Assessing mechanisms of recovery during robot-aided neurorehabilitation of the upper limb

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 50-63

  Colombo, R ^a   Pisano, F ^b   Micera, S ^c   Mazzone, A ^a   Delconte, C ^b   Carrozza, M C ^c   Dario, P ^c   Minuco, G ^a  

^a IRCCS   (Italy)

^b Division of Neurology   (Italy)

^c SCUOLA SUPERIORE SANT ANNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Force control; Motor recovery; Neurorehabilitation; Robotic therapy; Stroke

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARM MOVEMENT; ARTICLE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; KINEMATICS; MALE; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; ROBOTICS; STROKE; VOLUNTARY MOVEMENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARM; BIOMECHANICS; EXERCISE MOVEMENT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOTOR SKILLS; MOVEMENT DISORDERS; MUSCLE, SKELETAL; PARESIS; PHYSICAL FITNESS; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; ROBOTICS; STROKE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VOLITION;

EID: 36849005426     PISSN: 15459683     EISSN: 15526844     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1545968307303401     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Krebs HI, Volpe BT, Ferraro M., et al. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: from evidence-based to science-based rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2002 ; 8 (4). 54-70.
2. Volpe BT, Krebs HI, Hogan N., et al. A novel approach to stroke rehabilitation: robot-aided sensorimotor stimulation. Neurology. 2000 ; 54 (10). 1938 -1944.
3. Fasoli SE, Krebs HI, Stein J., et al. Robotic therapy for chronic motor impairments after stroke: follow-up results. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 ; 85 (7). 1106-1111.
4. Burgar CG, Lum PS, Shor PC, et al. Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: the Palo Alto VA/Stanford experience. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2000 ; 37 (6). 663-673.
5. Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC, et al. Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 ; 83 (7). 952-959.
6. Reinkensmeyer DJ, Schmit BD, Rymer WZ Assessment of active and passive restraint during guided reaching after chronic brain injury. Ann Biomed Eng. 1999 ; 27 (6). 805-814.
7. Hesse S., Schulte-Tigges G., Konrad M., et al. Robot-assisted arm trainer for the passive and active practice of bilateral forearm and wrist movements in hemiparetic subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 ; 84 (6). 915-920.
8. Sveistrup H. Motor rehabilitation using virtual reality. J Neuroengineer Rehabil. 2004 ; 1 (1). 10.
9. You SH, Jang SH, Kim YH, et al. Virtual reality-induced cortical reorganization and associated locomotor recovery in chronic stroke: an experimenter-blind randomized study. Stroke. 2005 ; 36 (6). 1166-1171.
10. Frost SB, Barbay S., Friel KM, et al. Reorganization of remote cortical regions after ischemic brain injury: a potential substrate for stroke recovery. J Neurophysiol. 2003 ; 89 (6). 3205-3214.
11. Nudo RJ Adaptive plasticity in motor cortex: implications for rehabilitation after brain injury. J Rehabil Med. 2003 ;(41 Suppl). 7-10.
12. Lotze M., Braun C., Birbaumer N., et al. Motor learning elicited by voluntary drive. Brain. 2003 ; 126 (Pt4). 866-872.
13. Schmidt RA, Wrisberg CA Motor Learning and Performance: A Problem Based Learning Approach. 3 rd ed. Champaign, IL: Homan Kinetics ; 2004.
14. Sabari JS Motor learning concepts applied to activity-based intervention with adults with hemiplegia. Am J Occup Ther. 1991 ; 45 (6). 523-530.
15. Shumway-Cook A., Woolacott MH Motor Control: Theory and Practical Applications. 2 nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincot, Williams & Wilkins ; 2001.
16. Platz T., Denzler P., Kaden B., et al. Motor learning after recovery from hemiparesis. Neuropsychologia. 1994 ; 32 (10). 1209-1223.
17. Trombly CA Observations of improvement of reaching in five subjects with left hemiparesis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1993 ; 56 (1). 40-45.
18. Morasso P., Mussa Ivaldi FA Trajectory formation and handwriting: a computational model. Biol Cybern. 1982 ; 45 (2). 131-142.
19. Krebs HI, Hogan N., Aisen ML, et al. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 1998 ; 6 (1). 75-87.
20. Rohrer B., Fasoli S., Krebs HI, et al. Movement smoothness changes during stroke recovery. J Neurosci. 2002 ; 22 (18). 8297-8304.
21. Nakayama H., Jorgensen HS, Raaschou HO, et al. Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994 ; 75 (4). 394-398.
22. Broeks JG, Lankhorst GJ, Rumping K., et al. The long-term outcome of arm function after stroke: results of a follow-up study. Disabil Rehabil. 1999 ; 21 (8). 357-364.
23. Lai SM, Duncan PW Stroke recovery profile and the Modified Rankin assessment. Neuroepidemiology. 2001 ; 20 (1). 26-30.
24. Turton A., Pomeroy V. When should upper limb function be trained after stroke? Evidence for and against early intervention. Neurorehabilitation. 2002 ; 17 (3). 215-224.
25. Bode RK, Heinemann AW Course of functional improvement after stroke, spinal cord injury, and traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 ; 83 (1). 100-106.
26. Carr JH, Shepherd RB A motor learning model for stroke rehabilitation. Physiotherapy. 1989 ; 75 (7). 372-380.
27. Micera S., Carrozza MC, Guglielmelli E., et al. A simple robotic system for neurorehabilitation. Auton Robots. 2005 ; 19: 271-284.
28. Colombo R., Pisano F., Micera S., et al. Robotic techniques for upper limb evaluation and rehabilitation of stroke patients. IEEE Trans Neural Sys Rehab Eng. 2005 ; 13 (3). 311-324.
29. Trattamento riabilitativo e continuità dell'assistenza. In: Stroke Prevention and Educational Awareness Diffusion (SPREAD). Ictus Cerebrale: linee guida italiane di prevenzione e trattamento, Pubblicazioni Catel-Hyperphar Group SpA ; 2003: 297-376.
30. Ferraro M., Hogan Demajo J, Krol J., et al. Assessing the Motor Status Score: a scale for the evaluation of upper limb motor outcomes in patient after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002 ; 16 (3). 283-289.
31. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L., Leyman L., et al. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975 ; 7 (1). 13-31.
32. Lindmark B., Hamrin E. Evaluation of functional capacity after stroke as a basis for active intervention. Validation of a modified chart for motor capacity assessment. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1988 ; 20 (3). 111-115.
33. Fitts PM The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol. 1954 ; 47: 381-391.
34. Rohrer B., Fasoli S., Krebs HI, et al. Submovements grow larger, fewer, and more blended during stroke recovery. Motor Control. 2004 ; 8 (4). 472-483.
35. Kahn LE, Zygman M., Rymer WZ, et al. Effect of robot-assisted and unassisted exercise on functional reaching in chronic hemiparesis. Proceedings 23rd Annual IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, October 25-28, 2001 :1344-1347.
36. Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z., Flanagan JR Perspectives and problems in motor learning. Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 ; 5 (11). 487-494.
37. van Beers RJ, Haggard P., Wolpert DM The role of execution noise in movement variability. J Neurophysiol. 2004 ; 91 (2). 1050-1063.
38. Huys R., Daffertshofer A., Beek PJ Multiple time scales and subsystem embedding in the learning of juggling. Hum Mov Sci. 2004 ; 23 (3-4). 315-336.
39. Cirstea MC, Levin MF Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain. 2000 ; 123 (Pt5). 940-953.
40. Lum PS, Burgar CG, Kenney DE, et al. Quantification of force abnormalities during passive and active-assisted upper-limb reaching movements in post-stroke hemiparesis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1999 ; 46 (6). 652-662.
41. Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC Evidence for improved muscle activation patterns after retraining of reaching movements with the MIME robotic system in subjects with post-stroke hemiparesis. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2004 ; 12 (2). 186-194.
42. Beer RF, Dewald JP, Rymer WZ Deficits in the coordination of multijoint arm movements in patients with hemiparesis: evidence for disturbed control of limb dynamics. Exp Brain Res. 2000 ; 131 (3). 305-319.