Quantification of task-dependent cortical activation evoked by robotic continuous wrist joint manipulation in chronic hemiparetic stroke

BackgroundCortical damage after stroke can drastically impair sensory and motor function of the upper limb, affecting the execution of activities of daily living and quality of life. Motor impairment after stroke has been thoroughly studied, however sensory impairment and its relation to movement control has received less attention. Integrity of the somatosensory system is essential for feedback control of human movement, and compromised integrity due to stroke has been linked to sensory impairment.MethodsThe goal of this study is to assess the integrity of the somatosensory system in individuals with chronic hemiparetic stroke with different levels of sensory impairment, through a combination of robotic joint manipulation and high-density electroencephalogram (EEG). A robotic wrist manipulator applied continuous periodic disturbances to the affected limb, providing somatosensory (proprioceptive and tactile) stimulation while challenging task execution. The integrity of the somatosensory system was evaluated during passive and active tasks, defined as ‘relaxed wrist’ and ‘maintaining 20% maximum wrist flexion’, respectively. The evoked cortical responses in the EEG were quantified using the power in the averaged responses and their signal-to-noise ratio.ResultsThirty individuals with chronic hemiparetic stroke and ten unimpaired individuals without stroke participated in this study. Participants with stroke were classified as having severe, mild, or no sensory impairment, based on the Erasmus modification of the Nottingham Sensory Assessment. Under passive conditions, wrist manipulation resulted in contralateral cortical responses in unimpaired and chronic stroke participants with mild and no sensory impairment. In participants with severe sensory impairment the cortical responses were strongly reduced in amplitude, which related to anatomical damage. Under active conditions, participants with mild sensory impairment showed reduced responses compared to the passive condition, whereas unimpaired and chronic stroke participants without sensory impairment did not show this reduction.ConclusionsRobotic continuous joint manipulation allows studying somatosensory cortical evoked responses during the execution of meaningful upper limb control tasks. Using such an approach it is possible to quantitatively assess the integrity of sensory pathways; in the context of movement control this provides additional information required to develop more effective neurorehabilitation therapies.

[1]  J. Krakauer,et al.  Computational neurorehabilitation: modeling plasticity and learning to predict recovery , 2016, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[2]  L. Connell,et al.  Somatosensory impairment after stroke: frequency of different deficits and their recovery , 2008, Clinical rehabilitation.

[3]  Nadia Bolognini,et al.  The sensory side of post-stroke motor rehabilitation. , 2016, Restorative neurology and neuroscience.

[4]  P. Celnik,et al.  Stroke Rehabilitation. , 2015, Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America.

[5]  P. Langhorne,et al.  Stroke rehabilitation , 2011, The Lancet.

[6]  G. Kwakkel,et al.  Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy for the Upper Paretic Limb in Acute or Sub-Acute Stroke: A Systematic Review , 2011, International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society.

[7]  Mariano Sigman,et al.  CUDAICA: GPU Optimization of Infomax-ICA EEG Analysis , 2012, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[8]  Brian Avants,et al.  Automated segmentation of chronic stroke lesions using LINDA: Lesion identification with neighborhood data analysis , 2016, Human brain mapping.

[9]  R. Tibshirani.  Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso , 1996 .

[10]  R. Kearney,et al.  Intrinsic and reflex contributions to human ankle stiffness: variation with activation level and position , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[11]  P. Zangger,et al.  ‘Fusimotor set’: new evidence for α-independent control of γ-motoneurones during movement in the awake cat , 1985, Brain Research.

[12]  Tzyy-Ping Jung,et al.  Independent Component Analysis of Electroencephalographic Data , 1995, NIPS.

[13]  Herman van der Kooij,et al.  Quantifying connectivity via efferent and afferent pathways in motor control using coherence measures and joint position perturbations , 2013, Experimental Brain Research.

[14]  Robert E. Kearney,et al.  Voluntary modulation of human stretch reflexes , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[15]  Rik Pintelon,et al.  System Identification: A Frequency Domain Approach , 2012 .

[16]  A. Daffertshofer,et al.  Generalizability of the Maximum Proportional Recovery Rule to Visuospatial Neglect Early Poststroke , 2017, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[17]  P. Matthews.  The human stretch reflex and the motor cortex , 1991, Trends in Neurosciences.

[18]  L. Cohen,et al.  Neuroplasticity in the context of motor rehabilitation after stroke , 2011, Nature Reviews Neurology.

