Posts Tagged grasp

[NEWS] NEOFECT NeoMano Robotic Glove Wins Top Red Dot Prize

Published on 

NeoMano

NEOFECT announces that its NeoMano robotic glove has received the Red Dot Best of the Best award for 2019, the top prize in the Red Dot Design Concept category.

The NeoMano is a soft, lightweight glove that gives people with paralysis or limited hand function the ability to grip objects with the press of a button. A wireless, remote-controlled motor contracts the fingers of the NeoMano so wearers can perform such functions as grasping a glass of water, turning a doorknob, or maneuvering a toothbrush.

“Rehabilitation isn’t an option for everyone, including individuals living with ALS or spinal cord injuries, since in many cases they’ve permanently lost motor function,” says Scott Kim, co-founder and CEO of NEOFECT USA, headquartered in San Francisco, in a media release.

“We created the NeoMano to fit their needs, and we continue to evolve the design based on conversations and feedback from people living with these conditions. The Red Dot award recognizes our designers’ effort, dedication, and passion to helping people live fuller, more independent lives.”

The NeoMano is currently in production and will be available later this year, according to the company.

The Red Dot Awards recognize inventions, concepts, and products not yet on the market. Juries tested over 4,200 products and evaluated the entries with innovativeness, differentiation, aesthetic assessment, possibility of realization, functionality, emotionality, and value.

For more information, visit NEOFECT.

[Source(s): NEOFECT, Business Wire]

 

via NEOFECT NeoMano Robotic Glove Wins Top Red Dot Prize – Rehab Managment

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Effects of Hand Configuration on the Grasping, Holding, and Placement of an Instrumented Object in Patients With Hemiparesis – Full Text

Abstract

Objective: Limitations with manual dexterity are an important problem for patients suffering from hemiparesis post stroke. Sensorimotor deficits, compensatory strategies and the use of alternative grasping configurations may influence the efficiency of prehensile motor behavior. The aim of the present study is to examine how different grasp configurations affect patient ability to regulate both grip forces and object orientation when lifting, holding and placing an object.

Methods: Twelve stroke patients with mild to moderate hemiparesis were recruited. Each was required to lift, hold and replace an instrumented object. Four different grasp configurations were tested on both the hemiparetic and less affected arms. Load cells from each of the 6 faces of the instrumented object and an integrated inertial measurement unit were used to extract data regarding the timing of unloading/loading phases, regulation of grip forces, and object orientation throughout the task.

Results: Grip forces were greatest when using a palmar-digital grasp and lowest when using a top grasp. The time delay between peak acceleration and maximum grip force was also greatest for palmar-digital grasp and lowest for the top grasp. Use of the hemiparetic arm was associated with increased duration of the unloading phase and greater difficulty with maintaining the vertical orientation of the object at the transitions to object lifting and object placement. The occurrence of touch and push errors at the onset of grasp varied according to both grasp configuration and use of the hemiparetic arm.

Conclusion: Stroke patients exhibit impairments in the scale and temporal precision of grip force adjustments and reduced ability to maintain object orientation with various grasp configurations using the hemiparetic arm. Nonetheless, the timing and magnitude of grip force adjustments may be facilitated using a top grasp configuration. Conversely, whole hand prehension strategies compound difficulties with grip force scaling and inhibit the synchrony of grasp onset and object release.

 

Introduction

Cerebrovascular accidents (stroke) are a frequent cause of disability (1) and the recovery of upper-limb function in particular, is a key determinant of independence in activities of daily living (2). Broadly speaking, the physical impairment experienced by patients is characterized by loss of strength, abnormal movement patterns (pathological synergies), and changes in muscle tone to the side of the body contralateral to the stroke (34). This presentation is commonly referred to as hemiparesis and its severity tends to reflect the extent of the lesion to the corticospinal tract (5). Subtle changes in movement kinematics and hand function on the ipsilesional upper-limb have also been documented and may be the consequence of direct impairment of ipsilateral motor pathways (67), as well as reorganization of the non-lesioned hemisphere to support recovery of motor-function in the hemiparetic limb (810). Above all though, patients living with stroke find that limitations with manual dexterity of the hemiparetic arm have the most significant effect upon their ability to carry out activities involving hand use in daily life (11).

