Robotic Identification of Kinesthetic Deficits After Stroke

Background and Purpose— Kinesthesia, the sense of body motion, is essential to proper control and execution of movement. Despite its importance for activities of daily living, no current clinical measures can objectively measure kinesthetic deficits. The goal of this study was to use robotic technology to quantify prevalence and severity of kinesthetic deficits of the upper limb poststroke. Methods— Seventy-four neurologically intact subjects and 113 subjects with stroke (62 left-affected, 51 right-affected) performed a robot-based kinesthetic matching task with vision occluded. The robot moved the most affected arm at a preset speed, direction, and magnitude. Subjects were instructed to mirror-match the movement with their opposite arm (active arm). Results— A large number of subjects with stroke were significantly impaired on measures of kinesthesia. We observed impairments in ability to match movement direction (69% and 49% impaired for left- and right-affected subjects, respectively) and movement magnitude (42% and 31%). We observed impairments to match movement speed (32% and 27%) and increased response latencies (48% and 20%). Movement direction errors and response latencies were related to clinical measures of function, motor recovery, and dexterity. Conclusions— Using a robotic approach, we found that 61% of acute stroke survivors (n=69) had kinesthetic deficits. Additionally, these deficits were highly related to existing clinical measures, suggesting the importance of kinesthesia in day-to-day function. Our methods allow for more sensitive, accurate, and objective identification of kinesthetic deficits after stroke. With this information, we can better inform clinical treatment strategies to improve poststroke rehabilitative care and outcomes.

[1]  C. Sherrington ON THE PROPRIO-CEPTIVE SYSTEM, ESPECIALLY IN ITS REFLEX ASPECT , 1907 .

[2]  R. C. Oldfield The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[3]  Nadina B. Lincoln,et al.  The unreliability of sensory assessments , 1991 .

[4]  Mitsuru Kawamura,et al.  ‘Thumb localizing test’ for detecting a lesion in the posterior column–medial lemniscal system , 1999, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

[5]  Stephen H. Scott,et al.  Apparatus for measuring and perturbing shoulder and elbow joint positions and torques during reaching , 1999, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[6]  N. Hogan,et al.  A novel approach to stroke rehabilitation , 2000, Neurology.

[7]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  Dominance of the right hemisphere and role of area 2 in human kinesthesia. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[8]  Jia-Ching Chen,et al.  Facilitation of Sensory and Motor Recovery by Thermal Intervention for the Hemiplegic Upper Limb in Acute Stroke Patients: A Single-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial , 2005, Stroke.

[9]  J. Mehrholz,et al.  Computerized Arm Training Improves the Motor Control of the Severely Affected Arm After Stroke: A Single-Blinded Randomized Trial in Two Centers , 2005, Stroke.

[10]  Chris Scharver,et al.  Robotics and Virtual Reality: A Perfect Marriage for Motor Control Research and Rehabilitation , 2006, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[11]  Robert L Sainburg,et al.  Ipsilesional motor deficits following stroke reflect hemispheric specializations for movement control. , 2007, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[12]  J. Dewald,et al.  Augmenting Clinical Evaluation of Hemiparetic Arm Movement With a Laboratory-Based Quantitative Measurement of Kinematics as a Function of Limb Loading , 2008, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[13]  J. Hidler,et al.  Altered Trunk Position Sense and Its Relation to Balance Functions in People Post-Stroke , 2008, Journal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT.

[14]  L. Hedman,et al.  Sensory Dysfunction Following Stroke: Incidence, Significance, Examination, and Intervention , 2008, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[15]  Tobias Kalisch,et al.  Effects of repetitive electrical stimulation to treat sensory loss in persons poststroke. , 2009, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[16]  Hermano I Krebs,et al.  Multicenter Randomized Trial of Robot-Assisted Rehabilitation for Chronic Stroke: Methods and Entry Characteristics for VA ROBOTICS , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[17]  P. Morasso,et al.  Robot therapy for stroke survivors: proprioceptive training and regulation of assistance. , 2009, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[18]  S. Schabrun,et al.  Evidence for the retraining of sensation after stroke: a systematic review , 2009, Clinical rehabilitation.

[19]  Janice I. Glasgow,et al.  Assessment of Upper-Limb Sensorimotor Function of Subacute Stroke Patients Using Visually Guided Reaching , 2010, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[20]  S. Scott,et al.  Quantitative Assessment of Limb Position Sense Following Stroke , 2010, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[21]  D. Goble,et al.  Where was my arm again? Memory-based matching of proprioceptive targets is enhanced by increased target presentation time , 2010, Neuroscience Letters.

[22]  B. Volpe,et al.  Kinematic Robot-Based Evaluation Scales and Clinical Counterparts to Measure Upper Limb Motor Performance in Patients With Chronic Stroke , 2010, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[23]  S. Scott,et al.  Potential of robots as next-generation technology for clinical assessment of neurological disorders and upper-limb therapy. , 2011, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[24]  Hermano Igo Krebs,et al.  Physically interactive robotic technology for neuromotor rehabilitation. , 2011, Progress in brain research.

[25]  S. Scott,et al.  The independence of deficits in position sense and visually guided reaching following stroke , 2012, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[26]  S. Tyson,et al.  Measures of sensation in neurological conditions: a systematic review , 2012, Clinical rehabilitation.