[19]  P. Halligan,et al.  Current practice and clinical relevance of somatosensory assessment after stroke , 1999, Clinical rehabilitation.

[20]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  An Information-Maximization Approach to Blind Separation and Blind Deconvolution , 1995, Neural Computation.

[21]  Anthony Randal McIntosh,et al.  Complexity analysis of source activity underlying the neuromagnetic somatosensory steady-state response , 2010, NeuroImage.

[22]  N. Ward,et al.  Assessment of cortical reorganisation for hand function after stroke , 2011, The Journal of physiology.

[23]  S. Scott.  The computational and neural basis of voluntary motor control and planning , 2012, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[24]  Alfred C. Schouten,et al.  Stretch Evoked Potentials in Healthy Subjects and After Stroke: A Potential Measure for Proprioceptive Sensorimotor Function , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[25]  N. Forss,et al.  Modulation of the ∽20-Hz motor-cortex rhythm to passive movement and tactile stimulation , 2015, Brain and behavior.

[26]  Matthew A Petoe,et al.  Proportional recovery after stroke depends on corticomotor integrity , 2015, Annals of neurology.

[27]  Frans C. T. van der Helm,et al.  Frequency Domain Characterization of the Somatosensory Steady State Response in Electroencephalography , 2015 .

[28]  C. Galléa,et al.  One hand clapping: lateralization of motor control , 2015, Front. Neuroanat..

[29]  G. Fink,et al.  Connectivity-based approaches in stroke and recovery of function , 2014, The Lancet Neurology.

[30]  Mi Young Lee,et al.  The comparison of cortical activation patterns by active exercise, proprioceptive input, and touch stimulation in the human brain: a functional MRI study. , 2009, NeuroRehabilitation.

[31]  Nick S. Ward,et al.  Do movement-related beta oscillations change after stroke? , 2014, Journal of neurophysiology.

[32]  John W Krakauer,et al.  Arm function after stroke: from physiology to recovery. , 2005, Seminars in neurology.

[33]  Andreas Daffertshofer,et al.  A General Approach for Quantifying Nonlinear Connectivity in the Nervous System Based on Phase Coupling , 2016, Int. J. Neural Syst..

[34]  Alan J. Thompson,et al.  Functional significance of the ipsilateral hemisphere during movement of the affected hand after stroke , 2004, Experimental Neurology.

[35]  B. Ashworth.  PRELIMINARY TRIAL OF CARISOPRODOL IN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS. , 1964, The Practitioner.

[36]  Julius P. A. Dewald,et al.  Involuntary paretic wrist/finger flexion forces and EMG increase with shoulder abduction load in individuals with chronic stroke , 2012, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[37]  Shozo Tobimatsu,et al.  Steady-state vibration somatosensory evoked potentials: physiological characteristics and tuning function , 1999, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[38]  Patrick Ragert,et al.  Contribution of transcranial magnetic stimulation to the understanding of cortical mechanisms involved in motor control , 2008, The Journal of physiology.

[39]  Ethan R. Buch,et al.  Predicting motor improvement after stroke with clinical assessment and diffusion tensor imaging , 2016, Neurology.

[40]  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 .

[41]  D G Gadian,et al.  The reorganization of sensorimotor function in children after hemispherectomy. A functional MRI and somatosensory evoked potential study. , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[42]  Matthias M. Mueller,et al.  Test–retest reliability of concurrently recorded steady-state and somatosensory evoked potentials in somatosensory sustained spatial attention , 2014, Biological Psychology.

[43]  Preeti Raghavan,et al.  Upper Limb Motor Impairment After Stroke. , 2015, Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America.

[44]  G. Loeb,et al.  Mathematical models of proprioceptors. I. Control and transduction in the muscle spindle. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

[45]  S. Cramer,et al.  Moving Rehabilitation Research Forward: Developing Consensus Statements for Rehabilitation and Recovery Research* , 2017, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[46]  H. Qiao,et al.  Cortex mapping of ipsilateral somatosensory area following anatomical hemispherectomy: A MEG study , 2013, Brain and Development.

[47]  G. R. Muller,et al.  Event-related beta EEG changes during wrist movements induced by functional electrical stimulation of forearm muscles in man , 2003, Neuroscience Letters.

[48]  J W Krakauer,et al.  Variability in language recovery after first-time stroke , 2007, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

[49]  Arnaud Delorme,et al.  EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis , 2004, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[50]  N. Ward,et al.  The contribution of lesion location to upper limb deficit after stroke , 2016, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

[51]  Julius P. A. Dewald,et al.  Ipsilateral versus contralateral cortical motor projections to a shoulder adductor in chronic hemiparetic stroke: implications for the expression of arm synergies , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[53]  Steven C. Cramer.  Repairing the human brain after stroke: I. Mechanisms of spontaneous recovery , 2008, Annals of neurology.

[54]  Alfred C. Schouten,et al.  Poor motor function is associated with reduced sensory processing after stroke , 2015, Experimental Brain Research.

[55]  Peter Langhorne,et al.  Predictors of upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2012, Clinical rehabilitation.

[56]  F. V. D. van der Helm,et al.  Quantifying Nonlinear Contributions to Cortical Responses Evoked by Continuous Wrist Manipulation , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[57]  Walter Magerl,et al.  Asymmetry in the human primary somatosensory cortex and handedness , 2003, NeuroImage.

[58]  Sarah F Tyson,et al.  Clinical reality of measuring upper-limb ability in neurologic conditions: a systematic review. , 2012, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[59]  D. Harrington,et al.  MEG response to median nerve stimulation correlates with recovery of sensory and motor function after stroke , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[60]  N. Ward,et al.  Does neuroimaging help to deliver better recovery of movement after stroke? , 2015, Current opinion in neurology.

[61]  Peter A. Calabresi,et al.  Tract probability maps in stereotaxic spaces: Analyses of white matter anatomy and tract-specific quantification , 2008, NeuroImage.

[62]  Jyrki P. Mäkelä,et al.  Effect of afferent input on motor cortex excitability during stroke recovery , 2012, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[63]  J W Krakauer,et al.  The proportional recovery rule for stroke revisited , 2015, Annals of neurology.

[64]  B. C. Harmeling-van der Wel,et al.  The Erasmus MC modifications to the (revised) Nottingham Sensory Assessment: a reliable somatosensory assessment measure for patients with intracranial disorders , 2006, Clinical rehabilitation.

[65]  Robert Oostenveld,et al.  Proprioception-Related Evoked Potentials: Origin and Sensitivity to Movement Parameters , 2002, NeuroImage.

[66]  Frans C. T. van der Helm,et al.  Quantifying Proprioceptive Reflexes During Position Control of the Human Arm , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[67]  George N. Reeke,et al.  Quantitative Tools for Examining the Vocalizations of Juvenile Songbirds , 2012, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[68]  Bokkyu Kim,et al.  Can Neurological Biomarkers of Brain Impairment Be Used to Predict Poststroke Motor Recovery? A Systematic Review , 2017, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[69]  Hiroshi Shibasaki,et al.  Somatosensory evoked potentials following proprioceptive stimulation of finger in man , 1996, Experimental Brain Research.

[70]  Jason Farquhar,et al.  A multi-signature brain–computer interface: use of transient and steady-state responses , 2013, Journal of neural engineering.

[71]  G. Kwakkel,et al.  Predicting Activities after Stroke: What is Clinically Relevant? , 2013, International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society.

[72]  R. Lyle.  A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research , 1981, International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation.

[73]  A Z Snyder,et al.  Steady-state vibration evoked potentials: descriptions of technique and characterization of responses. , 1992, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[74]  N. Ramsey,et al.  Understanding upper limb recovery after stroke. , 2013, Restorative neurology and neuroscience.

[75]  A. Fugl-Meyer,et al.  The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. , 1975, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[76]  J. Pujol,et al.  Cerebral lateralization of language in normal left-handed people studied by functional MRI , 1999, Neurology.

[77]  M. Breakspear,et al.  Multi-frequency phase locking in human somatosensory cortex. , 2011, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[78]  F. L. D. Silva,et al.  Event-related EEG/MEG synchronization and desynchronization: basic principles , 1999, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[79]  Anna M. Bianchi,et al.  EEG Analysis During Active and Assisted Repetitive Movements: Evidence for Differences in Neural Engagement , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[80]  M. Gorassini,et al.  Models of ensemble firing of muscle spindle afferents recorded during normal locomotion in cats , 1998, The Journal of physiology.

[81]  E. Schneider,et al.  Real-time computer-based visual feedback improves visual acuity in downbeat nystagmus – a pilot study , 2016, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.