| Literature DB >> 35449748 |
Edwin Daniel Oña1, Selena Marcos-Antón2,3, Dorin-Sabin Copaci1, Janeth Arias1, Roberto Cano-de-la-Cuerda2, Alberto Jardón1.
Abstract
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common inflammatory neurological disease in young adults, with a high prevalence worldwide (2.8 million people). To aid in the MS treatment, using VR tools in cognitive and motor rehabilitation of such disease has been growing progressively in the last years. However, the role of VR as a rehabilitative tool in MS treatment is still under debate. This paper explores the effects of VR training using EMG activation in upper limb functionality. An experimental training protocol using video games controlled using an MYO armband sensor was conducted in a sample of patients with MS. Results support the use of EMG-commanded video games as a rehabilitative tool in patients with MS, obtaining favorable outcomes related to upper limb functionality and satisfaction.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35449748 PMCID: PMC9017529 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3735979
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Proposed framework for EMG-based upper limb rehabilitation.
Figure 2Proposed framework for EMG-based upper limb rehabilitation. (a) MYO-Gesture. (b) MYO-Arkanoid. (c) MYO-Space Invaders. (d) MYO-Cooking.
Figure 3Set of gestures identified for the sEMG recognition system. (a) Relaxed hand. (b) Extended hand. (c) Handgrip. (d) Wrist flexion. (e) Wrist extension. (f) Pinching.
Figure 4EMG signal levels for different gestures. (a) The amplitude of the EMG signals for different gestures. (b) The features amplitude for different gestures.
Figure 5Architecture of neural networks.
Figure 6GUI for system's connection.
Figure 7Confusion matrix for gesture recognition.
Sociodemographic data of participants.
| Age (years) | Evolution period (years) | EDSS score | Attendance (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | 46.57 | 14.43 | 5.43 | 92.93 |
| Median | 49.00 | 17.00 | 6.00 | 100.00 |
| SD | 9.71 | 9.50 | 1.43 | 13.71 |
| Minimum | 29.00 | 1.00 | 3.00 | 62.50 |
| Maximum | 56.00 | 27.00 | 7.00 | 100.00 |
Intervention: experimental protocol.
| Game and duration | Gesture sequence | |
|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | 3 minutes per game | |
| MYO-Gesture | Flexion/extension/pinch/grip/relax | |
| Arkanoid | Flexion/extension | |
| MYO-Space | Flexion/extension + grip | |
| MYO-Cooking | All gestures† | |
|
| ||
| Week 2 | 3 minutes per game | |
| MYO-Gesture | Flexion/extension/pinch/grip/extend | |
| Arkanoid | Pronation/supination | |
| MYO-Space | Flexion/extension + grip | |
| MYO-Cooking | All gestures† | |
|
| ||
| Week 3 | 3′45″ minutes per game | |
| MYO-Gesture | Flexion/extension/pinch/grip/relax | |
| Arkanoid | Pronation/supination | |
| MYO-Space | Flexion/extension + grip | |
| MYO-Cooking | All gestures† | |
|
| ||
| Week 4 | 3′45″ minutes per game | |
| MYO-Gesture | Flexion/extension/pinch/grip/extended | |
| Arkanoid | Flexion/extension | |
| MYO-Space | Flexion/extension + grip | |
| MYO-Cooking | All gestures† | |
|
| ||
| Week 5 | 4′30″ minutes per game | |
| MYO-Gesture | Flexion/extension/pinch/grip/extended | |
| Arkanoid | Pronation/supination | |
| MYO-Space | Pronation/supination + pinch | |
| MYO-Cooking | All gestures† | |
|
| ||
| Week 6 | 4′30″ minutes per game | |
| MYO-Gesture | Flexion/extension/pinch/grip/extended | |
| Arkanoid | Flexion/extension | |
| MYO-Space | Pronation/supination + pinch | |
| MYO-Cooking | All gestures† | |
|
| ||
| Week 7 | 5 minutes per game | |
| MYO-Gesture | Flexion/extension/pinch/grip/relax | |
| Arkanoid | Pronation/supination | |
| MYO-Space | Pronation/supination + pinch | |
| MYO-Cooking | All gestures† | |
|
| ||
| Week 8 | 5 minutes per game | |
| MYO-Gesture | Flexion/extension/pinch/grip/extended | |
| Arkanoid | Flexion/extension | |
| MYO-Space | Pronation/supination + pinch | |
| MYO-Cooking | All gestures† | |
†Flexion/extension/pronation/supination/pinch/grip/relax/extended.
