhagic
stroke 5.5 years prior to this study. The cerebrovascular accident occurred in
the left hemisphere and resulted in right hemiparesis (dominant side). She has
received physical therapy and occupational therapy, which was first focused on
recovering her right arm function. She has minimal voluntarily controlled
activation of her right TA and no voluntary contraction of the plantarflexors
(i.e. gastrocnemius (GA) and soleus (SOL)). However, the subject is ambulatory
because the muscles work in synergy such as when walking. The subject wears the
NESS L300 Foot Drop System (Bioness Inc.) to reduce drop-foot
while walking during routine activities. However, she wears an articulated
ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) with a plantarflexion stop instead of the NESS L300
when wanting better ankle stabilization when walking. The subject wore her AFO
while participating in this study. The subject provided informed consent before
the experiment.The second subject was a 17-year-old male (weight 155 lbs) who had a traumatic
brain injury 18 months prior to the study. A left basal ganglia hemorrhage with
surrounding edema and left frontal hematoma resulted in hemiparesis in his right
(dominant) side. He demonstrates decreased right ankle dorsiflexion and utilizes
a right hip hike to clear his right foot during swing phase. He currently does
not use any assistive devices for walking. Informed consent from the subject and
his parents was obtained at the time of the experiment.
Experimental protocol
The first subject participated in four sequential trials with a brief
(approximately 5 min) rest break in between trials. For all trials, the subject
was offloaded by 30% of her bodyweight. This was done to provide some postural
support and to be consistent with experiments with healthy subjects previously
performed.[25,20] In each trial, she walked for approximately 7 min on the
treadmill at a self-selected speed of 0.51 m/s. The right treadmill belt was not
allowed to deflect for the duration of the experiment, thus preventing any
direct perturbation of the right leg. The walking surface underneath the left
leg (i.e. left treadmill belt) was commanded to maintain a stiffness of 1 MN/m,
which is very high and considered to be rigid, for 30 gait cycles at the
beginning of the experiment. Then, after a random number n of
steps, where , the stiffness was immediately dropped to a constant value.
The stiffness utilized in trials 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 80, 60, 40, and 20 kN/m,
respectively. The low stiffness perturbation began shortly (approximately
125 ms) after heel-strike and lasted for the duration of the right leg stance
phase after which the stiffness was commanded back to 1 MN/m for the next
n number of steps. This experimental protocol, as well as
choice of stiffness levels, was selected based off of previous studies with
healthy subjects.[25,20] The subject experienced a minimum of 30 perturbations at
each level of stiffness. A picture of the subject experiencing a low stiffness
perturbation is shown in Figure
2(a).
Figure 2.
(a) Subject 1 and (b) subject 2 each experiencing a low stiffness
perturbation to the left walking surface.
(a) Subject 1 and (b) subject 2 each experiencing a low stiffness
perturbation to the left walking surface.The experimental protocol for subject 2 was the same as for subject 1, with a few
differences in order to accommodate the preferences and needs of this subject.
The subject did not feel comfortable with the BWS, and therefore walked with 0%
BWS. The subject wore the harness and was safely attached to the BWS system but
was not offloaded with any force. This subject only experienced perturbations at
the 80 and 60 kN/m stiffness levels. A picture of the subject experiencing a
perturbation is shown in Figure
2(b). These experimental protocols are approved by the Arizona State
University Institutional Review Board (IRB ID#: STUDY00001001).
Data collection and processing
Kinematic data for both legs were obtained at 140 Hz using an infrared camera
system that tracked 12 infrared LEDs (6 on each leg) placed as pairs on the
thigh, shank, and foot. These data were also utilized in real time for timing of
the stiffness perturbation.The muscle activity of both legs was obtained using surface electromyography
(EMG) via a wireless surface EMG system (Delsys, Trigno Wireless EMG) and
recorded at 2000 Hz. The use of surface EMG for measuring muscle activation
during gait experiments is widely used throughout the literature.[31,32] Electrodes
were placed on the TA, GA and SOL of both legs. Raw EMG signals were processed
by finding the moving root mean square envelope of each signal with a 250 ms
window. After computing the EMG linear envelope, the data were normalized to the
maximum value of that EMG signal.The kinematic and EMG data corresponding to the gait cycles of normal conditions
and the cycles pertaining to the perturbations were found and normalized
temporally to percent gait cycle in order to eliminate discrepancies due to
natural variations in gait patterns (i.e. stride length, cycle duration, etc.).
