| Literature DB >> 36188982 |
Hyosok Lim1,2, Nicholas Marjanovic3, Cristian Luciano3, Sangeetha Madhavan1.
Abstract
Background: Movement-based priming has been increasingly investigated to accelerate the effects of subsequent motor training. The feasibility and acceptability of this approach at home has not been studied. We developed a game-based priming system (DIG-I-PRIMETM) that engages the user in repeated ankle movements using serious games. We aimed to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary motor benefits of an 8-week remotely supervised telerehabilitation program utilizing game-based movement priming combined with functional lower limb motor training in chronic stroke survivors.Entities:
Keywords: cortical priming; gamification; stroke; telerehabilitation; walking
Year: 2022 PMID: 36188982 PMCID: PMC9397891 DOI: 10.3389/fresc.2022.775496
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Rehabil Sci ISSN: 2673-6861
Figure 1(A) DIG-I-PRIMETM system setting with remote supervision via videoconference for 20-min of movement-based priming. (B) DIG-I-PRIMETM foot piece consists of a microcontroller (blue) and a bend sensor (black). The bend sensor was centered on the dorsum of the paretic foot while the microcontroller faced the participant. The DIG-I-PRIMETM foot piece was supported by Velcro straps (dark gray). The DIG-I-PRIMETM foot piece wirelessly transmitted information regarding foot orientation in the sagittal plane during ankle dorsiflexion and plantarflexion movements to the tablet via Bluetooth connection. (C) Four blocks of video games (5-min each) were played using the tablet placed in front of the participants. Three games, which included Treasure Hunt (Block 1), Ping-Pong (Block 2), and Shooting Stars (Block 3), were played. The participant chose on of these three games for Block 4. (D) Following 20-min of priming, participants performed 30 min of functional lower limb motor training under remotely supervision.
Participant acceptability of the DIG-I-PRIMETM system.
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||
| I got bored with the games | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| I felt stressed during the training | 4 | 4 | 5 |
| I enjoyed the training | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| I felt pain during the training | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| I felt depressed during or after the training | 5 | 5 | 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| The instructions for training were easy to understand | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| The device was user-friendly | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| The games were hard to see using the tablet | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| I had trouble putting on and taking off the ankle device | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| I had trouble operating the gaming software on the tablet | 3 | 3 | 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| This training challenged me | 3 | 5 | 3 |
| This training was too difficult | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| This training was too easy | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| I felt tired during or after training | 5 | 3 | 5 |
| The pace of training was just right | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| This training was meaningful to me | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| My function has improved | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| The games were appropriate for my age | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| If this device is available, I would likely use it at home | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| I am satisfied with the progress I made using the device | 5 | 5 | 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Indicates negative (reverse) items. An original rating scale from 1 to 5 (1, strongly disagree; 2, disagree; 3, somewhat agree; 4, agree; 5, strongly agree) was reversed for the indicated negative items presented above. Hence, the scores presented in the table ranges from 1 to 5, 1 being negative feedback and 5 being positive feedback.
Participant acceptability of the telerehabilitation protocol.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| What would you change about the game/device or exercise training? | P1 “device could be designed to attach on my foot more easily” |
| P2 “make different challenge levels available for games and exercises” | |
| P3 “charging port should be designed easier to plug in” | |
| What would you change about other aspects of the program? (length of training, trainer feedback/instruction etc.) | P1 “nothing” |
| What did you like best about the program? | P1 “enjoyed different games” |
| P2 “interacting with the therapist through videoconference was encouraging” and “enjoyed different games” | |
| P3 “can be trained anywhere” and “enjoying and challenging with different levels of game/training” |
Clinical outcomes.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| P1 | 0.68 | 0.98 | 0.99 |
| P2 | 0.94 | 0.97 | 1.09 |
| P3 | 1.72 | 1.73 | 1.82 |
|
| |||
| P1 | 12 | 15 | 17 |
| P2 | 13 | 15 | 17 |
| P3 | 15 | 16 | 22 |
10MWT, 10-meter walk test; FGA, functional gait assessment.
indicates changes from baseline exceeding minimal clinically important differences (MCID).