Does training with traditionally presented and virtually simulated tasks elicit differing changes in object interaction kinematics in persons with upper extremity hemiparesis?

Abstract Objective: To contrast changes in clinical and kinematic measures of upper extremity movement in response to virtually simulated and traditionally presented rehabilitation interventions in persons with upper extremity hemiparesis due to chronic stroke. Design: Non-randomized controlled trial. Setting: Ambulatory research facility. Participants: Subjects were a volunteer sample of twenty one community-dwelling adults (mean age: 51 ± 12 years) with residual hemiparesis due to stroke more than 6 months before enrollment (mean: 74 ± 48 months), recruited at support groups. Partial range, against gravity shoulder movement and at least 10° of active finger extension were required for inclusion. All subjects completed the study without adverse events. Interventions: A 2 weeks, 24-hour program of robotic/virtually simulated, arm and finger rehabilitation activities was compared to the same dose of traditionally presented arm and finger activities. Results: Subjects in both groups demonstrated statistically significant improvements in the ability to interact with real-world objects as measured by the Wolf Motor Function Test (P = 0.01). The robotic/virtually simulated activity (VR) group but not the traditional, repetitive task practice (RTP) group demonstrated significant improvements in peak reaching velocity (P = 0.03) and finger extension excursion (P = 0.03). Both groups also demonstrated similar improvements in kinematic measures of reaching and grasping performance such as increased shoulder and elbow excursion along with decreased trunk excursion. Conclusions: Kinematic measurements identified differing adaptations to training that clinical measurements did not. These adaptations were targeted in the design of four of the six simulations performed by the simulated activity group. Finer grained measures may be necessary to accurately depict the relative benefits of dose matched motor interventions.

[1]  Qinyin Qiu,et al.  Comparing integrated training of the hand and arm with isolated training of the same effectors in persons with stroke using haptically rendered virtual environments, a randomized clinical trial , 2014, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[2]  Rahsaan J. Holley,et al.  Robotic Therapy Provides a Stimulus for Upper Limb Motor Recovery After Stroke That Is Complementary to and Distinct From Conventional Therapy , 2014, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[3]  V. Dietz,et al.  Three-dimensional, task-specific robot therapy of the arm after stroke: a multicentre, parallel-group randomised trial , 2014, The Lancet Neurology.

[4]  Ching-yi Wu,et al.  Arm and Trunk Movement Kinematics During Seated Reaching Within and Beyond Arm's Length in People With Stroke: A Validity Study , 2014, Physical Therapy.

[5]  S. Adamovich,et al.  Sensorimotor training in virtual environments produces similar outcomes to real world training with greater efficiency , 2013, 2013 International Conference on Virtual Rehabilitation (ICVR).

[6]  Andreas Daffertshofer,et al.  Understanding Adaptive Motor Control of the Paretic Upper Limb Early Poststroke , 2013, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[7]  Mindy F Levin,et al.  Arm Motor Recovery Using a Virtual Reality Intervention in Chronic Stroke , 2013, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[8]  S. Leonhardt,et al.  A survey on robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation , 2014, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[9]  S. Page,et al.  Clinically Important Differences for the Upper-Extremity Fugl-Meyer Scale in People With Minimal to Moderate Impairment Due to Chronic Stroke , 2012, Physical Therapy.

[10]  J. Deutsch,et al.  Virtual Reality for Stroke Rehabilitation , 2011, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[11]  Soha Saleh,et al.  Robotically facilitated virtual rehabilitation of arm transport integrated with finger movement in persons with hemiparesis , 2011, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[12]  E. Burdet,et al.  Robot-assisted rehabilitation of hand function. , 2010, Current opinion in neurology.

[13]  B. Dobkin.  Recommendations for Publishing Case Studies of Cell Transplantation for Spinal Cord Injury , 2010, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[14]  W. McIlroy,et al.  Effectiveness of Virtual Reality Using Wii Gaming Technology in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial and Proof of Principle , 2010, Stroke.

[15]  Miao-Ju Hsu,et al.  Psychometric Comparisons of 4 Measures for Assessing Upper-Extremity Function in People With Stroke , 2009, Physical Therapy.

[16]  B. Prilutsky,et al.  Gains in Upper Extremity Function After Stroke via Recovery or Compensation: Potential Differential Effects on Amount of Real-World Limb Use , 2009, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[17]  Eliane C Magdalon,et al.  Grip aperture scaling to object size in chronic stroke. , 2009, Motor control.

[18]  Ching-yi Wu,et al.  Responsiveness and Validity of Three Outcome Measures of Motor Function After Stroke Rehabilitation , 2009, Stroke.

[19]  Sarah J. Housman,et al.  A Randomized Controlled Trial of Gravity-Supported, Computer-Enhanced Arm Exercise for Individuals With Severe Hemiparesis , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[20]  A. Mirelman,et al.  Effects of Training With a Robot-Virtual Reality System Compared With a Robot Alone on the Gait of Individuals After Stroke , 2009, Stroke.

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

[22]  J. Kleim,et al.  Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. , 2008, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[23]  N. Hogan,et al.  A comparison of functional and impairment-based robotic training in severe to moderate chronic stroke: a pilot study. , 2008, NeuroRehabilitation.

[24]  M. Levin,et al.  Virtual Reality in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review of its Effectiveness for Upper Limb Motor Recovery , 2007, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[25]  J. Grotta,et al.  Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy During Early Stroke Rehabilitation , 2007, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[26]  G. Kwakkel,et al.  Predicting improvement in the upper paretic limb after stroke: a longitudinal prospective study. , 2007, Restorative neurology and neuroscience.

[27]  J. P. Miller,et al.  Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. , 2006, JAMA.

[28]  E. Taub,et al.  The EXCITE Trial: Attributes of the Wolf Motor Function Test in Patients with Subacute Stroke , 2005, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[29]  Luis F. Schettino,et al.  Hand preshaping in Parkinson’s disease: effects of visual feedback and medication state , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[30]  J. Sage,et al.  The interaction of visual and proprioceptive inputs in pointing to actual and remembered targets in Parkinson’s disease , 2001, Neuroscience.

[31]  Fugl-Meyer Ar,et al.  Post-stroke hemiplegia assessment of physical properties. , 1980 .

[32]  A. Fugl-Meyer,et al.  Post-stroke hemiplegia assessment of physical properties. , 1980, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine. Supplement.