Does motivation matter in upper-limb rehabilitation after stroke? ArmeoSenso-Reward: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundFifty percent of all stroke survivors remain with functional impairments of their upper limb. While there is a need to improve the effectiveness of rehabilitative training, so far no new training approach has proven to be clearly superior to conventional therapy. As training with rewarding feedback has been shown to improve motor learning in humans, it is hypothesized that rehabilitative arm training could be enhanced by rewarding feedback. In this paper, we propose a trial protocol investigating rewards in the form of performance feedback and monetary gains as ways to improve effectiveness of rehabilitative training.MethodsThis multicentric, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial uses the ArmeoSenso virtual reality rehabilitation system to train 74 first-ever stroke patients (< 100 days post stroke) to lift their impaired upper limb against gravity and to improve the workspace of the paretic arm. Three sensors are attached to forearm, upper arm, and trunk to track arm movements in three-dimensional space while controlling for trunk compensation. Whole-arm movements serve as input for a therapy game. The reward group (n = 37) will train with performance feedback and contingent monetary reward. The control group (n = 37) uses the same system but without monetary reward and with reduced performance feedback. Primary outcome is the change in the hand workspace in the transversal plane. Standard clinical assessments are used as secondary outcome measures.DiscussionThis randomized controlled trial will be the first to directly evaluate the effect of rewarding feedback, including monetary rewards, on the recovery process of the upper limb following stroke. This could pave the way for novel types of interventions with significantly improved treatment benefits, e.g., for conditions that impair reward processing (stroke, Parkinson’s disease).Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02257125. Registered on 30 September 2014.

[1]  P. Sedgwick.  Explanatory trials versus pragmatic trials , 2014, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  J. Rothwell,et al.  The dissociable effects of punishment and reward on motor learning , 2015, Nature Neuroscience.

[3]  E. Erdfelder,et al.  Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[4]  J. Krakauer,et al.  Getting Neurorehabilitation Right , 2012, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[5]  Robert Riener,et al.  Control strategies for active lower extremity prosthetics and orthotics: a review , 2015, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[6]  P. Sedgwick.  Intention to treat analysis versus per protocol analysis of trial data , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  A. Luft,et al.  Rewarding feedback promotes motor skill consolidation via striatal activity. , 2016, Progress in brain research.

[8]  Olivier Lambercy,et al.  Self-directed arm therapy at home after stroke with a sensor-based virtual reality training system , 2016, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[9]  L. Jäncke,et al.  The rewarding value of good motor performance in the context of monetary incentives , 2012, Neuropsychologia.

[10]  H. Heinze,et al.  Mesolimbic Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Activations during Reward Anticipation Correlate with Reward-Related Ventral Striatal Dopamine Release , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  Valerie M Pomeroy,et al.  The effects of increased dose of exercise-based therapies to enhance motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2010, BMC medicine.

[12]  R. Nudo.  Adaptive plasticity in motor cortex: implications for rehabilitation after brain injury. , 2003, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[13]  Gert Kwakkel Senior Researcher.  Impact of intensity of practice after stroke: Issues for consideration , 2009 .

[14]  G. Kwakkel,et al.  Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. , 2003, Stroke.

[15]  C. Lang,et al.  Quantifying Real-World Upper-Limb Activity in Nondisabled Adults and Adults With Chronic Stroke , 2015, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[16]  David Moher,et al.  SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. , 2015, Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health.

[17]  E. Harmon-Jones,et al.  The emotive neuroscience of embodiment , 2012 .

[18]  D. Wade,et al.  Loss of arm function after stroke: measurement, frequency, and recovery. , 1986, International rehabilitation medicine.

[19]  T. Murphy,et al.  Plasticity during stroke recovery: from synapse to behaviour , 2009, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[20]  J. Krakauer,et al.  Prediction of motor recovery using initial impairment and fMRI 48 h poststroke. , 2011, Cerebral cortex.

[21]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[22]  S. C. Cramer,et al.  Reward Improves Long-Term Retention of a Motor Memory through Induction of Offline Memory Gains , 2013 .

[23]  Arno H. A. Stienen,et al.  Feasibility study into self-administered training at home using an arm and hand device with motivational gaming environment in chronic stroke , 2015, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[24]  Olivier Lambercy,et al.  Assessment-driven arm therapy at home using an IMU-based virtual reality system , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR).

[25]  J. Krakauer,et al.  Medial Premotor Cortex Shows a Reduction in Inhibitory Markers and Mediates Recovery in a Mouse Model of Focal Stroke , 2013, Stroke.

[26]  G. Kwakkel,et al.  What Is the Evidence for Physical Therapy Poststroke? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2014, PloS one.

[27]  Fokke B. van Meulen,et al.  Assessment of Daily-Life Reaching Performance After Stroke , 2014, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[28]  J. Krakauer.  Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. , 2006, Current opinion in neurology.

[29]  G. Kwakkel.  Impact of intensity of practice after stroke: issues for consideration. , 2012, Disability and rehabilitation.

[30]  D. Moher,et al.  Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. , 2008, Annals of internal medicine.

[31]  Tao Liu,et al.  Differential Effect of Reward and Punishment on Procedural Learning , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[32]  H. Krebs,et al.  Effects of Robot-Assisted Therapy on Upper Limb Recovery After Stroke: A Systematic Review , 2008, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[33]  N. Rege,et al.  ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: guideline for good clinical practice. , 2001, Journal of postgraduate medicine.

[34]  Mike Slade,et al.  Evaluation of functional outcome measures for the hemiparetic upper limb: a systematic review. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[35]  J. Krakauer,et al.  Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair Inter-individual Variability in the Capacity for Motor Recovery after Ischemic Stroke Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair Additional Services and Information for Inter-individual Variability in the Capacity for Motor Recovery after Ischemic Stroke , 2022 .

[36]  P. Clark,et al.  Factors Influencing Stroke Survivors' Quality of Life During Subacute Recovery , 2005, Stroke.

[37]  K. Molina-Luna,et al.  Dopamine in Motor Cortex Is Necessary for Skill Learning and Synaptic Plasticity , 2009, PloS one.

[38]  M. Delgado,et al.  Provided for Non-commercial Research and Educational Use Only. Not for Reproduction, Distribution or Commercial Use. Representation of Subjective Value in the Striatum , 2022 .

[39]  Ana Pekanovic,et al.  Dopaminergic Projections from Midbrain to Primary Motor Cortex Mediate Motor Skill Learning , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.