[Abstract + References] Use of a Brain–Computer Interface + Exoskeleton Technology in Complex Multimodal Stimulation in the Rehabilitation of Stroke Patients

Introduction. Studies of the potentials of brain–computer neural interface technology with an arm exoskeleton (BCNI) in training to motor imagery in the recovery of higher mental functions in patients constitute an interesting task. The effectiveness of multimodal stimulation including diverse information channels needs to be assessed, as this approach should promote stimulation of neuroplasticity and improvement to interhemisphere interactions. 

Objectives. To study the influences of multimodal stimulation using BCNI technologies on the restoration of cognitive functions in stroke patients. 

Materials and methods. A total of 44 stroke patients were studied and treated at periods of two months to two years after onset. Patients were divided into two groups with comparable main parameters: a study group (22 patients) and a reference group (22 patients). Patients of the study group underwent a program of complex multimodal stimulation including procedures using BCNI technologies, cognitive training, use of a stabilometric platform with biological feedback for the support reaction, and vibrotherapy. Patients of the reference group received only BCNI. 

Results. After treatment, statistically significant improvements in therapeutic results were obtained in the form of improvements in memory, attention, and visuospatial skills in patients of the study group as compared with those of the reference group. 

Conclusions. Questions of cognitive training using BCNI technologies are currently a relatively new direction in neurorehabilitation; the promising results obtained here provide evidence of the potential of this direction.

References

1. 1.A. S. Kadykov and N. V. Shakhparonova, “Rehabilitation of poststroke patients. The role of medication therapy,” Meditsinsk. Sov., 4, No. 1, 92–98 (2013), https://www.med-sovet.pro.Google Scholar 
2. 2.I. V. Saenko, E. I. Kremneva, O. V. Glebova, et al., “New approaches tot rehabilitation of patients with CNS lesions based on gravitational mechanisms,” Fiziol. Cheloveka, 43, No. 5, 118–128 (2017), https://www.maik.ru/journals/humphys.htm.Google Scholar 
3. 3.K. K. Ang, K. S. Chua, K. S. Phua, et al., “Randomized controlled trial of EEG-based motor imagery brain-computer interface robotic rehabilitation for stroke,” Clin. EEG Neurosci., 46, No. 4, 310–320 (2015).Article PubMed Google Scholar 
4. 4.T. Kim, S. Kim, and B. Lee, “Effects of action observational training plus brain-computer interface-based functional electrical stimulation on paretic arm motor recovery in patient with stroke: A randomized controlled trial,” Occup. Ther. Int., 23, No. 1, 39–47 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.1403.Article PubMed Google Scholar 
5. 5.A. A. Frolov, O. A. Mokienko, R. Kh. Lyukmanov, et al., “Preliminary results of a controlled study of the effi cacy of BCI-exoskeleton technology in poststroke paresis of the arms,” Vestn. RGMU, 2, 17–25 (2016), http://www.vestnikrgmu.ru/?lang=en.Google Scholar 
6. 6.G. Y. Kim, M. R. Han, and H. G. Lee, “Effect of dual-task rehabilitative training on cognitive and motor function of stroke patients,” J. Phys. Ther. Sci., 26, No. 1, 1–6 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.26.1Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
7. 7.S. V. Kotov, L. G. Turbina, P. D. Bobrov, et al., “Use of a brain–computer interface and exoskeleton and movement imagery techniques for poststroke rehabilitation,” Alman. Klin. Med., 39, 15–21 (2015), http://almclinmed.ru.Google Scholar 
8. 8.S. V. Kotov, L. G. Turbina, P. D. Bobrov, et al., “Rehabilitation of stroke patients using a brain–computer interface + exoskeleton bioengineering system,” Zh. Nevrol. Psikhiatr., 114, No. 12–2, 66–72 (2014).CAS Article Google Scholar 
9. 9.S. Borson, J. Scanlan, M. Brush, et al., “The mini-cog: a cognitive ‘vital signs’ measure for dementia screening in multi-lingual elderly,” Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry, 15, No. 11, 1021–1027 (2000).CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar 
10. 10.O. V. Kubryak, E. V. Isakova, S. V. Kotov, et al., “Increases in patients’ vertical stability in the acute period of stroke,” Zh. Nevrol. Psikhiatr., 114, No. 12–2, 61–65 (2014), https://doi.org/10.17116/jnevro201411412261-65.Article Google Scholar 
11. 11.Yu. V. Egorova, V. I. Sheregeshev, E. V. Isakova, et al., “Rehabilitation of elderly patients with cognitive impairments in the early recovery period of ischemic stroke sing biological feedback and multichannel muscle electrostimulation,” Klinich. Gerontol., 23, No. 11–12, 97–104 (2017).Google Scholar 
12. 12.M. Semprini, M. Laffranchi, V. Sanguineti, et al., “Technological approaches for neurorehabilitation: from robotic devices to brain stimulation and beyond,” Front. Neurol., 9, 212 (2018), https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00212.
13. 13.L. Carelli, F. Solca, A. Faini, et al., “Brain–computer interface for clinical purposes: cognitive assessment and rehabilitation,” Biomed. Res. Int., 1695290 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1695290.
14. 14.A. Riccio, F. Pichiorri, F. Schettini, et al., “Interfacing brain with computer to improve communication and rehabilitation after brain damage,” Prog. Brain Res., 228, 357–387 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.04.018.CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar 

Download references

Source

[Abstract + References] Active Multimodal Stimulation in Rehabilitation of paretic upper limb after stroke: technical procedure

ABSTRACT

The development of non-invasive transcranial stimulation techniques and their influence in Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) rehabilitation is increasing since nineties. There are several treatments for sensitive and motor upper limb recovery after a neurological injury, whose individual scientific evidence is remarkable. The purpose of this project is to describe the instrument’s performance for an active multimodal stimulation in paretic upper limb rehabilitation after stroke.

References

1. Carolina Colomer, Roberto Llorens, and Enrique Noé. 2016. Mirror therapy in chronic stroke survivors with severely impaired upper limb function: A randomized controlled trial. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 52, 3 (June 2016), 271–8.
2. Nestor A. Bayona, Jamie Bitensky, Katerine Salter, and Robert Teasell. 2005. The role of task-specific training in rehabilitation therapies. Stroke Rehabil. 12, 3 (February 2005), 58–65.
3. D. Corbetta, R. Gatti, L. Moja, and V. Sirtori. 2010. Constraint-induced movement Therapy in stroke patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 46, 4 (December 2010), 537–44.
4. Alireza Gharabaghi, Florian Grimm, and Gorgios Naros. 2016. Closed-Loop Task Difficulty Adaptation during Virtual Reality Reach-to-Grasp Training Assisted with an Exoskeleton for Stroke Rehabilitation. Front. Neurosci. 10, Article 518 (November 2016), 13 pages.
5. A. Benham, F.J.A. Deconinck, M.G. Feltham, A. Ledebt, G.J.P. Savelsbergh, and A.R.P. Smorenburg. 2014.Reflections on Mirror Therapy: A Systematic Review of the Effect of Mirror Visual Feedback on the Brain. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair. 29, 4 (May 2014) 349–361.
6. M. Crotty, J.E. Deutsch, S. George, K.E. Laver, and S. Thomas. 2015.Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 9, 2 (September 2011), 1–107.
7. De Kroon, J.R., M.J. Ijzerman, J.R de Kroon, G.J. Lankhorst, and J.H. Van der Lee. 2002. Therapeutic electrical stimulation to improve motor control and functional abilities of the upper extremity after stroke: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 16, 4 (June 2002), 350–60.
8. Jung-Hoon Lee, Min-Jae Lee, Sun-Min Lee, and Hyun-Mo Koo. 2017. Efectiveness of Bilateral Arm Training for Improving Extremity Function and Activities of Daily Living Performance in Hemiplegic Patients. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases. 26, 5 (May 2017), 1020–1025.
9. S.B.I. Badia, M.S. Cameirão, E. Duarte, A. Frisoli, and P.F.M.J. Verschure. 2012. The combined impact of virtual reality neurorehabilitation and its interfaces on upper extremity functional recovery in patients with chronic stroke. Stroke. 43, 10 (Junio 2012), 2720–2728.
10. K. Hachisuka, Y. Matsushima, M. Ochi, T. Oda, and S. Saeki. 2013. Effects of anodal and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation combined with robotic therapy on severely affected arms in chronic stroke patients. J. Rehabil. Med. 45, 2 (September 2012), 137–140.
11. M.K. Fleming, D.J. Newham, J.C. Rothwell, L. Sztriha, and J.T. Teo. 2017. The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on motor sequence learning and upper limb function after stroke. Clinical Neurophisiology. (March 2017).
12. D.J. Edwards, S.J. Page, H.T. Peters, and S. Wortman-Jutt. 2016. Moving Forward by Stimulating the Brain: Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Post-Stroke Hemiparesis. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10, Article 394(August 2016), 8 pages.
13. Beth E. Fisher, Shailesh Kantak, Jarugool Tretriluxana, Suradej Tretriluxana, and Allan D. Wu. 2015.Improvement in Paretic Arm Reach-to-Grasp following Low Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Depends on Object Size: A Pilot Study. Stroke Research and Treatment. 2015, Article ID 498169 (October 2015), 13 pages.
14. M.N. McDonell and C.M. Stinear. 2017. TMS measures of motor cortex function after stroke: A meta-analysis. Brain Stimul. 10, 4 (March 2017), 721–734.
15. Shahanaz Begum, Abdul Khalegue and Jebun Nessa. 2009. Rehabilitation of Stroke Patients — Effects of Early Intervention of Physical Therapy on Functional Outcome. Bangladesh Journal of Anatomy. 7, 1 (January 2009), 62–67.
16. David J. Clarke, and Anne Forster. 2015. Improving post-stroke recovery: the role of the multidisciplinary health care team. J Multidiscip Healthc 8, (September 2015), 433–442.
17. IreneGuerrero Claro, and María I. López Leiva. 2015. Application of Bobath Concept in patients who have suffered a stroke. TOG. 12, 22 (November 2015), 18 pages.
18. S.K. Shah. 2010. Reliability of the Original Brunnstrom Recovery Scale Following Hemiplegia. Aust Occup Ther J. 31, 4 (December 1984), 144–151.
19. Wyatt O. Briggs, Kayla B. Hindle, Junggi Hong, and Tyler J. Whitcomb. 2012. Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF); Its Mechanisms and Effects of Range of Motion and Muscular Function. Journal of Human Kinetics. 31 (March 2012), 105–113.
20. Sourya Acharya, and Samarth Shukla. 2012. Mirror neurons: Enigma of metaphysical modular brain. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 3, 2 (December 2012), 118–124.
21. Hwi-Youg Cho, Jinhwa Jung, Kitae Kim, and Byounghee Lee. 2015. The effect of neurofeedback on brain wave and visual perception in stroke: a randomized control trial. J Phys Ther Sci. 27, 3 (March 2015), 673–676.
22. G. Rauter, R. Riener, R. Sigrist, and P. Wolf. 2013. Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review. Psychon. Bull. Rev.20, 1 (November 2012), 21–53.
23. L. Cohen, R. Duque, R. Mazzocchio, and N. Murase. 2004. Influence of interhemispheric interactions on motor function in chronic stroke. Ann. Neurol. 55, 3 (March 2004), 400–409.
24. P. Celnik, L.G. Cohen, M. Dimyan, N.J. Paik, and Y. Vandermeeren. 2009. Effects of combined peripheral nerve stimulation and brain polarization on performance of a motor sequence task after chronic stroke. Stroke. 40, 5 (May 2009), 1764–71.
25. M.H. Chun, and S.J.Lee. 2014. Combination transcranial direct current stimulation and virtual reality therapy for upper extremity training in patients with subacute stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 95, 3 (March 2014), 431–438.

Source