Augmented Dynamics and Motor Exploration as Training for Stroke

With chronic stroke survivors (n = 30), we investigated how upper extremity training with negative viscosity affects coordination under unperturbed conditions. Subjects trained with a planar robotic interface simulating 1) negative viscosity augmented to elbow and shoulder joints; 2) negative viscosity combined with inertia; or 3) a null-field condition. Two treatment groups practiced with both force conditions (cross-over design), while a control group practiced with a null-field condition. Training (exploratory movement) and evaluations (prescribed circular movement) alternated in several phases to facilitate transfer from forces to the null field. Negative viscosity expanded exploration especially in the sagittal axis, and resulted in significant within-day improvements. Both treatment groups exhibited next day retention unobserved in the control. Our results suggest enhanced learning from forces that induce a broader range of kinematics. This study supports the use of robot-assisted training that encourages active patient involvement by preserving efferent commands for driving movement.

[1]  Tal Jarus,et al.  Effects of Cognitive Processes and Task Complexity on Acquisition, Retention, and Transfer of Motor Skills , 2001 .

[2]  J R Flanagan,et al.  Composition and Decomposition of Internal Models in Motor Learning under Altered Kinematic and Dynamic Environments , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[3]  M. Arbib,et al.  Infant grasp learning: a computational model , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[4]  W. Rymer,et al.  Robot-assisted movement training for the stroke-impaired arm: Does it matter what the robot does? , 2006, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[5]  R. Hanlon.  Motor learning following unilateral stroke. , 1996, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[6]  C. Braun,et al.  Motor learning elicited by voluntary drive. , 2003, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[7]  J. Lackner,et al.  Motor control and learning in altered dynamic environments , 2005, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[8]  Ferdinando A. Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  Robot-assisted adaptive training: custom force fields for teaching movement patterns , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[9]  Ferdinando A. Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  Sequence, time, or state representation: how does the motor control system adapt to variable environments? , 2003, Biological Cybernetics.

[10]  David J Reinkensmeyer,et al.  Manually‐Assisted Versus Robotic‐Assisted Body Weight−Supported Treadmill Training in Spinal Cord Injury: What Is the Role of Each? , 2010, PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation.

[11]  E Bizzi,et al.  Augmented Feedback Presented in a Virtual Environment Accelerates Learning of a Difficult Motor Task. , 1997, Journal of motor behavior.

[12]  Daniel M. Wolpert,et al.  Internal models underlying grasp can be additively combined , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[13]  T. George Hornby,et al.  Gait Training Strategies Utilized in Poststroke Rehabilitation: Are We Really Making a Difference? , 2007, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[14]  D.J. Reinkensmeyer,et al.  Robot-enhanced motor learning: accelerating internal model formation during locomotion by transient dynamic amplification , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[15]  R A Scheidt,et al.  Persistence of motor adaptation during constrained, multi-joint, arm movements. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.

[16]  E. Taub,et al.  Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy: a new family of techniques with broad application to physical rehabilitation--a clinical review. , 1999, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[17]  W. Rymer,et al.  Adaptive assistance for guided force training in chronic stroke , 2004, The 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[18]  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.

[19]  N. Hogan,et al.  Customized interactive robotic treatment for stroke: EMG-triggered therapy , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[20]  M.A. Peshkin,et al.  Active-Impedance Control of a Lower-Limb Assistive Exoskeleton , 2007, 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.

[21]  F A Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[22]  Hermano Igo Krebs,et al.  Rehabilitation Robotics: Performance-Based Progressive Robot-Assisted Therapy , 2003, Auton. Robots.

[23]  Alex Simpkins,et al.  System Identification: Theory for the User, 2nd Edition (Ljung, L.; 1999) [On the Shelf] , 2012, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[24]  Felix C Huang,et al.  Manual skill generalization enhanced by negative viscosity. , 2010, Journal of neurophysiology.

[25]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  The Role of Inertial Sensitivity in Motor Planning , 1998, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[26]  M.J. Johnson,et al.  Experimental results using force-feedback cueing in robot-assisted stroke therapy , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[27]  Olivier White,et al.  Use-Dependent and Error-Based Learning of Motor Behaviors , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[28]  J. Patton,et al.  Visual error augmentation for enhancing motor learning and rehabilitative relearning , 2005, 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005. ICORR 2005..

[29]  J. Patton,et al.  Evaluation of robotic training forces that either enhance or reduce error in chronic hemiparetic stroke survivors , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[30]  F. Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  The motor system does not learn the dynamics of the arm by rote memorization of past experience. , 1997, Journal of neurophysiology.

[31]  J. Krakauer,et al.  Generalization of Motor Learning Depends on the History of Prior Action , 2006, PLoS biology.

[32]  Vincent S. Huang,et al.  Active learning: learning a motor skill without a coach. , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[33]  E. Thelen,et al.  The transition to reaching: mapping intention and intrinsic dynamics. , 1993, Child development.

[34]  D. Reinkensmeyer,et al.  Review of control strategies for robotic movement training after neurologic injury , 2009, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[35]  Homayoon Kazerooni,et al.  The Human Power Amplifier Technology at the University Of California, Berkeley , 1996 .

[36]  Zoubin Ghahramani,et al.  Modular decomposition in visuomotor learning , 1997, Nature.

[37]  Daniel M Wolpert,et al.  Kinematics and Dynamics Are Not Represented Independently in Motor Working Memory: Evidence from an Interference Study , 2002, The Journal of Neuroscience.