Posts Tagged Functional electrical stimulation

[ARTICLE] The Integration of Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) as Control Module for Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) Intervention in Post-Stroke Upper Extremity Rehabilitation – Full Text

ABSTRACT

One of the prevalent disabilities after stroke is the loss of upper extremity motor function, leading survivors to suffer from an increased dependency in their activities of daily living and a general decrease in their overall quality of life. Therefore, the restoration of upper extremity function to improve survivors’ independency is crucial. Conventional stroke rehabilitation interventions, while effective, fall short of helping individuals achieve maximum recovery potential. Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES), both with passive and active approaches, has been found to moderately increase function in the affected limbs. This paper discusses a novel EEG-Based BCI-FES system that provides FES stimulation to the affected limbs based on the brain activity patterns of the patient specifically in the sensory motor cortex, while the patient imagines moving the affected limb. This system allows the synchronization of brain activity with peripheral movements, which may lead to brain reorganization and restoration of motor function by affecting motor learning or re-learning, and therefore induce brain plasticity to restore normal-like brain function.

INTRODUCTION

Stroke is one of the leading causes of severe motor disability, with approximately 800,000 individuals each year are experiencing a new or recurrent stroke in the US alone (1). Advances in healthcare and medical technology, and the high incidence of stroke and its increasing rate in the growing elderly population, have contributed to a relatively large population of stroke survivors currently estimated at 4 million individuals in the United States alone (1). These survivors are left with several devastating long-term neurological impairments.

The most apparent defect after a stroke is motor impairments, with impairment of upper extremity (UE) functions standing as the most disabling motor deficit. Approximately 80% of survivors suffering from UE paresis, and only about one-tenth of the them regain complete functional recovery (2). Stroke survivors generally suffer from a decrease in their quality of life, and an increase dependency in their activities of daily living. Statistically, close to one quarter of the stroke survivors become dependent in activities of daily living (3). Thus, the optimal restoration of arm and hand function is crucial to improve their independence.

Recently, several remarkable advancements in the medical management of stroke have been made. However, a widely applicable or effective medical treatment is still missing, and most post-stroke care will continue to depend on rehabilitation interventions (4). The available UE stroke rehabilitation interventions can be categorized as: conventional physical and occupational therapy, constraint-induced movement therapy (CIT), functional electrical stimulation (FES), and robotic-aided and sensor-based therapy systems (5). Although an increased effort has been made to enhance the recovery process following a stroke, survivors generally do not reach their full recovery potential. Thus, the growing population of stroke survivors is in a vital need for innovative strategies in stroke rehabilitation, especially in the domain of UE motor rehabilitation. This paper presents an innovative integration of a brain-computer interface (BCI) system to actively control the delivery of FES. Early research and product development activities are advancing the reality of this becoming a mainstream intervention option.

PASSIVE VS. ACTIVE DELIVERY OF FES

The use of FES on the impaired arm is an accepted intervention for stroke rehabilitation aiming to improve motor function. A systematic review with meta-analysis of 18 randomized control trials found that FES had a moderate effect on activity compared with no intervention or placebo and a large effect on UE activity compared to control groups, suggesting that FES should be used in stroke rehabilitation to improve the ability to perform activities (6). Specifically, improvements in UE motor function after intensive FES intervention can be ascribed to the increased ability to voluntarily contract impaired muscles, the reduction in spasticity and improved muscle tone in the stimulated muscles, and the increased range of motion in all joints (7). These improvements in UE after FES could be attributable to multiple neural mechanisms, with one mechanism suggesting that proprioceptive sensory input and visual perception of the movement could promote neural reorganization and motor learning (8). A potential limiting factor to the application of FES is that the stimulation is administered manually, usually from a therapist, without any regard to the concurrent brain activity of the patient. This makes the delivery a passive process with no to minimal coordination with the mental task required to happen concurrently from the patient.

On the other hand, electromyography (EMG)-triggered FES systems made the delivery of FES an active process. Such systems are activated through detecting a preset electrical threshold in certain muscles, which provide the user (patient) the ability to actively control the delivery of FES and make the delivery concurrent with the patient’s brain activity. However, a systematic review of 8 randomized controlled trials (n=157) that assessed the effects of EMG-triggered neuromuscular electrical stimulation for improving hand function in stroke patients found no statistically significant differences in effects when compared to patients receiving usual care (9). A possibility to explain the shortcoming of EMG-triggered FES systems, is that the ability of the brain to generate and send efficient neural signals to the peripheral nervous system is disrupted after stroke, which could affect the control mechanism of these systems. Thus, the synchronization of FES with brain activity maybe critical for the optimization of recovery.