These impairments in patient hand function manifest in multiple different aspects of motor performance. This may include reduced strength (3), loss of individuated finger control (12), and abnormal force control at the level of the fingers (13). Increased muscle tone and spasticity though the flexors of the wrist and hand may further compound these difficulties and inhibit the ability to open the hand in preparation for grasping (14). Atypical reaching and grasping patterns are often seen to emerge both as a consequence of and as a response to the motor dysfunction (1516).

Unfortunately, rehabilitation of upper limb impairments proves to be challenging. Whilst numerous therapeutic modalities (e.g., bilateral training, constraint-induced therapy, electrical stimulation, task-oriented, high intensity programs) have been evaluated in clinical trials, none have demonstrated consistent effects upon hand function (1719). Indeed, previous research papers have described therapy outcomes in upper limb rehabilitation post stroke as “unacceptably poor” (20). Ideally, the design of neurorehabilitation programs should be grounded upon an understanding of basic mechanisms involved in neural plasticity and motor learning (2122). Part of this process implies coming to terms with the factors which characterize the disorganization in voluntary motor output (21). However, the majority of clinical tools currently used for evaluating hand function distinguish motor performance according to ordinal rating scales or task completion time (e.g., Frenchay Arm Test, Jebson-Taylor Hand Function Test) (2324). These kinds of assessments lack sensitivity and may prove insufficient for detecting the presence of mild motor deficits or subtle, yet clinically important changes in hand coordination (2526). Evidence based frameworks for hand rehabilitation have specifically called for the integration of new technology to support patient assessment and treatment planning (27). Despite this, the transposition of technology for upper limb rehabilitation from the research domain into clinical practice has been limited (2829). In the assessment of manual dexterity, the underlying challenge involves analyzing sensorimotor function of the hand with respect to its interaction with objects in the environment (30).

Successfully managing grasping and object handling tasks requires skilled control of prehensile finger forces. In healthy adults, grip forces are regulated to be marginally greater than the minimum required to prevent the object from slipping (31). This safety margin is calibrated according to the shape, surface friction and weight distribution of the object (3233). As the hand moves through space (lifting, transporting, object placement), grip force is continually modulated, proportional to the load forces associated with the mass and acceleration of that object (34). This temporal coupling between grip and load forces is considered a hallmark of anticipatory sensorimotor control (35). Disruption to motor planning, volitional motor control or somatosensory feedback may lead to a breakdown in the timing and magnitude of grip force adjustments.

Numerous studies have examined grip force regulation in neurological pathologies including cerebellar dysfunction (36), peripheral sensory neuropathy (3738), Parkinson’s disease (36373940) as well as congenital and acquired brain lesions (13364145). For patients suffering from hemiparesis post stroke, difficulty with coordinating the grasping and lifting action are frequently associated with temporal discrepancies between grip forces and load forces (46). The cerebral hemisphere implicated in the CVA (1347) and the extent of the resulting sensory deficits (4849) have also been observed to influence anticipatory grip force scaling. This body of work highlights the potential interest of using instrumented objects for the diagnosis and evaluation of the impairments associated with hemiparesis (4546485053).

As it stands, these objective studies of hand function post stroke have focused primarily upon either the lifting or the vertical movement components in object handling. To a certain extent, this limitation has been related to technical restrictions. Other than a handful of studies by Hermsdorfer et al. (849), research in this field has predominantly used manipulanda designed for the study of precision grip, where strain gauge force transducers are attached to a separate base unit [e.g., (232529333537)]. These devices cannot be freely handled by subjects, much less a person with an upper-limb movement disorder. Indeed, patients with hemiparesis often experience specific impairments with precision grip (53) and regularly use alternative grasping strategies such as whole hand grasping (151654). Previous researchers have hypothesized that these alternative grasp strategies may impact grip force scaling (55) and compromise patient ability to manage hand-object-environment relationships during object manipulation (56).

In a recent study with healthy adult subjects, (57) we demonstrated how an instrumented object with multiple load cells and an integrated inertial measurement unit (58) may be used to examine relationships between different grasp configurations, grip force regulation and object orientation. The purpose of the present investigation was to extend this work to the study of patients with hemiparesis post stroke. The first objective was to compare how four alternative grasp configurations commonly used in daily tasks affect grip force regulation in this population. The second objective was to explore the timing and coordination of the whole task sequence (grasping, lifting, holding, placement and object release). The third and final objective was to evaluate the stability of the hand-held object’s orientation across the different phases of the task.[…]

 

Continue —> Frontiers | Effects of Hand Configuration on the Grasping, Holding, and Placement of an Instrumented Object in Patients With Hemiparesis | Neurology

Figure 1. Illustration of the iBox device and the experimental setup. (A) The iBox instrumented object. (B)Setup for the experimental procedure. Initial positions of the iBox and hand start area are indicated by the dotted lines. The gray shaded rectangle indicates the deposit area for the top grasp task.

 

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

Leave a comment

[WEB SITE] MoreGrasp: Getting a better grip on things

September 18, 2018 by Barbara Gigler, Graz University of Technology

The goal of the MoreGrasp project was to develop a sensoric grasp neuroprosthesis to support the daily life activities of people living with severe to completely impaired hand function due to spinal cord injuries. The motor function of a neuroprosthesis was to be intuitively controlled by means of a brain-computer interface with emphasis on natural motor patterns. After three years, the breakthrough was reported by the members of the project consortium led by Gernot Müller-Putz, head of the Institute of Neural Engineering at TU Graz, which include the University of Heidelberg, the University of Glasgow, the two companies Medel Medizinische Elektronik and Bitbrain as well as the Know Center.

Gernot Müller-Putz says, “In , all the circuits in the brain and muscles in the body parts concerned are still intact, but the neurological connection between the brain and limbs is interrupted. We bypass this by communicating via a computer, which in turn, passes on the command to the muscles.” The muscles are controlled and encouraged to move by electrodes that are attached to the outside of the arm and can, for example, trigger the closing and opening of the fingers. The key was the sufficient distinguishability of the brainwaves to control the neuroprosthesis. For instance, if the participant thought about raising and lowering their foot and the signal measured by the EEG opened the right hand, the subject then—for instance—would think of a movement of the left hand and the right hand would close again.

The MoreGrasp consortium developed this technique further. This mental ‘detour’ of any distinguishable movement pattern is no longer necessary, as Müller-Putz explains: “We now use so-called ‘attempted movement.'” In doing so, the test subject attempts to carry out a movement like grasping a glass of water. Due to the tetraplegia, the brain signal is not passed on, but can be measured by means of an EEG and processed by the computer system. Müller-Putz is extremely pleased with the success of the research. He says, “We are now working with signals that only differ from each other very slightly. Nevertheless, we have managed to control the neuroprosthesis successfully. For users, this results in a completely new possibility of making movement sequences easier—especially during training. A variety of grips were investigated in the project: the palmar grasp (cylinder grasp, as for grasping a glass), the lateral grasp (key grasp, as for picking up a spoon), and opening the hand and turning it inwards and outwards.

Large-scale study

End users can register on the special online platform to enter a large-scale feasibility study intended to check compatibility of the technique in everyday life. Participants eligible for the study will be tested according to a complex procedure. Afterward, each subject will be provided with a tailor-made BCI training course which must be completed independently in sessions lasting several hours each week. In this way, brain signals will be gathered and the system itself will learn during each experiment.

 Explore further: Potential brain-machine interface for hand paralysis

via MoreGrasp: Getting a better grip on things

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[VIDEO] Soft Robotic Glove – YouTube

Harvard University

Published on Jun 5, 2015
The soft robotic glove under development at the Wyss Institute could one day be an assistive device used for grasping objects, which could help patients suffering from muscular dystrophy, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), incomplete spinal cord injury, or other hand impairments to regain some daily independence and control of their environment. For more information, please visit: http://wyss.harvard.edu/viewpressrele…

 

via Soft Robotic Glove – YouTube

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[VIDEO] Soft Robotic Glove – Vimeo

 

The soft robotic glove under development at the Wyss Institute could one day be an assistive device used for grasping objects, which could help patients suffering from muscular dystrophy, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), incomplete spinal cord injury, or other hand impairments to regain some daily independence and control of their environment.

This research is partially funded by the National Science Foundation.

For more information, please visit: wyss.harvard.edu/viewpressrelease/200

via Soft Robotic Glove on Vimeo

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] On neuromechanical approaches for the study of biological and robotic grasp and manipulation – Full Text

Abstract

Biological and robotic grasp and manipulation are undeniably similar at the level of mechanical task performance. However, their underlying fundamental biological vs. engineering mechanisms are, by definition, dramatically different and can even be antithetical. Even our approach to each is diametrically opposite: inductive science for the study of biological systems vs. engineering synthesis for the design and construction of robotic systems. The past 20 years have seen several conceptual advances in both fields and the quest to unify them. Chief among them is the reluctant recognition that their underlying fundamental mechanisms may actually share limited common ground, while exhibiting many fundamental differences. This recognition is particularly liberating because it allows us to resolve and move beyond multiple paradoxes and contradictions that arose from the initial reasonable assumption of a large common ground. Here, we begin by introducing the perspective of neuromechanics, which emphasizes that real-world behavior emerges from the intimate interactions among the physical structure of the system, the mechanical requirements of a task, the feasible neural control actions to produce it, and the ability of the neuromuscular system to adapt through interactions with the environment. This allows us to articulate a succinct overview of a few salient conceptual paradoxes and contradictions regarding under-determined vs. over-determined mechanics, under- vs. over-actuated control, prescribed vs. emergent function, learning vs. implementation vs. adaptation, prescriptive vs. descriptive synergies, and optimal vs. habitual performance. We conclude by presenting open questions and suggesting directions for future research. We hope this frank and open-minded assessment of the state-of-the-art will encourage and guide these communities to continue to interact and make progress in these important areas at the interface of neuromechanics, neuroscience, rehabilitation and robotics.

Introduction

Grasp and manipulation have captivated the imagination and interest of thinkers of all stripes over the millennia; and with enough reverence to even attribute the intellectual evolution of humans to the capabilities of the hand [123]. Simply put, manipulation function is one of the key elements of our identity as a species (for an overview, see [4]). This is a natural response to the fact that much of our physical and cognitive ability and well-being is intimately tied to the use of our hands. Importantly, we have shaped our tools and environment to match its capabilities (straightforward examples include lever handles, frets in string instruments, and touch-screens). This co-evolution between hand-and-world reinforces the notion that our hands are truly amazing and robust manipulators, as well as rich sensory, perceptual and even social information.

It then comes as no surprise that engineers and physicians have long sought to replicate and restore this functionality in machines—both as appendages to robots and prostheses attached to humans with missing upper limbs [5]. Robotic hands and prostheses have a long and illustrious history, with records of sophisticated articulated hands as early as Gottfried ‘Götz’ von Berlichingen’s iron hand in 1504 [6]. Other efforts [7891011] were often fueled by the injuries of war [12131415] and the Industrial Revolution [16]. The higher survival rate in soldiers who lose upper limbs [1718] and the continual emergence of artificial intelligence [1920] are but the latest impetus. Thus, the past 20 years have seen an explosion in designs, fueled by large scale governmental funding (e.g., DARPA’s Revolutionizing Prosthetics and HAPTIX projects, EU’s INPUT and SOFTPRO projects) and private efforts such as DeepMind. A new player in this space is the potentially revolutionary social network of high-quality amateur scientists as exemplified by the FABLAB movement [21]. They are enabled by ubiquitously accessible and inexpensive 3D printing and additive manufacturing tools [22], collaborative design databases (http://www.eng.yale.edu/grablab/openhand/ and others), and communities with formal journals (http://www.liebertpub.com/overview/3d-printing-and-additive-manufacturing/621/ and http://www.journals.elsevier.com/additive-manufacturing/). Grassroots communities have also emerged that can, for example, compare and contrast the functionality of prosthetic hands whose price differs by three orders of magnitude (http://www.3dprint.com/2438/50-prosthetic-3d-printed-hand).

For all the progress that we have seen, however, (i) robotic platforms remain best at pre-sorted, pick-and-place assembly tasks [23]; and (ii) many prosthetic users still prefer simple designs like the revered whole- or split-hook designs originally developed centuries ago [2425].

Why have robotic and prosthetic hands not come of age? This short review provides a current attempt to tackle this long-standing question in response to the current technological boom in robotic and prosthetic limbs. Similar booms occurred in response to upper limb injuries [25] after the Napoleonic [26], First [12] and Second World Wars [8], and—with the advent of powerful inexpensive computers—in response to industrial and space exploration needs in the 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s [272829303132]. We argue that a truly bio-inspired approach suffers, by definition, from both gaps in our understanding of the biology, and technical challenges in mimicking (what we understand of) biological sensors, motors and controllers. Although biomimicry is often not the ultimate goal in robotics in general, it is relevant for humanoids and prostheses. Thus, our approach is to clarify when and why a better understanding of the biology of grasp and manipulation would benefit robotic grasping and manipulation.

Similarly, why is our understanding of the nature, function and rehabilitation of biological arms and hands incomplete? Jacob Benignus Winsløw Jacques-Bénigne Winslow, (1669—1760) noted in his Exposition anatomique de la structure du corps humain (1732) that ‘The coordination of the muscles of the live hand will never be understood’ [33]. Interestingly, he is still mostly correct. As commented in detail before [4], there has been much work devoted to inferring the anatomical, physiological, neural and cognitive processes that produce the upper limb function we so dearly appreciate and passionately work to restore following trauma or pathology. We argue, as Galileo Galilei did, that mathematics and engineering have much to contribute to the understanding of biological systems. Without such a ‘mathematical language’ we run the risk, as Galileo put it, of ‘wandering in vain through a dark labyrinth’ [34]. Thus, this short review also attempts to point out important mathematical and engineering developments and advances that have helped our understanding of our hands.

This review first contrasts the fundamental differences between engineering and neuroscience approaches to biological robotic systems. Whereas the former applies engineering principles, the latter relies on scientific inference. We then discuss how the physics of the world provides a common ground between them because both types of systems have similar functional goals, and must abide by the same physical laws. We go on to evaluate how biological and robotic systems implement the necessary sensory and motor functions using the dramatically different anatomy, morphology and mechanisms available to each. This inevitably raises questions about differences in their sensorimotor control strategies. Whereas engineering system can be designed and manufactured to optimize well-defined functional features, biological systems evolve without such strict tautology. Biological systems likely evolve by implementing ecologically and temporally good-enough, sub-optimal or habitual control strategies in response to the current multi-dimensional functional constraints and goals in the presence of competition, variability, uncertainty, and noise. We conclude by exploring the notion that the functional versatility of biological systems that roboticists admire is, in fact, enabled by the very nonlinearities and complexities in anatomy, sensorimotor physiology, and neural function that engineering approaches often seek to avoid. […]

Continue —> On neuromechanical approaches for the study of biological and robotic grasp and manipulation | Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation | Full Text

, , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] The Efficacy of a Haptic-enhanced Virtual Reality System for Precision Grasp Acquisition in Stroke Rehabilitation – Full Text PDF

ABSTRACT
Stroke is a leading cause of long-term disability, and virtual reality (VR)-based stroke rehabilitation is effective in increasing motivation and the functional performance in people with stroke. Although much of the functional reach and grasp capabilities of the upper extremities is regained, the pinch
movement remains impaired following stroke. In this study, we developed a haptic-enhanced VR system to simulate haptic pinch tasks to assist in long-term post-stroke recovery of upper-extremity fine motor function. We recruited 16 adults with stroke to verify the efficacy of this new VR system.
Each patient received 30-min VR training sessions 3 times per week for 8 weeks; all participants attended all 24 training sessions. Outcome measures, Fugl Meyer Assessment (FMA), Test Evaluant les Membres superieurs des Personnes Agees (TEMPA), Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), Box and
Block Test (BBT), and Jamar Grip Dynamometer, showed statistically significant progress from pretest to posttest and follow-up, indicating that the proposed system effectively promoted fine motor recovery of function. Additionally, our evidence suggests that this system was also effective under certain challenging conditions such as being in the chronic stroke phase or a co-side of lesion and dominant hand (non- dominant hand impaired). System usability assessment indicated the participants strongly intended to continue using this VR-based system in rehabilitation.

Download Full Text PDF

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

Leave a comment

[Abstract] A Low-Profile Soft Robotic Sixth-Finger for Grasp Compensation in Hand-Impaired Patients – Journal of Medical Devices – ASME DC

 

Source: A Low-Profile Soft Robotic Sixth-Finger for Grasp Compensation in Hand-Impaired Patients1 | Journal of Medical Devices | ASME DC

, , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

[WEB SITE] The future of stroke rehabilitation: upper limb recovery | ACNR | Online Neurology Journal

The future of stroke rehabilitation: upper limb recovery

The impact of stroke-related impairment around the world remains high.1 In particular, residual upper limb dysfunction after stroke is a major clinical, economic and societal problem. In the UK alone, the economic burden of stroke is estimated at over £5 billion a year and so improving outcomes after stroke is an important clinical and scientific goal. Nearly three-quarters of stroke survivors experience upper limb symptoms after acute stroke and in the first six months only 20% or so achieve some functional recovery.2,3 Management of the upper limb after stroke can be complex, requiring approaches that avoid complications, promote recovery and provide compensatory strategies in varying combinations depending on severity and time post-stroke.1

The wrong dose of rehabilitation?

There is concern that the dose and intensity of upper limb rehabilitation after stroke is too low. During early inpatient rehabilitation, the time spent engaged in activities, especially functional upper limb movements, is surprisingly low.4,5 Several studies have examined whether increasing the time spent on upper limb therapy makes a difference. For example, an additional two to three hours of arm training a day for six weeks reduced impairment and improved function by clinically meaningful amounts when started one to two months after stroke,6 but anything less than this does not appear to provide much benefit on average.7,8 It seems likely that when it comes to upper limb therapy, more is better.

However, the intensity (amount of activity), as well as the overall dose (time spent in therapy) is important. Data from work in rodent models of stroke suggest that changes in synaptic density (a marker of the neuroplastic reorganisation that is the substrate for recovery) in the primary motor cortex occur after hundreds but not tens of repetition.9 In human stroke patients, the typical number of repetitions in a therapy session can be much lower.4 It may be the case that there is a threshold of activity below which the neuroplastic reorganisation of surviving motor networks supporting recovery is unlikely to occur.10

How to increase the dose of rehabilitation?

One way of increasing dose is to implement a treatment programme that patients can administer themselves. The self-administered ‘graded repetitive arm supplementary program’(GRASP) has the advantage of being flexible enough to use in patients with a range of impairments. When started early after stroke in an in-patient setting, four weeks of GRASP led to improvements in upper limb function compared to patients undergoing an education programme. These gains were maintained at five months post-stroke. GRASP is easy to administer, cost-effective and feasible to implement in a number of health care settings on a large scale.12

Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) also increases the dose of functionally relevant training. Patients are required to wear a sling or mitten restricting use of the unaffected upper limb resulting in increased use of the affected hand/arm in functional tasks. CIMT led to improvements in the performance of functional tasks compared to standard (less intense) treatment.13 Despite its apparent simplicity, it is not always tolerated well if worn for six hours per day (standard protocol) and so modified protocols have been used, although less well studied.

The use of  in guiding highly specific training regimes might also allow a sufficient number of repetitions to be delivered in a motivating environment. Some devices allow weight support of the arm, so that skilled movements can be practiced even in the presence of significant shoulder weakness. Most clinical trials have been small and have involved chronic stroke patients. Two relatively large studies of upper limb robotic training in chronic stroke patients have recently been carried out.14,15 Both achieved high numbers of repetitions but only improved impairment by a few points compared to usual (less intense) therapy, and results were not greatly different to standard therapy matched for dose. It is likely that robotics and other technology such as virtual-reality based rehabilitation will find use as adjunctive therapy, rather than replacement for hands-on therapy. In other words, technological solutions provide a way of providing massed practice, but hands-on therapy is crucial for turning benefits into functional gains. Advances in devices that can be used and monitored in a patient’s own home will also be required before technological approaches to neurorehabilitation have a substantial impact.

Continue —> The future of stroke rehabilitation: upper limb recovery | ACNR | Online Neurology Journal

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Task-specific reach-to-grasp training after stroke: Development and description of a home-based intervention – UWE Research Repository

Abstract

Objective: To describe and justify the development of a home-based, task-specific upper limb training intervention to improve reach-to-grasp after stroke and pilot it for feasibility and acceptability prior to a randomised controlled trial.

Intervention description: The intervention is based on intensive practice of whole reach-to-grasp tasks and part-practice of essential reach-to-grasp components. A ‘pilot’ manual of activities covering the domains of self-care, leisure and productivity was developed for the feasibility study. The intervention comprises 14 hours of therapist-delivered sessions over 6 weeks, with additional self-practice recommended for 42 hours (i.e. 1 hour every day). As part of a feasibility randomised controlled trial, 24 people with a wide range of upper limb impairment after stroke experienced the intervention to test adherence and acceptability. The median number of repetitions in 1-hour therapist-delivered sessions was 157 (IQR: 96-211). The amount of self-practice was poorly documented. Where recorded, median amount of practice was 30 minutes (IQR: 22-45) per day. Findings demonstrated that the majority of participants found the intensity, content and level of difficulty of the intervention acceptable, and the programme to be beneficial. Comments on the content and presentation of the self-practice material were incorporated in a revised ‘final’ intervention manual.

Discussion: A comprehensive training intervention to improve reach-to-grasp for people living at home after stroke has been described in accordance with the TIDieR reporting guidelines. The intervention has been piloted, found to be acceptable and feasible in the home setting.

Source: Task-specific reach-to-grasp training after stroke: Development and description of a home-based intervention – UWE Research Repository

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

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: