Kinematic Robot-Based Evaluation Scales and Clinical Counterparts to Measure Upper Limb Motor Performance in Patients With Chronic Stroke

Background. Human-administered clinical scales are the accepted standard for quantifying motor performance of stroke subjects. Although they are widely accepted, these measurement tools are limited by interrater and intrarater reliability and are time-consuming to apply. In contrast, robot-based measures are highly repeatable, have high resolution, and could potentially reduce assessment time. Although robotic and other objective metrics have proliferated in the literature, they are not as well established as clinical scales and their relationship to clinical scales is mostly unknown. Objective. To test the performance of linear regression models to estimate clinical scores for the upper extremity from systematic robot-based metrics. Methods. Twenty kinematic and kinetic metrics were derived from movement data recorded with the shoulder-and-elbow InMotion2 robot (Interactive Motion Technologies, Inc), a commercial version of the MIT-Manus. Kinematic metrics were aggregated into macro-metrics and micro-metrics and collected from 111 chronic stroke subjects. Multiple linear regression models were developed to calculate Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Motor Status Score, Motor Power, and Modified Ashworth Scale from these robot-based metrics. Results. Best performance—complexity trade-off was achieved by the Motor Status Score model with 8 kinematic macro-metrics (R = .71 for training; R = .72 for validation). Models including kinematic micro-metrics did not achieve significantly higher performance. Performances of the Modified Ashworth Scale models were consistently low (R = .35-.42 for training; R = .08-.17 for validation). Conclusions. The authors identified a set of kinetic and kinematic macro-metrics that may be used for fast outcome evaluations. These metrics represent a first step toward the development of unified, automated measures of therapy outcome.

[1]  S. Black,et al.  The Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Motor Recovery after Stroke: A Critical Review of Its Measurement Properties , 2002, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[2]  Bruce H Dobkin,et al.  Progressive Staging of Pilot Studies to Improve Phase III Trials for Motor Interventions , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

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

[4]  Hermano Igo Krebs,et al.  Upper Limb Robotic Therapy for Children with Hemiplegia , 2008, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[5]  N. Hogan,et al.  Robot-aided sensorimotor arm training improves outcome in patients with chronic stroke , 2003, Neurology.

[6]  Edward H. Poskanzer Movement Therapy in Hemiplegia: a Neurophysiologic Approach , 1972 .

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

[8]  M. V. von Arbin,et al.  Spasticity After Stroke: Its Occurrence and Association With Motor Impairments and Activity Limitations , 2003, Stroke.

[9]  J. Brian Gray,et al.  Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis , 2002, Technometrics.

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

[11]  N. Hogan,et al.  Is robot-aided sensorimotor training in stroke rehabilitation a realistic option? , 2001, Current opinion in neurology.

[12]  N. Hogan,et al.  Increasing productivity and quality of care: robot-aided neuro-rehabilitation. , 2000, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[13]  Neville Hogan,et al.  Avoiding spurious submovement decompositions: a globally optimal algorithm , 2003, Biological Cybernetics.

[14]  N. Hogan,et al.  Robot-aided neurorehabilitation. , 1998, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[15]  P. Stratford,et al.  Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment for testing motor performance in patients following stroke. , 1993, Physical therapy.

[16]  Maarten J. IJzerman,et al.  Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. , 2006, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[17]  N. Hogan,et al.  Quantization of continuous arm movements in humans with brain injury. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  N. Hogan,et al.  Movement Smoothness Changes during Stroke Recovery , 2002, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[19]  S. Micera,et al.  Robotic techniques for upper limb evaluation and rehabilitation of stroke patients , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[20]  Hermano Igo Krebs,et al.  Robot-Aided Neurorehabilitation: A Novel Robot for Ankle Rehabilitation , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[21]  S. G. Nelson,et al.  Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor recovery following cerebrovascular accident. , 1983, Physical therapy.

[22]  J Kugler,et al.  Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[23]  J.J. Palazzolo,et al.  Stochastic Estimation of Arm Mechanical Impedance During Robotic Stroke Rehabilitation , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[24]  S O'Donovan Why bother? , 1988, Nursing times.

[25]  N. Hogan,et al.  Effects of robotic therapy on motor impairment and recovery in chronic stroke. , 2003, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[26]  Miao-Ju Hsu,et al.  Psychometric Comparisons of 2 Versions of the Fugl-Meyer Motor Scale and 2 Versions of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement , 2008, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[27]  Richard W. Bohannon,et al.  Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. , 1987, Physical therapy.

[28]  N. Hogan,et al.  The effect of robot-assisted therapy and rehabilitative training on motor recovery following stroke. , 1997, Archives of neurology.

[29]  N. Hogan,et al.  Robotic therapy for chronic motor impairments after stroke: Follow-up results. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[30]  N. Hogan,et al.  Comparison of Two Techniques of Robot-Aided Upper Limb Exercise Training After Stroke , 2004, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[31]  K.,et al.  Reliability of measurements of muscle tone and muscle power in stroke patients. , 2000, Age and ageing.

[32]  N. Hogan,et al.  Robot training enhanced motor outcome in patients with stroke maintained over 3 years , 1999, Neurology.

[33]  L Dipietro,et al.  Changing motor synergies in chronic stroke. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[34]  N. Hogan,et al.  Robot-Aided Neurorehabilitation: From Evidence-Based to Science-Based Rehabilitation , 2002, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[35]  T. Twitchell The restoration of motor function following hemiplegia in man. , 1951, Brain : a journal of neurology.

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

[37]  W. Landau Spasticity after stroke: why bother? , 2004, Stroke.

[38]  N. Hogan,et al.  Response to upper-limb robotics and functional neuromuscular stimulation following stroke. , 2005, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[39]  E. Faragher,et al.  The unreliability of clinical measures of muscle tone: implications for stroke therapy. , 2000, Age and ageing.

[40]  N. Hogan,et al.  Assessing the Motor Status Score: A Scale for the Evaluation of Upper Limb Motor Outcomes in Patients after Stroke , 2002, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.