AN ACTIVE EEG-BASED BCI-FES SYSTEM

BCI technology can be used to actively control the FES application through detecting the brain neural activity directly when imagining or attempting a movement. Performing or mentally imagining (or as it commonly called motor imagery) a movement results in the generation of neurophysiological phenomena called event-related desynchronization or synchronization (ERD or ERS). ERD or ERS can be observed from Mu (9–13 Hz) or Beta rhythms (22–29 Hz) over the primary sensorimotor area contralateral to the imagined part of the body (10). These rhythms can be detected using electroencephalography (EEG). Therefore, an EEG based BCI system can be utilized to provide automated FES neurofeedback through detecting either actual movement or motor imagery (MI) and can be used to train the voluntary modulation of these rhythms. The ability to modulate these rhythms alongside the real-time neurofeedback from the FES application may induce neuroplastic change in a disrupted motor system to allow for more normal motor-related brain activity, and thus promote functional recovery. Figure 1 provides an overview of the BCI-FES system.

Any BCI-FES intervention session includes two screening tasks: an open-loop screening followed by a closed-loop task. The open-loop screening task is used to identify appropriate EEG-based control features to guide all subsequent closed-loop tasks. In the open-loop screening task, subjects are instructed to perform attempted movement of either hand by following on-screen cues of “right”, “left”, and “rest”. The attempted movement can vary across subjects, depending on the subject’s baseline abilities and recovery goals. For example, subjects can perform opening and closing of the hand or wrist flexion/extension movements. During this screening task, no feedback is provided to the subject.

figure 2 shows a screenshot of the closed-loop task interface, with a ball at the center and a target to the right, in order to provide a cue for the user to move his/her right hand.

Figure 2. Screenshot of Closed-loop Task

Data from the open-loop screening task will then be analyzed to identify appropriate EEG-based control features by determine the EEG channels the presents the largest r-squared values within the frequency ranges of the Mu and Beta rhythms for each attempted movement using left or right hand (11). The identified channels and the specific frequency bins will then be used to control the signals for the closed-loop neurofeedback task.

In the closed-loop screening task, a real-time visual feedback is given to the subject in a form of a game. A ball appears on the center of a computer monitor with a vertical rectangle (target) to either the right or left side of the screen (Figure 2). The movement of the ball is controlled by the BCI system in which the detection of an attempted movement in either hand will be translated into moving the ball toward the same side. For example, if the target appeared on the left side of the screen and the BCI system detected a movement attempt of the user’s left hand, the ball then moves toward the left. Users are instructed to perform or attempt the same movement that they used during the open-loop task. The FES electrodes are placed on the subject’s affected side over a specific muscle of the forearm. The selection of which muscle to be innervated with FES is dependent on the rehabilitation goal for the subject. For example, if a subject is having a difficulty extending his/her wrist, the FES electrodes are placed over the extensor muscles of the impaired forearm.

The FES neurofeedback is triggered when cortical activity related to attempted movement of the impaired limb is detected by the BCI system, and the subject is cued to attempt movement of the impaired hand. Thus, since both ball movement and FES are controlled by the same set of EEG signals, FES is only applied when the ball moves correctly toward the target on the affected side of the body. This triggering of the FES ensures that only consistent, desired patterns of brain activity associated with attempted movement of the impaired hand are rewarded with feedback from the FES device.

DISCUSSION

The growing population of stroke survivors constitutes an increasing need for new strategies in stroke rehabilitation. Thus, it is imperative to explore novel intervention technologies that present promise to aid in the recovery process of this population. Some studies suggest that noninvasive EEG-based BCI systems hold a potential for facilitating upper extremities motor recovery after stroke (12,13). Although several groups had gave up on the idea of using non-invasive EEG-based BCI systems for control, there might be several implementations of these systems in the context of rehabilitation that yet need to be explored. The active EEG-based BCI-FES system is one example. However, more research and clinical studies are needed to investigate the efficacy of the system in order to be accepted and integrated into regular stroke rehabilitation practice.

REFERENCES

(1) Norrving B, Kissela B. The global burden of stroke and need for a continuum of care. Neurology 2013 Jan 15;80(3 Suppl 2):S5-12.