The data of each gait cycle were resampled at each 0.01% of the gait cycle
(approximately 0.15 ms) during the normalization to percent gait cycle. The
first 30 gait cycles and the cycles in between perturbations during the normal
conditions are included in the unperturbed data set. One gait cycle following a
perturbation is not included in the unperturbed set in order to eliminate any
residual effects from the perturbation. This processing results in normalized
EMG signals as a function of percent gait cycle, where 0 and 100% correspond to
the heel-strike of the left (perturbed) leg.In order to evaluate the significance of recorded kinematic and EMG responses
when compared to the normal condition, statistical significance was determined
using an unadjusted unpaired t-test at each time instance. The
unpaired t-test was selected in this case because it is a
comparison of two independent distributions (i.e. gait cycles with and without
perturbation) which have similar variances but different sample sizes. Each
statistical test was performed at the 95% confidence level. Any potential Type I
errors from tests being performed at each 0.01% of the gait cycle were
eliminated by only concluding significance if at least 400 tests (i.e. 4% of the
gait cycle) in a row indicated significance.
Results
The results of the experiment show that significant contralateral muscle activity can
be evoked in the paretic leg of impaired walkers by unilateral perturbations to the
stiffness of the walking surface. The analyses for this paper will be focused on the
effects of the perturbation on the response of the contralateral leg, even though
the left leg was directly perturbed through the stiffness change of the left walking
surface, since the aim of this work is to investigate the evoked contralateral
responses with hemiparetic subjects.
Results: Subject 1
The muscular response of the affected (unperturbed) leg to the low stiffness
perturbations of magnitudes 20 and 40 kN/m is shown in Figure 3. The normalized EMG amplitude
for the TA, GA and SOL (mean and standard deviation) for all gait cycles
pertaining to each of these two surface stiffness levels is shown. The data are
plotted as a function of the gait cycle percentage, where heel-strike and
toe-off of the right leg are indicated on the figure as HS and TO, respectively.
Black bars underneath an asterisk are included to indicate when statistically
significant changes are observed. An indication of the timing of the
perturbation of the left walking surface is also shown.
Figure 3.
Comparison of averaged muscle activity of the unperturbed (affected)
leg for subject 1 during normal (red) and perturbed (blue) gait
cycles as a function of percent gait cycle, where 0% corresponds to
heel-strike of the left (perturbed) leg. Plotted in rows from top to
bottom are the normalized TA EMG, normalized GA EMG, and normalized
SOL EMG for two levels of stiffness perturbation (20 and 40 kN/m),
from left to right, respectively. Mean (darker lines) and standard
deviations (lightly shaded areas) values are shown. Statistically
significant changes are indicated by black bars placed beneath a
black asterisk. Heel-strike and toe-off of the right leg are
indicated by HS and TO, respectively. The duration of the gait cycle
for this subject is approximately 1.4 s.
Comparison of averaged muscle activity of the unperturbed (affected)
leg for subject 1 during normal (red) and perturbed (blue) gait
cycles as a function of percent gait cycle, where 0% corresponds to
heel-strike of the left (perturbed) leg. Plotted in rows from top to
bottom are the normalized TA EMG, normalized GA EMG, and normalized
SOL EMG for two levels of stiffness perturbation (20 and 40 kN/m),
from left to right, respectively. Mean (darker lines) and standard
deviations (lightly shaded areas) values are shown. Statistically
significant changes are indicated by black bars placed beneath a
black asterisk. Heel-strike and toe-off of the right leg are
indicated by HS and TO, respectively. The duration of the gait cycle
for this subject is approximately 1.4 s.As indicated by the black bars in Figure 3, there are significant increases
in TA and GA activation during the swing and stance phases, respectively, for
both levels of stiffness. There was no evoked activation in any muscle for
either the 60 or 80 kN/m stiffness levels, and therefore are not plotted for
simplicity. There was no significant change in SOL activation at any of the
stiffness levels. The most significant result is that there was muscle activity
evoked in the paretic leg, showing the existence of mechanisms of inter-leg
coordination after neurological injury. Moreover, the same result from this
study (i.e. increased contralateral TA activation during swing phase) has been
shown with healthy subjects in previous work.[25] This additional activation in the right TA also created significant
dorsiflexion in the right ankle, as shown in Figure 4. Moreover, there are also
increases in hip flexion and knee flexion for this subject, which was also seen
with healthy subjects.[20]
Figure 4.
Comparison of averaged kinematics of the unperturbed (affected) leg
for subject 1 during normal (red) and perturbed (blue) gait cycles
as a function of percent gait cycle, where 0% corresponds to
heel-strike of the left (perturbed) leg. Plotted in rows from top to
bottom are the kip, knee, and ankle angles for two levels of
stiffness perturbation (20 and 40 kN/m), from left to right,
respectively. Mean (darker lines) and standard deviations (lightly
shaded areas) values are shown. Statistically significant changes
are indicated by black bars placed beneath a black asterisk.
Heel-strike and toe-off of the right leg are indicated by HS and TO,
respectively. The duration of the gait cycle for this subject is
approximately 1.4 s.
Comparison of averaged kinematics of the unperturbed (affected) leg
for subject 1 during normal (red) and perturbed (blue) gait cycles
as a function of percent gait cycle, where 0% corresponds to
heel-strike of the left (perturbed) leg. Plotted in rows from top to
bottom are the kip, knee, and ankle angles for two levels of
stiffness perturbation (20 and 40 kN/m), from left to right,
respectively. Mean (darker lines) and standard deviations (lightly
shaded areas) values are shown. Statistically significant changes
are indicated by black bars placed beneath a black asterisk.
Heel-strike and toe-off of the right leg are indicated by HS and TO,
respectively. The duration of the gait cycle for this subject is
approximately 1.4 s.
Results: Subject 2
The results from subject 2 are similar to those from subject 1. This includes no
significant contralateral response due to stiffness perturbations of 80 kN/m,
but significant TA activation and dorsiflexion during swing phase due to
stiffness perturbations of 60 kN/m. The contralateral muscular and kinematic
response to the 60 kN/m stiffness perturbations is shown in Figure 5. The data are plotted as a
function of the gait cycle percentage, where heel-strike and toe-off of the
right leg are indicated on the figure as HS and TO, respectively. Black bars
underneath an asterisk are included to indicate when statistically significant
changes are observed.
Figure 5.
Comparison of averaged muscular (left column) and kinematic (right
column) response of the unperturbed (affected) leg for subject 2
during normal (red) and perturbed (blue) gait cycles as a function
of percent gait cycle, where 0% corresponds to heel-strike of the
left (perturbed) leg. Plotted in rows from top to bottom are the
normalized TA EMG, normalized GA EMG, and normalized SOL EMG (left
column) and hip, knee, and ankle angles (right column). Mean (darker
lines) and standard deviations (lightly shaded areas) values are
shown. Statistically significant changes are indicated by black bars
placed beneath a black asterisk. Heel-strike and toe-off of the
right leg are indicated by HS and TO, respectively. The duration of
the gait cycle is approximately 1.8 s.
Comparison of averaged muscular (left column) and kinematic (right
column) response of the unperturbed (affected) leg for subject 2
during normal (red) and perturbed (blue) gait cycles as a function
of percent gait cycle, where 0% corresponds to heel-strike of the
left (perturbed) leg. Plotted in rows from top to bottom are the
normalized TA EMG, normalized GA EMG, and normalized SOL EMG (left
column) and hip, knee, and ankle angles (right column). Mean (darker
lines) and standard deviations (lightly shaded areas) values are
shown. Statistically significant changes are indicated by black bars
placed beneath a black asterisk. Heel-strike and toe-off of the
right leg are indicated by HS and TO, respectively. The duration of
the gait cycle is approximately 1.8 s.
Discussion
The results of the experiment show that significant contralateral muscle activity can
be evoked by unilateral perturbations to the stiffness of the walking surface. This
supports the conclusion that mechanisms of inter-leg coordination still exist after
neurological injury[24] and has strong potential for medical application in a novel approach to
robotic gait therapy for hemiparetic walkers.
Inter-leg coordination
This paper shows results for the first time that increased TA activation, and
subsequent dorsiflexion, in the unperturbed leg of neurologically impaired
subjects is created by unilateral low stiffness perturbations. The increased TA
activity in the affected leg is observed during the swing phase of the gait
cycle when the TA is active during normal walking. This adds support to a
previous hypothesis that the stiffness perturbations amplify existing neural
commands as opposed to facilitating the generation of new commands.[20] Moreover, the significant changes in TA activity are only seen for the 20
and 40 kN/m perturbations, but not for the 60 and 80 kN/m perturbations for
subject 1. Similarly for subject 2, significant changes in contralateral TA
activity are seen at the 60 kN/m stiffness level, but not at the 80 kN/m level.
As the level of stiffness decreases, there is a proportional increase in
treadmill deflection (with a constant foot force across gait cycles) which
suggests that there is a minimum deflection required to stimulate the mechanism
of inter-leg coordination.[33] This is also supported by the result that evoked activation was observed
for subject 2 at 60 kN/m, while it was observed for subject 1 at stiffness
levels less than or equal to 40 kN/m. As subject 2 weighs more than subject 1 by
over 30 lbs, a higher level of stiffness would be required to maintain an equal
deflection of the treadmill.The results of this experiment not only suggest the preservation of sensorimotor
mechanisms of inter-leg coordination after neurological injury, but this
mechanism appears to be robust across injuries and level of impairment. The
contralateral response of increased TA activation and increased dorsiflexion was
consistent across the two subjects despite differences between the subjects. A
few of these differences include the time after injury, level of impairment, and
compensatory strategies.Our previous work with healthy subjects has shown systematic and scalable
increases in contralateral TA and dorsiflexion in response to the unilateral
stiffness perturbations.[25] Moreover, recent work suggests that these responses are mediated through
the brain.[26] Therefore, the results presented in this paper suggest that the same
mechanisms of inter-leg coordination observed in healthy subjects also exist
after neurological injury. Moreover, the evoked TA activity and subsequent
dorsiflexion during the swing phase of gait seen in the hemiparetic walkers in
this work provides support for a unique approach to provide therapy to an
impaired leg through physical interaction with the healthy leg in hemiparetic
gait.
Possible clinical application
From a clinical prospective, the results of this study can be disruptive since
they suggest a possible novel approach to robot-assisted gait therapy for
hemiparetic patients who experience drop-foot. This approach
would entail manipulation of the healthy leg through stiffness perturbations in
order to evoke TA activity in the paretic leg during the swing phase of gait. As
mentioned in the Introduction, a main deficiency in stroke survivors and other
neurologically impaired walkers is insufficient TA activity during swing phase
which leads to decreased dorsiflexion and greater risk for falls. The results
presented in this study show that TA activation can be evoked during swing phase
of the paretic leg (which induces increased dorsiflexion) in two different
subjects who experience drop-foot. This suggests the
feasibility of a solution to drop-foot by altering the
stiffness of the walking surface underneath the healthy leg in hemiparetic
gait.
Conclusions
This paper presents results of evoked dorsiflexion and TA activation in the
contralateral (affected) leg of two hemiparetic walkers in response to unilateral
low stiffness perturbations. Statistically significant changes are seen during the
swing phase of the affected leg. This work provides evidence for the first time of
reducing the drop-foot effect in the impaired leg of hemiparetic
walkers in response to unilateral perturbations to the compliance of the treadmill
platform. While this study is not conclusive considering the limitation of only
having two participating subjects, the results from this study suggest the
feasibility of a novel approach to gait training in which therapy for
drop-foot is provided to the impaired leg by only interacting
with the healthy leg in hemiparetic gait. Future research will include further
development of this approach by investigating the effect of repeated perturbations
(i.e. a change in walking surface stiffness during every gait cycle) in both healthy
and impaired populations. Additionally, research into the effect of long-term
therapeutic interventions (i.e. repeated gait training sessions over several weeks
with impaired walkers) with the proposed methodology will be pursued.
Authors: M Pohl; C Werner; M Holzgraefe; G Kroczek; J Mehrholz; I Wingendorf; G Hoölig; R Koch; S Hesse Journal: Clin Rehabil Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.477
Authors: Jan F Veneman; Rik Kruidhof; Edsko E G Hekman; Ralf Ekkelenkamp; Edwin H F Van Asseldonk; Herman van der Kooij Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: T George Hornby; Donielle D Campbell; Jennifer H Kahn; Tobey Demott; Jennifer L Moore; Heidi R Roth Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-05-08 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Andreas Mayr; Markus Kofler; Ellen Quirbach; Heinz Matzak; Katrin Fröhlich; Leopold Saltuari Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2007-05-02 Impact factor: 3.919
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