Jamar Handgrip dynamometer scoring in pounds (lb).
| More affected side | Less affected side | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Final | Follow-up | Baseline | Final | Follow-up | |
| Participant 1 | 33 | 30 | 34 | 39 | 41 | 39 |
| Participant 2 | 25 | 15 | 10 | 36 | 18 | 13 |
| Participant 3 | 42 | 36 | 42 | 39 | 42 | 44 |
| Participant 4 | 46 | 42 | 49 | 56 | 51 | 59 |
| Participant 5 | 41 | 38 | 40 | 36 | 39 | 38 |
| Participant 6 | 21 | 21 | 25 | 25 | 24 | 26 |
| Participant 7 | 28 | 36 | 35 | 38 | 40 | 43 |
| Median | 33 | 36 | 35 | 38 | 40 | 39 |
Box and Block Test scoring.
| More affected side | Less affected side | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Final | Follow-up | Baseline | Final | Follow-up | |
| Participant 1 | 45 | 50 | 48 | 39 | 42 | 45 |
| Participant 2 | 50 | 52 | 51 | 61 | 57 | 68 |
| Participant 3 | 40 | 52 | 53 | 51 | 60 | 63 |
| Participant 4 | 60 | 56 | 63 | 59 | 64 | 64 |
| Participant 5 | 34 | 40 | 40 | 30 | 26 | 33 |
| Participant 6 | 36 | 41 | 36 | 36 | 42 | 41 |
| Participant 7 | 51 | 54 | 51 | 54 | 62 | 58 |
| Median | 45 | 52 | 51 | 51 | 57 | 58 |
Nine Hole Peg Test scoring.
| More affected side | Less affected side | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Final | Follow-up | Baseline | Final | Follow-up | |
| Participant 1 | 27.58 | 27.58 | 29.74 | 34.28 | 33.09 | 25.69 |
| Participant 2 | 24.40 | 29.37 | 24.49 | 22.24 | 23.11 | 19.41 |
| Participant 3 | 27.03 | 27.47 | 23.36 | 27.40 | 27.74 | 24.87 |
| Participant 4 | 25.01 | 25.20 | 25.07 | 21.42 | 25.67 | 24.71 |
| Participant 5 | 50.83 | 37.15 | 41.55 | 78.03 | 49.06 | 53.19 |
| Participant 6 | 58.76 | 60.28 | 140.52 | 35.50 | 30.72 | 37.67 |
| Participant 7 | 28.04 | 21.04 | 20.18 | 26.77 | 19.97 | 17.78 |
| Median | 28 | 28 | 25 | 27 | 28 | 25 |
Statistical analysis results.
| Outcome measure | Median (interquartile range) |
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Final | Follow-up | Bas.-fin. | Fin.-fol. | Bas.-fol. | ||
| Jamar MA † | 33 (17) | 36 (17) | 35 (17) | 0.223 | |||
| Jamar LA ‡ | 38 (3) | 40 (18) | 39 (18) | 0.396 | |||
| BBT MA | 45 (15) | 52 (13) | 51 (13) | 0.042 | 0,189 | 1,584 | 0,126 |
| BBT LA | 51 (23) | 57 (20) | 58 (23) | 0.034 | 0,384 | 0,744 | 0,054 |
| NHPT MA | 27.58 (25.82) | 27.58 (11.95) | 25.07 (18.19) | 0.717 | |||
| NHPT LA | 27.40 (13.26) | 27.74 (9.98) | 24.87 (18.26) | 0.368 | |||
| FSS | 52 (11) | 51 (16) | 53 (14) | 0.042 | 0,879 | 0,327 | 0,528 |
| ABILHAND | 40 (19) | 40 (11) | 41 (19) | 0.582 | |||
| MSIS-29 physical | 47.50 (60) | 58.75 (22.50) | 80 (47.50) | 0.446 | |||
| MSIS-29 cognitive | 38.88 (16.67) | 52.77 (30.55) | 44.44 (61.11) | 0.540 | |||
†MA: more affected side; ‡LA: less affected side; significant.
Results of the satisfaction questionnaires.
| Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither agreement nor disagreement | Agree | Strongly agree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Accessibility (facilities) | 3 | 4 | ||
| Q2 | Ease to use | 1 | 3 | 3 | |
| Q3 | Fun games | 4 | 3 | ||
| Q4 | Graphic design and music in games | 1 | 3 | 3 | |
| Q5 | Proper training protocol duration | 1 | 4 | 2 | |
| Q6 | Proper training session duration | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| Q7 | Understanding of games mechanics | 1 | 3 | 3 | |
| Q8 | Aim-result of games | 2 | 5 | ||
| Q9 | Proper increasing difficulty in games | 5 | 2 | ||
| Q10 | Proper number of interactive sessions | 3 | 4 | ||
| Q11 | Duration of interactive sessions | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| Q12 | Accessibility and intuitiveness | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Q13 | Attendance flexibility | 3 | 4 | ||
| Q14 | Support of therapist | 2 | 5 | ||
| Q15 | Clear instructions by therapist | 2 | 5 | ||
| Q16 | Personalized service | 2 | 5 | ||
| Q17 | Attendance at care center | 2 | 5 | ||
| Q18 | Schedule flexibility | 3 | 4 | ||
| Q19 | Objective scores in games | 2 | 5 | ||
| Q20 | Transferring gains to the ADL | 2 | 3 | 2 | |
| Q21 | Expectations were satisfied | 1 | 2 | 4 | |
| Q22 | Satisfaction level with protocol | 1 | 1 | 5 |