(2) Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. The Lancet Neurology 2009;8(8):741-754.

(3) Sanchez RJ, Liu J, Rao S, Shah P, Smith R, Rahman T, et al. Automating arm movement training following severe stroke: functional exercises with quantitative feedback in a gravity-reduced environment. IEEE Transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering 2006;14(3):378-389.

(4) Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. The Lancet 2011;377(9778):1693-1702.

(5) Loureiro RC, Harwin WS, Nagai K, Johnson M. Advances in upper limb stroke rehabilitation: a technology push. Med Biol Eng Comput 2011;49(10):1103.

(6) Howlett OA, Lannin NA, Ada L, McKinstry C. Functional electrical stimulation improves activity after stroke: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015;96(5):934-943.

(7) Kawashima N, Popovic MR, Zivanovic V. Effect of intensive functional electrical stimulation therapy on upper-limb motor recovery after stroke: case study of a patient with chronic stroke. Physiotherapy Canada 2013;65(1):20-28.

(8) Wang R. Neuromodulation of effects of upper limb motor function and shoulder range of motion by functional electric stimulation (FES). Operative Neuromodulation: Springer; 2007. p. 381-385.

(9) Meilink A, Hemmen B, Seelen H, Kwakkel G. Impact of EMG-triggered neuromuscular stimulation of the wrist and finger extensors of the paretic hand after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Rehabil 2008;22(4):291-305.

(10) Ang KK, Guan C. EEG-Based Strategies to Detect Motor Imagery for Control and Rehabilitation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 2017;25(4):392-401.

(11) Wilson JA, Schalk G, Walton LM, Williams JC. Using an EEG-based brain-computer interface for virtual cursor movement with BCI2000. J Vis Exp 2009 Jul 29;(29). pii: 1319. doi(29):10.3791/1319.

(12) Caria A, Weber C, Brötz D, Ramos A, Ticini LF, Gharabaghi A, et al. Chronic stroke recovery after combined BCI training and physiotherapy: a case report. Psychophysiology 2011;48(4):578-582.

(13) Young BM, Nigogosyan Z, Remsik A, Walton LM, Song J, Nair VA, et al. Changes in functional connectivity correlate with behavioral gains in stroke patients after therapy using a brain-computer interface device. Frontiers in neuroengineering 2014;7:25.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This project is supported in part by UW-Madison Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and College of Health Sciences, UW-Milwaukee.

 

via The Integration of Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) as Control Module for Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) Intervention in Post-Stroke Upper Extremity Rehabilitation

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] A portable assist-as-need upper-extremity hybrid exoskeleton for FES-induced muscle fatigue reduction in stroke rehabilitation – Full Text

Abstract

Background

Hybrid exoskeletons are a recent development which combine Functional Electrical Stimulation with actuators to improve both the mental and physical rehabilitation of stroke patients. Hybrid exoskeletons have been shown capable of reducing the weight of the actuator and improving movement precision compared to Functional Electrical Stimulation alone. However little attention has been given towards the ability of hybrid exoskeletons to reduce and manage Functional Electrical Stimulation induced fatigue or towards adapting to user ability. This work details the construction and testing of a novel assist-as-need upper-extremity hybrid exoskeleton which uses model-based Functional Electrical Stimulation control to delay Functional Electrical Stimulation induced muscle fatigue. The hybrid control is compared with Functional Electrical Stimulation only control on a healthy subject.

Results

The hybrid system produced 24° less average angle error and 13.2° less Root Mean Square Error, than Functional Electrical Stimulation on its own and showed a reduction in Functional Electrical Stimulation induced fatigue.

Conclusion

As far as the authors are aware, this is the study which provides evidence of the advantages of hybrid exoskeletons compared to use of Functional Electrical Stimulation on its own with regards to the delay of Functional Electrical Stimulation induced muscle fatigue.

Background

Stroke is the second largest cause of disability worldwide after dementia [1]. Temporary hemiparesis is common among stroke survivors. Regaining strength and movement in the affected side takes time and can be improved with the use of rehabilitation therapy involving repetitive and function-specific tasks [2]. Muscle atrophy is another common issue that occurs after a stroke due to lack of use of the muscle. For each day a patient is in hospital lying in bed with minimal activity approximately 13% of muscular strength is lost (Ellis. Liam, Jackson. Samuel, Liu. Cheng-Yueh, Molloy. Peter, Paterson. Kelsey, Lower Limb Exoskeleton Final Report, unpublished). Electromechanically actuated exoskeletons offer huge advantages in their ability to repetitively and precisely provide assistance/resistance to a user. However electromechanical actuators which provide the required forces are often heavy in weight and have high power requirements which limits portability. Furthermore, muscle atrophy can only be prevented by physically working the muscles either through the patient’s own volition or the use of Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES).

FES is the application of high frequency electrical pulses to the nerves or directly to the muscle belly in order to elicit contractions in the muscle. FES devices are typically lightweight and FES is well suited to reducing muscle atrophy in patients with no or extremely limited movement. The trade off to this is that precise control of FES is extremely difficult and controlling specific, repetitive, and functional movement is not easily accomplished. Furthermore, extended use of FES is limited by the introduction of muscle fatigue caused by the unnatural motor unit recruitment order [3]. The forces required for large movements, such as shoulder abduction, are too great to be provided by the use of FES which is much better suited to smaller movements such as finger extension [45]. Some patients also find the use of FES painful.

Combining the use of FES and an electromechanical actuator within an exoskeleton can potentially overcome the limitations of each individual system. Despite the potential advantages of hybrid exoskeletons, so far only limited studies have been done on their effectiveness. A recent review was conducted into upper-extremity hybrid exoskeletons [6] which highlighted the advantages hybrid exoskeletons (exoskeletons which combine FES with an actuator) have with regards to improving the precision of FES induced movements. However, little attention has been given towards reduction and management of FES-induced fatigue. FES control systems used for upper-extremity hybrid exoskeletons simply manually ramp up stimulation intensity when fatigue is observed.

This work describes the design and testing of an assist-as-need upper-extremity hybrid exoskeleton which uses model-based control of FES with a focus on reducing FES-induced muscle fatigue. The control system is described in Section “Theory”, and the results are presented in Section “Results”. A discussion of the results is given in Section “Discussion”. Conclusions are summarised in Section “Conclusion”. Methods, physical structure of the exoskeleton, and the sensing system is described in Section “Material and methods”.[…]

 

Continue —->  A portable assist-as-need upper-extremity hybrid exoskeleton for FES-induced muscle fatigue reduction in stroke rehabilitation | BMC Biomedical Engineering | Full Text

figure10

Fig. 10 The Powered Exoskeleton (Right Arm)

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Project] Functional Electrical Stimulation for at Home Rehabilitation | WalkHome Project | H2020 | CORDIS | European Commission

Objective

The Context
Stroke has huge human and economic cost. 1 million people suffer strokes in Europe every year, with an average life expectancy after stroke of 8 years. Roughly 20% of stroke survivors suffer from drop foot, with 45 billion euros spent on rehabilitating stroke patients in Europe every year.
The opportunity:
FES offers the tantalising prospect of retraining voluntary motor functions such as walking. However:
– FES rehabilitation must be carried out in a hospital with the support of trained healthcare professionals;
– Transporting patients and supervising treatment is expensive;
– Patient’s treatment plan is sub-optimal;
– Per patient rehabilitation costs reach 32,000 euros
Our solution:
Fesia WalkHome is a FES rehabilitation device for drop foot patients which can be administered by the patient in their own home. This not only reduces costs by 43% but also means patients can have an optimal treatment plan, improving their speed of recovery.
The use of Fesia Walk at home will give autonomy, independence and improve the quality of life for chronic patients. It will also mean a substantial reduction of waiting lists, health costs, number of physician office visits, and carer support.
The Project:
WalkHome represents a disruptive change of paradigm for the FES rehabilitation standard of care. The aim of the phase 1 project is to improve our understanding of the EU market for FES rehabilitation, identifying regional market variations in terms of key decision makers, appropriate business models, pricing structure and identifying which are the most attractive markets for us to use as a beachhead. We will also analyse what key improvements need to be made to the existing technology to create the new FES home care rehabilitation market.
The Market:
Currently, there is no FES rehabilitation technology that is offered outside of a clinical setting. We estimate that this new home FES rehabilitation market could be worth up to 40 billion euros in Europe alone.

via Functional Electrical Stimulation for at Home Rehabilitation | WalkHome Project | H2020 | CORDIS | European Commission

, , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract + References] A Wireless BCI-FES Based on Motor Intent for Lower Limb Rehabilitation

Abstract

Recent investigations have proposed brain computer interfaces combined with functional electrical stimulation as a novel approach for upper limb motor recovery. These systems could detect motor intention movement as a power decrease of the sensorimotor rhythms in the electroencephalography signal, even in people with damaged brain cortex. However, these systems use a large number of electrodes and wired communication to be employed for gait rehabilitation. In this paper, the design and development of a wireless brain computer interface combined with functional electrical stimulation aimed at lower limb motor recovery is presented. The design requirements also account the dynamic of a rehabilitation therapy by allowing the therapist to adapt the system during the session. A preliminary evaluation of the system in a subject with right lower limb motor impairment due to multiple sclerosis was conducted and as a performance metric, the true positive rate was computed. The developed system evidenced a robust wireless communication and was able to detect lower limb motor intention. The mean of the performance metric was 75%. The results encouraged the possibility of testing the developed system in a gait rehabilitation clinical study.

References

  1. 1.
    Pfurtscheller, G., Mcfarland, D.: BCIs that use sensorimotor rhythms. In: Wolpaw, J.R., Wolpaw, E. (eds.) Brain-Computer Interfaces: Principles and Practice, pp. 227–240. Oxford University Press (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carrere, L.C., Tabernig, C.B.: Detection of foot motor imagery using the coefficient of determination for neurorehabilitation based on BCI technology. IFMBE Proc. 49, 944–947 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13117-7_239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sannelli, C., Vidaurre, C., Müller, K.R., Blankertz, B.: A large scale screening study with a SMR-based BCI: categorization of BCI users and differences in their SMR activity (2019)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Do, A.H., Wang, P.T., King, C.E., Schombs, A., Cramer, S.C., Nenadic, Z.: Brain-computer interface controlled functional electrical stimulation device for foot drop due to stroke, pp. 6414–6417 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ramos-Murguialday, A., Broetz, D., Rea, M., Yilmaz, Ö., Brasil, F.L., Liberati, G., Marco, R., Garcia-cossio, E., Vyziotis, A., Cho, W., Cohen, L.G., Birbaumer, N.: Brain-Machine-interface in chronic stroke rehabilitation: a controlled study. Ann. Neurol. 74, 100–108 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.23879.Brain-Machine-InterfaceCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biasiucci, A., Leeb, R., Iturrate, I., Perdikis, S., Al-Khodairy, A., Corbet, T., Schnider, A., Schmidlin, T., Zhang, H., Bassolino, M., Viceic, D., Vuadens, P., Guggisberg, A.G., Millán, J.D.R.: Brain-actuated functional electrical stimulation elicits lasting arm motor recovery after stroke. Nat. Commun. 9, 1–13 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04673-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tabernig, C.B., Lopez, C.A., Carrere, L.C., Spaich, E.G., Ballario, C.H.: Neurorehabilitation therapy of patients with severe stroke based on functional electrical stimulation commanded by a brain computer interface. J. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. Eng. 5, 205566831878928 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1177/2055668318789280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McCrimmon, C.M., King, C.E., Wang, P.T., Cramer, S.C., Nenadic, Z., Do, A.H.: Brain-controlled functional electrical stimulation therapy for gait rehabilitation after stroke: a safety study. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 12 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-015-0050-4
  9. 9.
    g.Nautilus wireless biosignal acquisition Homepage. http://www.gtec.at/Products/Hardware-and-Accessories/g.Nautilus-Specs-Features
  10. 10.
    Emotiv EpocFlex flexible wireless EEG system Homepage. https://www.emotiv.com/epoc-flex/
  11. 11.
    Vuckovic, A., Wallace, L., Allan, D.: Hybrid brain-computer interface and functional electrical stimulation for sensorimotor training in participants with tetraplegia: a proof-of-concept study. J. Neurol. Phys. Ther. 39, 3–14 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schalk, G., McFarland, D.J., Hinterberger, T., Birbaumer, N., Wolpaw, J.R.: BCI2000: a general-purpose brain-computer interface (BCI) system. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 51, 1034–1043 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2004.827072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCrimmon, C.M., Fu, J.L., Wang, M., Lopes, L.S., Wang, P.T., Karimi-Bidhendi, A., Liu, C.Y., Heydari, P., Nenadic, Z., Do, A.H.: Performance assessment of a custom, portable, and low-cost brain-computer interface platform. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 64, 2313–2320 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2017.2667579CrossRefGoogle Scholar

via A Wireless BCI-FES Based on Motor Intent for Lower Limb Rehabilitation | SpringerLink

