Robot-based assessment of motor and proprioceptive function identifies biomarkers for prediction of functional independence measures

BackgroundNeurological impairments following stroke impact the ability of individuals to perform daily activities, although the relative impact of individual impairments is not always clear. Recovery of sensorimotor function following stroke can vary widely, from complete recovery to modest or minimal improvements, across individuals. An important question is whether one can predict the amount of recovery based on initial examination of the individual. Robotic technologies are now being used to quantify a range of behavioral capabilities of individuals post-stroke, providing a rich set of biomarkers of sensory and motor dysfunction. The objective of the present study is to use mathematical models to identify which biomarkers best predict the ability of subjects with stroke to perform daily activities before and after rehabilitation.MethodsThe Functional Independence Measure (FIM) was quantified approximately 2 weeks and three months post-stroke in 61 ischemic and 24 hemorrhagic subjects with stroke. At 2 weeks post-stroke, subjects also completed clinical assessments and robotic assessments of sensory and motor function. A computational search algorithm, known as Fast Orthogonal Search, was used to identify the robotic and clinical biomarkers that best estimated Functional Independence Measures.ResultsClinical and robot-based biomarkers were statistically similar at predicting FIM scores at 2 weeks (r = 0.817 vs. 0.774, respectively) and 3 months (r = 0.643 vs. 0.685, respectively). Importantly, robot-based biomarkers highlighted that parameters related to proprioception were influential for predicting FIM scores at 2 weeks, whereas biomarkers related to bimanual motor function were influential for predicting FIM scores at 3 months.ConclusionsThe present study provides a proof of principle on the use of robot-based biomarkers of sensory and motor dysfunction to estimate present and future FIM scores. The addition of other behavioral tasks will likely increase the accuracy of these predictions, and potentially help guide rehabilitation strategies to maximize functional recovery.

[1]  M. J. Korenberg,et al.  A robust orthogonal algorithm for system identification and time-series analysis , 1989, Biological Cybernetics.

[2]  Jennifer A. Semrau,et al.  Relationship Between Visuospatial Neglect and Kinesthetic Deficits After Stroke , 2015, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[3]  Daniel N. Allen,et al.  Trail-Making Test , 2010 .

[4]  W. Garraway,et al.  Proprioception and spatial neglect after stroke. , 1983, Age and ageing.

[5]  Hui Chen,et al.  Test-Retest Reproducibility and Smallest Real Difference of 5 Hand Function Tests in Patients With Stroke , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[6]  C. A. Trombly,et al.  Occupational Therapy for Physical Dysfunction , 1989 .

[7]  Jennifer A. Semrau,et al.  Robotic Identification of Kinesthetic Deficits After Stroke , 2013, Stroke.

[8]  P. Stratford,et al.  Measuring Physical Impairment and Disability With the Chedoke‐McMaster Stroke Assessment , 1993, Stroke.

[9]  G. Kwakkel,et al.  Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: facts and theories. , 2004, Restorative neurology and neuroscience.

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

[11]  B. Gialanella,et al.  Prediction of functional outcomes in stroke patients: the role of motor patterns according to limb synergies , 2015, Aging Clinical and Experimental Research.

[12]  Carl P. T. Jackson,et al.  A Novel Robotic Task for Assessing Impairments in Bimanual Coordination Post-Stroke , 2014 .

[13]  R L Hewer,et al.  Arm function after stroke. An evaluation of grip strength as a measure of recovery and a prognostic indicator. , 1989, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[14]  Stephen H Scott,et al.  A robotic object hitting task to quantify sensorimotor impairments in participants with stroke , 2014, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[15]  Stephen H Scott,et al.  Impaired corrective responses to postural perturbations of the arm in individuals with subacute stroke , 2015, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[16]  R. E. Lrvine.  Movement Therapy in Hemiplegia: A Neurophysiological Approach , 1972 .

[17]  B. Wilson,et al.  Development of a behavioral test of visuospatial neglect. , 1987, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[18]  J M Linacre,et al.  Prediction of rehabilitation outcomes with disability measures. , 1994, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[19]  Janice I. Glasgow,et al.  Recombination of common sensory-motor impairment evaluation techniques using a committee of classifiers , 2009, 2009 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[20]  R. Newton,et al.  Ability of Functional Independence Measure to accurately predict functional outcome of stroke-specific population: systematic review. , 2010, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[21]  C. Granger,et al.  The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. , 1996, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[22]  L. Calvó-Perxas,et al.  The Trail Making Test , 2017, Assessment (Odessa, Fla.).

[23]  M E Cohen,et al.  The tools of disability outcomes research functional status measures. , 2000, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[24]  Hermano I Krebs,et al.  Robotic Measurement of Arm Movements After Stroke Establishes Biomarkers of Motor Recovery , 2014, Stroke.

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

[26]  A. Petruckevitch,et al.  The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative validity and reliability study. , 1995, Disability and rehabilitation.

[27]  O. Spreen,et al.  A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms, and Commentary , 1991 .

[28]  How many body locations need to be tested when assessing sensation after stroke? An investigation of redundancy in the Rivermead Assessment of Somatosensory Performance , 2009, Clinical rehabilitation.

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

[30]  M. Levin,et al.  What Do Motor “Recovery” and “Compensation” Mean in Patients Following Stroke? , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[31]  C. Granger,et al.  The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. , 1987, Advances in clinical rehabilitation.

[32]  A. Heinemann,et al.  Relative Importance of Rehabilitation Therapy Characteristics on Functional Outcomes for Persons With Stroke , 2004, Stroke.

[33]  Jennifer A. Semrau,et al.  Anatomical correlates of proprioceptive impairments following acute stroke: A case series , 2014, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

[34]  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.

[35]  Babak Shahbaba,et al.  Neural function, injury, and stroke subtype predict treatment gains after stroke , 2015, Annals of neurology.

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

[37]  Allen Walter Heinemann,et al.  Prediction of adolescent injury risk awareness , 1994 .

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