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

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 62-69

  Bosecker, Caitlyn ^a,c   Dipietro, Laura ^a,c   Volpe, Bruce ^b   Igo Krebs, Hermano ^a,b,c  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

rehabilitation; robotic therapy; stroke assessment

Indexed keywords

ARM; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; CHRONIC DISEASE; DISABILITY; DYSKINESIA; FEMALE; HUMAN; KINETICS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOTOR ACTIVITY; ROBOTICS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STROKE; TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ARM; BIOMECHANICS; CHRONIC DISEASE; DISABILITY EVALUATION; DYSKINESIAS; FEMALE; HUMANS; KINETICS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOTOR ACTIVITY; ROBOTICS; STROKE; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77649229172     PISSN: 15459683     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1545968309343214     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. American Stroke Association. Web site. http://www.strokeassociation.org. Accessed September 2008.
2. Prange G., Jannink M., Groothuis-Oudshoorn C., Hermens HJ, Ijzerman MJ Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006; 43: 171-184.
3. Kwakkel G., Kollen BJ, Krebs HI Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008; 22: 111-121.
4. Mehrholz J., Werner C., Kugler J., Pohl M. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(4):CD006185.
5. Krebs HI, Hogan N., Aisen ML, Volpe BT Robot-aided neuro-rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 1998; 6: 75-87.
6. Aisen ML, Krebs HI, Hogan N., McDowell F., Volpe BT The effect of robot assisted therapy and rehabilitative training on motor recovery following a stroke. Arch Neurol. 1997; 54: 443-446.
7. Krebs HI, Volpe BT, Aisen ML, Hogan N. Increasing productivity and quality of care: robot-aided neuro-rehabilitation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2000; 37: 639-652.
8. Volpe BT, Krebs HI, Hogan N., Edelstein L., Diels C., Aisen ML Robot training enhanced motor outcome in patients with stroke maintained over 3 years. Neurology. 1999; 53: 1874-1876.
9. Volpe BT, Krebs HI, Hogan N., Edelstein L., Diels C., Aisen M. A novel approach to stroke rehabilitation: robot aided sensorimotor stimulation. Neurology. 2000; 54: 1938-1944.
10. Volpe BT, Krebs HI, Hogan N. Is robot-aided sensorimotor training in stroke rehabilitation a realistic option? Curr Opin Neurol. 2001; 14: 745-752.
11. Ferraro M., Palazzolo JJ, Krol J., Krebs HI, Hogan N., Volpe BT Robot-aided sensorimotor arm training improves outcome in patients with chronic stroke. Neurology. 2003; 61: 1604-1607.
12. Fasoli SE, Krebs HI, Stein J., Frontera WR, Hogan N. Effects of robotic therapy on motor impairment and recovery in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 84: 477-482.
13. Fasoli SE, Krebs HI, Stein J., Frontera WR, Hughes R., Hogan N. Robotic therapy for chronic motor impairments after stroke: follow-up results. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 85: 1106-1111.
14. Stein J., Krebs HI, Frontera WR, Fasoli SE, Hughes R., Hogan N. Comparison of two techniques of robot-aided upper limb exercise training after stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 83: 720-728.
15. Daly JJ, Hogan N., Perepezko EM, et al. Response to upper-limb robotics and functional neuromuscular stimulation following stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005; 42: 723-736.
16. Krebs HI, Aisen ML, Volpe BT, Hogan N. Quantization of continuous arm movements in humans with brain injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999; 96: 4645-4649.
17. Rohrer B., Fasoli S., Krebs HI, et al. Movement smoothness changes during stroke recovery. J Neurosci. 2002; 22: 8297-8304.
18. Dipietro L., Krebs HI, Fasoli SE, et al. Changing motor synergies in chronic stroke. J Neurophysiol. 2007; 98: 757-768.
19. Dobkin BH Progressive staging of pilot studies to improve phase III trials for motor interventions. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009; 23: 197-206.
20. Gregson JM, Leathley MJ, Moore AP, Smith TL, Sharma AK, Watkins CL Reliability of measurements of muscle tone and muscle power in stroke patients. Age Ageing. 2000; 29: 223-228.
21. Medical Research Council/Guarantors of Brain. Aids to the Examination of the Peripheral Nervous System. London, UK: Bailliere Tindall; 1986.
22. Hsueh IP, Hsu MJ, Sheu CF, Lee S., Hsieh CL, Lin JH Psychometric comparisons of 2 versions of the Fugl-Meyer motor scale and 2 versions of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008; 22: 737-744.
23. Duncan PW, Propst M., Nelson SG Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor recovery following cerebrovascular accident. Phys Ther. 1983; 63: 1606-1610.
24. Gladstone DJ, Danells CJ, Black SE The Fugl-Meyer assessment of motor recovery and stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002; 16: 232-240.
25. Twitchell T. The restoration of motor function following hemiplegia in man. Brain. 1951; 74: 443-480.
26. Brunnstrom S. Movement Therapy in Hemiplegia. New York, NY: Harper & Row; 1970.
27. Ferraro M., Demaio JH, Krol J., et al. Assessing the motor status score: a scale for the evaluation of upper limb motor outcomes in patients after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002; 16: 283-289.
28. Bohannon RW, Smith MB Interrater reliability of a Modified Ashworth Scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987;67: 206-207.
29. Krebs HI, Volpe BT, Ferraro M., et al. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: from evidence-based to science-based rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2002; 8: 54-70.
30. Montgomery DC, Peck EA Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis. New York, NY: Wiley; 1992.
31. Colombo R., Pisano F., Micera S., et al. Robotic techniques for upper limb evaluation and rehabilitation of stroke patients. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005; 13: 311-324.
32. Sommerfeld DK, Eek EU, Svensson AK, Holmqvist LW, von Arbin MH Spasticity after stroke: its occurrence and association with motor impairments and activity limitations. Stroke. 2004; 35: 134-139.
33. Landau WM Spasticity after stroke: why bother? Stroke. 2004; 35: 1787-1788.
34. Rohrer B., Hogan N. Avoiding spurious submovement decompositions: a globally optimal algorithm. Biol Cybern. 2003; 89: 190-199.
35. Sanford J., Moreland J., Swanson LR, Stratford PW, Gowland C. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment for testing motor performance in patients following stroke. Phys Ther. 1993;73: 447-454.
36. Pomeroy VM, Dean D., Sykes L., et al. The unreliability of clinical measures of muscle tone: implications for stroke therapy. Age Ageing. 2000; 29: 229-233.
37. Krebs H., Palazzolo J., Dipietro L., et al. Rehabilitation robotics: performance-based progressive robot-assisted therapy. Auton Robots. 2003; 15: 7-20.
38. Dipietro L., Ferraro M., Palazzolo JJ, Krebs HI, Volpe BT, Hogan N. Customized interactive robotic treatment for stroke: EMG-triggered therapy. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005; 13: 325-334.
39. Fasoli SE, Fragala-Pinkham M., Hughes R., Hogan N., Krebs HI, Stein J. Upper limb robotic therapy for children with hemiplegia. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2008; 87: 929-936.
40. Palazzolo JJ, Ferraro M., Krebs HI, Lynch D., Volpe BT, Hogan N. Stochastic estimation of arm mechanical impedance during robotic stroke rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Sys Rehabil Eng. 2007; 15: 94-103.
41. Roy A., Krebs H., Williams D., et al. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: a novel robot for ankle rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Robotics. 2009; 25: 569-582.