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract + References] Upper-Limb Exoskeletons for Stroke Rehabilitation – Conference paper

Abstract

Upper-limb exoskeletons provide high-intensity, repetitive, task-specific, interactive and individualized training, making effective use of neuroplasticity for functional recovery in neurological patients. Most exoskeletons have robot axes aligned with the anatomical axes of the subject and provide direct control of individual joints. Recently, novel mechanical structures and actuation mechanisms have been proposed, but still result in bulky and heavy exoskeletons, limiting their applicability into clinical practice. Technological efforts are needed to promote light and wearable exoskeletons that implement active-assistive controllers, providing “assisted-as-needed” rehabilitation therapy, towards patient’s motivation and self-esteem. An overview of upper-limb exoskeletons, including mechanical design and control algorithms, will be provided. Special focus will be put on the current evidence about the efficacy of wearable robotic technologies on motor recovery and about other therapies that can be combined with exoskeletons to improve their therapeutic effects.

References

  1. 1.
    Ambrosini, E., et al.: A myocontrolled neuroprosthesis integrated with a passive exoskeleton to support upper limb activities. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 24(2), 307–317 (2014). Official Journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological KinesiologyGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basteris, A., et al.: Training modalities in robot-mediated upper limb rehabilitation in stroke: a framework for classification based on a systematic review. J. NeuroEng. Rehabil. 11(1), 111 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertani, R., et al.: Effects of robot-assisted upper limb rehabilitation in stroke patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Neurol. Sci. 38(9), 1561–1569 (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calanca, A., et al.: A review of algorithms for compliant control of stiff and fixed-compliance robots. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 21(2), 613–624 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang, W.H., Kim, Y.-H.: Robot-assisted therapy in stroke rehabilitation. J. Stroke 15(3), 174–181 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gandolla, M., et al.: The neural correlates of long-term carryover following functional electrical stimulation for stroke. Neural Plast. 2016, 1–13 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grimm, F., et al.: Closed-loop task difficulty adaptation during virtual reality reach-to-grasp training assisted with an exoskeleton for stroke rehabilitation. Front. Neurosci. 10, 518 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Howlett, O.A., et al.: Functional electrical stimulation improves activity after stroke: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 96(5), 934–943 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Immick, N., et al.: Hybrid robotic system for arm training after stroke: preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial. In: International Conference on NeuroRehabilitation, pp. 94–97 (2019)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Islam, M.R., et al.: A brief review on robotic exoskeletons for upper extremity rehabilitation to find the gap between research prototype and commercial type. Adv. Robot. Autom. 06(03), 1–12 (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim, B., Deshpande, A.D.: An upper-body rehabilitation exoskeleton Harmony with an anatomical shoulder mechanism: Design, modeling, control, and performance evaluation. Int. J. Robot. Res. 36(4), 414–435 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krebs, H.I., et al.: Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: a robot for wrist rehabilitation. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 15(3), 327–335 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Langhorne, P., et al.: Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 8(8), 741–754 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laver, K.E., et al.: Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. In: Laver, K.E. (ed.) Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Wiley, Chichester (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lawrence, E.S., et al.: Estimates of the prevalence of acute stroke impairments and disability in a multiethnic population. Stroke 32(6), 1279–1284 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lo, H.S., Xie, S.Q.: Exoskeleton robots for upper-limb rehabilitation: state of the art and future prospects. Med. Eng. Phys. 34(3), 261–268 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mazzoleni, S., et al.: Combining upper limb robotic rehabilitation with other therapeutic approaches after stroke: current status, rationale, and challenges. BioMed Res. Int. 2017, 1–11 (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meadmore, K.L., et al.: Functional electrical stimulation mediated by iterative learning control and 3D robotics reduces motor impairment in chronic stroke. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 9, 32 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mehrholz, J., et al.: Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (11), CD006876 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nef, T., et al.: ARMin III – arm therapy exoskeleton with an ergonomic shoulder actuation. Appl. Bionics Biomech. 6(2), 127–142 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pedrocchi, A., et al.: MUNDUS project: Multimodal Neuroprosthesis for Daily Upper limb Support. J. NeuroEng. Rehabil. 10(1), 66 (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pirondini, E., et al.: Evaluation of the effects of the arm light exoskeleton on movement execution and muscle activities: a pilot study on healthy subjects. J. NeuroEng. Rehabil. 13(1), 1–21 (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Proietti, T., et al.: Upper-limb robotic exoskeletons for neurorehabilitation: a review on control strategies. IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng. 9, 4–14 (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Qian, Q., et al.: Early stroke rehabilitation of the upper limb assisted with an electromyography-driven neuromuscular electrical stimulation-robotic arm. Front. Neurol. 8, 447 (2017)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rong, W., et al.: A Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES) and robot hybrid system for multi-joint coordinated upper limb rehabilitation after stroke. J. NeuroEng. Rehabil. 14(1), 34 (2017)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sensinger, J.W., Weir, R.F.F.: Improvements to series elastic actuators. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE/ASME International Conference on Mechatronic and Embedded Systems and Applications, MESA 2006 (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stienen, A.H.A., et al.: Self-aligning exoskeleton axes through decoupling of joint rotations and translations. IEEE Trans. Rob. 25(3), 628–633 (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Veerbeek, J.M., et al.: Effects of robot-assisted therapy for the upper limb after stroke. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 31(2), 107–121 (2017)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang, C., et al.: Robotic approaches for the rehabilitation of upper limb recovery after stroke. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 40(1), 19–28 (2017)Google Scholar

via Upper-Limb Exoskeletons for Stroke Rehabilitation | SpringerLink

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[WEB PAGE] Treatments for foot drop compared

 

Continue —> Treatments for foot drop compared | MS Trust

, , , , ,

1 Comment

[Wikipedia audio article] Electrical stimulation

This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functio…

00:01:21 1 Principles

00:09:14 2 History

00:10:01 3 Common applications

00:10:11 3.1 Spinal cord injury

00:11:09 3.1.1 Walking in spinal cord injury

00:15:01 3.2 Stroke and upper limb recovery

00:16:21 3.3 Drop foot

00:18:08 3.4 Stroke

00:18:58 3.5 Multiple sclerosis

00:20:06 3.6 Cerebral palsy

00:21:07 3.7 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Guidelines (NICE) (UK)

00:21:47 4 In popular culture

00:22:10 5 See also

Listening is a more natural way of learning, when compared to reading. Written language only began at around 3200 BC, but spoken language has existed long ago.

Learning by listening is a great way to:

  • – increases imagination and understanding
  • – improves your listening skills
  • – improves your own spoken accent
  • – learn while on the move
  • – reduce eye strain

Now learn the vast amount of general knowledge available on Wikipedia through audio (audio article). You could even learn subconsciously by playing the audio while you are sleeping! If you are planning to listen a lot, you could try using a bone conduction headphone, or a standard speaker instead of an earphone.

Listen on Google Assistant through Extra Audio: https://assistant.google.com/services…

Other Wikipedia audio articles at: https://www.youtube.com/results?searc…

Upload your own Wikipedia articles through: https://github.com/nodef/wikipedia-tts

Speaking Rate: 0.9170272343252982 Voice name: en-AU-Wavenet-B

“I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.” – Socrates

SUMMARY 

Functional electrical stimulation (FES) is a technique that uses low-energy electrical pulses to artificially generate body movements in individuals who have been paralyzed due to injury to the central nervous system. More specifically, FES can be used to generate muscle contraction in otherwise paralyzed limbs to produce functions such as grasping, walking, bladder voiding and standing. This technology was originally used to develop neuroprostheses that were implemented to permanently substitute impaired functions in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI), head injury, stroke and other neurological disorders. In other words, a person would use the device each time he or she wanted to generate a desired function. FES is sometimes also referred to as neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES).FES technology has been used to deliver therapies to retrain voluntary motor functions such as grasping, reaching and walking. In this embodiment, FES is used as a short-term therapy, the objective of which is restoration of voluntary function and not lifelong dependence on the FES device, hence the name functional electrical stimulation therapy, FES therapy (FET or FEST). In other words, the FEST is used as a short-term intervention to help the central nervous system of the person to re-learn how to execute impaired functions, instead of making the person dependent on neuroprostheses for the rest of her or his life.

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[VIDEO] Stroke Rehabilitation: Use of electrical stimulation to help arm and hand recovery

This video demonstrates how to use FES, Functional Electrical Stimulation, to engage the muscles of the arm to extend the fingers.

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Bilateral Contralaterally Controlled Functional Electrical Stimulation Reveals New Insights Into the Interhemispheric Competition Model in Chronic Stroke

Background. Upper-limb chronic stroke hemiplegia was once thought to persist because of disproportionate amounts of inhibition imposed from the contralesional on the ipsilesional hemisphere. Thus, one rehabilitation strategy involves discouraging engagement of the contralesional hemisphere by only engaging the impaired upper limb with intensive unilateral activities. However, this premise has recently been debated and has been shown to be task specific and/or apply only to a subset of the stroke population. Bilateral rehabilitation, conversely, engages both hemispheres and has been shown to benefit motor recovery. To determine what neurophysiological strategies bilateral therapies may engage, we compared the effects of a bilateral and unilateral based therapy using transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Methods. We adopted a peripheral electrical stimulation paradigm where participants received 1 session of bilateral contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation (CCFES) and 1 session of unilateral cyclic neuromuscular electrical stimulation (cNMES) in a repeated-measures design. In all, 15 chronic stroke participants with a wide range of motor impairments (upper extremity Fugl-Meyer score: 15 [severe] to 63 [mild]) underwent single 1-hour sessions of CCFES and cNMES. We measured whether CCFES and cNMES produced different effects on interhemispheric inhibition (IHI) to the ipsilesional hemisphere, ipsilesional corticospinal output, and ipsilateral corticospinal output originating from the contralesional hemisphere.

Results. CCFES reduced IHI and maintained ipsilesional output when compared with cNMES. We found no effect on ipsilateral output for either condition. Finally, the less-impaired participants demonstrated a greater increase in ipsilesional output following CCFES.

Conclusions. Our results suggest that bilateral therapies are capable of alleviating inhibition on the ipsilesional hemisphere and enhancing output to the paretic limb.

 

via Bilateral Contralaterally Controlled Functional Electrical Stimulation Reveals New Insights Into the Interhemispheric Competition Model in Chronic Stroke – David A. Cunningham, Jayme S. Knutson, Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian, Kelsey A. Potter-Baker, Andre G. Machado, Ela B. Plow, 2019

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Bilateral Contralaterally Controlled Functional Electrical Stimulation Reveals New Insights Into the Interhemispheric Competition Model in Chronic Stroke

Background. Upper-limb chronic stroke hemiplegia was once thought to persist because of disproportionate amounts of inhibition imposed from the contralesional on the ipsilesional hemisphere. Thus, one rehabilitation strategy involves discouraging engagement of the contralesional hemisphere by only engaging the impaired upper limb with intensive unilateral activities. However, this premise has recently been debated and has been shown to be task specific and/or apply only to a subset of the stroke population. Bilateral rehabilitation, conversely, engages both hemispheres and has been shown to benefit motor recovery. To determine what neurophysiological strategies bilateral therapies may engage, we compared the effects of a bilateral and unilateral based therapy using transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Methods. We adopted a peripheral electrical stimulation paradigm where participants received 1 session of bilateral contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation (CCFES) and 1 session of unilateral cyclic neuromuscular electrical stimulation (cNMES) in a repeated-measures design. In all, 15 chronic stroke participants with a wide range of motor impairments (upper extremity Fugl-Meyer score: 15 [severe] to 63 [mild]) underwent single 1-hour sessions of CCFES and cNMES. We measured whether CCFES and cNMES produced different effects on interhemispheric inhibition (IHI) to the ipsilesional hemisphere, ipsilesional corticospinal output, and ipsilateral corticospinal output originating from the contralesional hemisphere.

Results. CCFES reduced IHI and maintained ipsilesional output when compared with cNMES. We found no effect on ipsilateral output for either condition. Finally, the less-impaired participants demonstrated a greater increase in ipsilesional output following CCFES.

Conclusions. Our results suggest that bilateral therapies are capable of alleviating inhibition on the ipsilesional hemisphere and enhancing output to the paretic limb.

via Bilateral Contralaterally Controlled Functional Electrical Stimulation Reveals New Insights Into the Interhemispheric Competition Model in Chronic Stroke – David A. Cunningham, Jayme S. Knutson, Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian, Kelsey A. Potter-Baker, Andre G. Machado, Ela B. Plow,

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: