Posts Tagged Multimodal

[ARTICLE] A combination of multimodal physical exercises in real and virtual environments for individuals after chronic stroke: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial – Full Text

Abstract

Background

Multimodal physical exercises already have well-established benefits for the post-stroke population that influence gait functional capacity, balance, gait, cognition, and quality of life. This type of intervention can be performed in both real and virtual environments. Considering the characteristics of both environments, it is questioned to what extent the combination of interventions in real and virtual environments could result in improvement in post-stroke impairments.

Methods/design

We will conduct a randomized clinical trial with three groups: a real multimodal group (RMG), a virtual multimodal group (VMG), and a combined multimodal group (CMG). It was estimated that we will need a sample of 36 participants (12 per group). RMG individuals will only perform multimodal physical exercises in a real environment two times per week for 60 min per session for 15 weeks. VMG individuals will perform exercises of the same duration over the same time frame but only in a virtual environment. CMG individuals will hold a weekly session in a real environment and another weekly session in virtual environment. The primary outcome measure will be health-related quality of life, evaluated using the Stroke Impact Scale; effects on cognition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), balance (Berg Balance Scale), mobility (Timed Up & Go), self-selected gait speed (10-meter walk test), and gait functional capacity (6-min walk test) will be investigated as secondary outcome measures. Participants will be evaluated before the beginning of the intervention, immediately after the end of the intervention, and at 1-month follow-up without exercise. If the data meet the assumptions of the parametric analysis, the results will be evaluated by analysis of variance (3 × 3) for the group factor, with repeated measures while taking into account the time factor. The post hoc Tukey test will be used to detect differences (α = 0.05).

Discussion

This study represents the first clinical trial to include three groups considering physical exercise in real and virtual environments, isolated and combined, that counterbalances the intensity and volume of training in all groups. This study also includes a control of progression in all groups along the 15-week intervention. The outcome measures are innovative because, according to International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, activity and participation are the targets for effectiveness evaluation.

Background

The diverse impairments observed after a stroke, associated with the reduction of intrinsic motivation and the presence of preexisting or acquired comorbidities, lead to a vicious cycle of decreased activity and increased exercise intolerance. As a consequence, secondary complications, such as reduced cardiorespiratory fitness, muscle atrophy, osteoporosis, and circulation impairment in the lower extremities, may occur and generate greater dependence in the activities of daily living and impact the social interactions of these individuals [1].

Different modalities of physical exercises already have well-established benefits for individuals after chronic stroke, including repercussions for cardiovascular capacity [2], muscle strength [34], balance [56], gait [78], and cognition [9]. In order to maximize the effects of the exercises, there is a tendency to investigate the effects of multimodal protocols. According to Saunders et al. [10], a multimodal protocol refers to interventions based on the combination of physical exercises of different components, such as cardiorespiratory, muscular strength, and flexibility.

Multimodal physical exercises can be performed in both real and virtual reality environments. The interventions performed in real environments are the most commonly used in the clinical context. Characteristics of interventions performed in real environments include a high interactive relationship between the professional and the patient, high ecological validity, the possibility of individual or group applications, not requiring technological resources, and the ability to be applied in the home according to each patient’s needs.

Conversely, virtual reality-based interventions present features such as an environment rich in visual and auditory information with immediate and multisensory feedback [11], real-time simulation of tasks or environments, three-dimensional interactive and immersive experiences, a computerized interface, active and safe patient participation [12], and the ability to provide information with an external focus of attention [1314]. In a systematic review, Laver et al. [15] found that the addition of virtual reality to conventional methods resulted in improved upper limb function. However, they also found insufficient evidence regarding the superiority of virtual reality for promoting walking speed and balance. They were unable to pool results related to cognition, improvement of social participation, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) because few studies included assessments of cognition and HRQoL to achieve meta-analysis requirements for these outcomes [15]. Therefore, these parameters should be investigated in future studies; in addition, the authors also emphasized the need for training lasting longer than 15 h of intervention and that future studies should set the number of participants screened for eligibility criteria.

Considering the characteristics of both environments, it is questioned to what extent the combination of interventions in the real and virtual environments could result in improvement in post-stroke impairments. There are few studies that have sought to find answers to this question. In the Shin et al. [16] study, the control group performed 1 h of occupational therapy per session, and the experimental group performed 30 min of occupational therapy plus 30 min of virtual reality. The results showed positive effects in both groups, except for the domain related to the limitations due to physical problems measured by the Short Form Health Survey scores, in which experimental group (EG) obtained greater benefits. Rajaratnam et al. [17] found positive results for balance and mobility measurements for the group that performed 40 min of conventional therapy plus 20 min of self-directed virtual reality balance training per session, compared with the control group, which performed 60 min of conventional therapy.

Saposnik and Levin [18] claimed there were few publications regarding the combination of multimodal physical exercises in real and virtual environments. Most of the existing studies did not investigate long-term effects, including follow-up, and added intervention time to the experimental groups, which provided them with an advantage in the total intervention time received. In addition, there is an important diversity in the literature regarding the profile characteristics of individuals with stroke, considering acute, subacute, and chronic patients. Thus, the results found in the previous studies [19,20,21,22,23,24] do not allow consistent conclusions to be made about the effects of the combination of multimodal exercises in real and virtual environments in individuals after chronic stroke.

This study seeks to answer whether the combination of multimodal physical exercises in real and virtual environments could bring additional benefits to the quality of life, cognition, gait, and balance of individuals after chronic stroke. We also intend to clarify the effects of interventions with multimodal physical exercises when performed only in a real environment or only in a virtual environment and to investigate whether the possible effects remain after 1 month without participating in physical exercises.

This study aims to investigate the effects of a protocol of multimodal physical exercises in real and virtual environments for individuals who have survived a stroke.[…]

 

Continue —-> A combination of multimodal physical exercises in real and virtual environments for individuals after chronic stroke: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial | Trials | Full Text

figure2

Virtual reality games selected for the odd-game sessions and individuals’ practice

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract + References] Multimodal Head-Mounted Virtual-Reality Brain-Computer Interface for Stroke Rehabilitation – Conference paper

Abstract

Rehabilitation after stroke requires the exploitation of active movement by the patient in order to efficiently re-train the affected side. Individuals with severe stroke cannot benefit from many training solutions since they have paresis and/or spasticity, limiting volitional movement. Nonetheless, research has shown that individuals with severe stroke may have modest benefits from action observation, virtual reality, and neurofeedback from brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). In this study, we combined the principles of action observation in VR together with BCI neurofeedback for stroke rehabilitation to try to elicit optimal rehabilitation gains. Here, we illustrate the development of the REINVENT platform, which takes post-stroke brain signals indicating an attempt to move and drives a virtual avatar arm, providing patient-driven action observation in head-mounted VR. We also present a longitudinal case study with a single individual to demonstrate the feasibility and potentially efficacy of the REINVENT system.

References

  1. 1.
    Mozaffarian, D., et al.: American heart association statistics committee and stroke statistics subcommittee: heart disease and stroke statistics–2015 update: a report from the American heart association. Circulation 131, e29–e322 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miller, E.L., et al.: American heart association council on cardiovascular nursing and the stroke council: comprehensive overview of nursing and interdisciplinary rehabilitation care of the stroke patient: a scientific statement from the American heart association. Stroke 41, 2402–2448 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Celnik, P., Webster, B., Glasser, D., Cohen, L.: Effects of action observation on physical training after stroke. Stroke J. Cereb. Circ. 39, 1814–1820 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ertelt, D., et al.: Action observation has a positive impact on rehabilitation of motor deficits after stroke. NeuroImage 36(Suppl 2), T164–T173 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garrison, K.A., Aziz-Zadeh, L., Wong, S.W., Liew, S.-L., Winstein, C.J.: Modulating the motor system by action observation after stroke. Stroke 44, 2247–2253 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ballester, B.R., et al.: The visual amplification of goal-oriented movements counteracts acquired non-use in hemiparetic stroke patients. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 12, 50 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vourvopoulos, A., Bermúdez i Badia, S.: Motor priming in virtual reality can augment motor-imagery training efficacy in restorative brain-computer interaction: a within-subject analysis. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 13, 69 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maclean, N., Pound, P., Wolfe, C., Rudd, A.: Qualitative analysis of stroke patients’ motivation for rehabilitation. BMJ 321, 1051–1054 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paraskevopoulos, I., Tsekleves, E., Warland, A., Kilbride, C.: Virtual reality-based holistic framework: a tool for participatory development of customised playful therapy sessions for motor rehabilitation. In: 2016 8th International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications (VS-Games), September (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wolpaw, J.R.: Brain-Computer Interfaces: Principles and Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vourvopoulos, A., Bermudez i Badia, S.: Usability and cost-effectiveness in brain-computer interaction: is it user throughput or technology related? In: Proceedings of the 7th Augmented Human International Conference. ACM, Geneva, Switzerland (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schomer, D.L., Lopes da Silva, F.H.: Niedermeyer’s Electroencephalography: Basic Principles, Clinical Applications, and Related Fields. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kropotov, J.D.: Chapter 2.2 – Alpha rhythms. In: Kropotov, J.D. (ed.) Functional Neuromarkers for Psychiatry, pp. 89–105. Academic Press, San Diego (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pfurtscheller, G., Lopes da Silva, F.H.: Event-related EEG/MEG synchronization and desynchronization: basic principles. Clin. Neurophysiol. Off. J. Int. Fed. Clin. Neurophysiol. 110, 1842–1857 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu, J., et al.: Connectivity measures are robust biomarkers of cortical function and plasticity after stroke. Brain 138, 2359–2369 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhou, R.J., et al.: Predicting gains with visuospatial training after stroke using an EEG measure of frontoparietal circuit function. Front. Neurol. 9, 597 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Soekadar, S.R., Birbaumer, N., Slutzky, M.W., Cohen, L.G.: Brain–machine interfaces in neurorehabilitation of stroke. Neurobiol. Dis. 83, 172–179 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Friedman, D.: Brain-computer interfacing and virtual reality. In: Nakatsu, R., Rauterberg, M., Ciancarini, P. (eds.) Handbook of Digital Games and Entertainment Technologies, pp. 151–171. Springer, Singapore (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-50-4_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vourvopoulos, A., Ferreira, A., Bermúdez i Badia, S.: NeuRow: an immersive VR environment for motor-imagery training with the use of brain-computer interfaces and vibrotactile feedback. In: 3rd International Conference on Physiological Computing Systems, Lisbon (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Slater, M.: Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364, 3549–3557 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spicer, R., Anglin, J., Krum, D.M., Liew, S.L.: REINVENT: a low-cost, virtual reality brain-computer interface for severe stroke upper limb motor recovery. In: 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), pp. 385–386 (2017)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klem, G.H., Luders, H.O., Jasper, H.H., Elger, C.: The ten-twenty electrode system of the international federation. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 52, 3–6 (1999). The International Federation of Clinical NeurophysiologyGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kothe, C.: Lab streaming layer (LSL). https://github.com/sccn/labstreaminglayer. Accessed 26 Oct 2015 (2014)
  24. 24.
    Fugl-Meyer, A.R., Jääskö, L., Leyman, I., Olsson, S., Steglind, S.: The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand. J. Rehabil. Med. 7, 13–31 (1975)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Duncan, P.W., Wallace, D., Lai, S.M., Johnson, D., Embretson, S., Laster, L.J.: The stroke impact scale version 2.0: evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke 30, 2131–2140 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kennedy, R.S., Lane, N.E., Berbaum, K.S., Lilienthal, M.G.: Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 3, 203–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bailey, J.O., Bailenson, J.N., Casasanto, D.: When does virtual embodiment change our minds? Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 25, 222–233 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J.: Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence Teleoperator Virtual Environ. 7, 225–240 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bouchard, S., Robillard, G., Renaud, P., Bernier, F.: Exploring new dimensions in the assessment of virtual reality induced side effects. J. Comput. Inf. Technol. 1, 20–32 (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Delorme, A., Makeig, S.: EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J. Neurosci. Methods 134, 9–21 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Makeig, S.: Auditory event-related dynamics of the EEG spectrum and effects of exposure to tones. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 86, 283–293 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Neuper, C., Wörtz, M., Pfurtscheller, G.: ERD/ERS patterns reflecting sensorimotor activation and deactivation. Prog. Brain Res. 159, 211–222 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pfurtscheller, G., Aranibar, A.: Evaluation of event-related desynchronization (ERD) preceding and following voluntary self-paced movement. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 46, 138–146 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pfurtscheller, G., Brunner, C., Schlögl, A., Lopes da Silva, F.H.: Mu rhythm (de)synchronization and EEG single-trial classification of different motor imagery tasks. NeuroImage 31, 153–159 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Liew, S.-L., et al.: Laterality of poststroke cortical motor activity during action observation is related to hemispheric dominance. Neural Plast. 2018, 14 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ritter, P., Moosmann, M., Villringer, A.: Rolandic alpha and beta EEG rhythms’ strengths are inversely related to fMRI-BOLD signal in primary somatosensory and motor cortex. Hum. Brain Mapp. 30, 1168–1187 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Westlake, K.P., et al.: Resting state alpha-band functional connectivity and recovery after stroke. Exp. Neurol. 237, 160–169 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dubovik, S., et al.: EEG alpha band synchrony predicts cognitive and motor performance in patients with ischemic stroke. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bn/2013/109764/abs/

via Multimodal Head-Mounted Virtual-Reality Brain-Computer Interface for Stroke Rehabilitation | SpringerLink

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

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: