Kinematic and neurophysiological consequences of an assisted-force-feedback brain-machine interface training: A case study

Frontiers in Neurology

Volumn 4 NOV, Issue , 2013, Pages

  Silvoni, Stefano ^a   Cavinato, Marianna ^a   Volpato, Chiara ^a   Cisotto, Giulia ^a,b   Genna, Clara ^a   Agostini, Michela ^a   Turolla, Andrea ^a   Ramos Murguialday, Ander ^c,d   Piccione, Francesco ^a  

^a IRCCS San Camillo Hospital   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^d TECNALIA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION   (Spain)

Author keywords

Assisted force feedback; brain machine interface; Motor training; Operant learning; Proprioception

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARM MUSCLE; ARTICLE; BRAIN COMPUTER INTERFACE; BRAIN ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; CASE REPORT; CASE STUDY; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; FEMALE; HEMIPLEGIA; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; KINEMATICS; LOCOMOTION; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; MUSCLE EXCITATION; MUSCLE STRENGTH; MUSCLE TRAINING; NERVE STIMULATION; NEUROMODULATION; NEUROPHYSIOLOGY; PROPRIOCEPTIVE FEEDBACK; ROBOTICS; SOMATOSENSORY STIMULATION; SPATIAL BEHAVIOR; TASK PERFORMANCE; THERAPY EFFECT;

EID: 84889648541     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16642295     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2013.00173     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Birbaumer N, Cohen LG. Brain-computer interfaces: communication and restoration of movement in paralysis. J Physiol (2007) 579:621-36. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2006.125633
2. Daly JJ, Wolpaw JR. Brain-computer interfaces in neurological rehabilitation. Lancet Neurol (2008) 7:1032-43. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70223-0
3. Dimyan MA, Cohen LG. Neuroplasticity in the context of motor rehabilitation after stroke. Nat Rev Neurol (2011) 7:76-85. doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2010.200
4. Grosse-Wentrup M, Mattia D, Oweiss K. Using brain-computer interfaces to induce neural plasticity and restore function. J Neural Eng (2011) 8:025004. doi:10.1088/1741-2560/8/2/025004
5. Hogan N, Krebs HI. Physically interactive robotic technology for neuromotor rehabilitation. Prog Brain Res (2011) 192:59-68. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53355-5.00004-X
6. Piron L, Turolla A, Agostini M, Zucconi CS, Ventura L, Tonin P, et al. Motor learning principles for rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled study in poststroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair (2010) 24:501-8. doi:10.1177/1545968310362672
7. Laver KE, George S, Thomas S, Deutsch JE, Crotty M. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2011) 2011:CD008349. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008349.pub2
8. Finley MA, Fasoli SE, Dipietro L, Ohlhoff J, Macclellan L, Meister C, et al. Short-duration robotic therapy in stroke patients with severe upper-limb motor impairment. J Rehabil Res Dev (2005) 42:683-92. doi:10.1682/JRRD.2004.12.0153
9. Hochberg LR, Serruya MD, Friehs GM, Mukand JA, Saleh M, Caplan AH, et al. Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature (2006) 442:164-71. doi:10.1038/nature04970
10. Buch E, Weber C, Cohen LG, Braun C, Dimyan MA, Ard T, et al. Think to move: a neuromagnetic brain-computer interface (BCI) system for chronic stroke. Stroke (2008) 39:910-7. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.505313
11. Broetz D, Braun C, Weber C, Soekadar SR, Caria A, Birbaumer N. Combination of brain-computer interface training and goal-directed physical therapy in chronic stroke: a case report. Neurorehabil Neural Repair (2010) 24:674-9. doi:10.1177/1545968310368683
12. Lo AC, Guarino PD, Richards LG, Haselkorn JK, Wittenberg GF, Federman DG, et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med (2010) 362:1772-83. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0911341
13. Tarkka IM, Pitkänen K, Popovic DB, Vanninen R, Könönen M. Functional electrical therapy for hemiparesis alleviates disability and enhances neuroplasticity. Tohoku J Exp Med (2011) 225:71-6. doi:10.1620/tjem.225.71
14. Casadio M, Morasso P, Sanguineti V, Giannoni P. Minimally assistive robot training for proprioception enhancement. Exp Brain Res (2009) 194:219-31. doi:10.1007/s00221-008-1680-6
15. Belda-Lois JM, Mena-Del Horno S, Bermejo-Bosch I, Moreno JC, Pons JL, Farina D, et al. Rehabilitation of gait after stroke: a review towards a top-down approach. J Neuroeng Rehabil (2011) 8:66. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-8-66
16. Pomeroy V, Aglioti SM, Mark VW, McFarland D, Stinear C, Wolf SL, et al. Neurological principles and rehabilitation of action disorders: rehabilitation interventions. Neurorehabil Neural Repair (2011) 25(Suppl 5):33S-43S. doi:10.1177/1545968311410942
17. Wade E, Winstein CJ. Virtual reality and robotics for stroke rehabilitation: where do we go from here? Top Stroke Rehabil (2011) 18:685-700. doi:10.1310/tsr1806-685
18. 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) 85:1106-11. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2003.11.028
19. Abdollahi F, Case Lazarro ED, Listenberger M, Kenyon RV, Kovic M, Bogey RA, et al. Error augmentation enhancing arm recovery in individuals with chronic stroke: a randomized crossover design. Neurorehabil Neural Repair (2013). doi:10.1177/1545968313498649. [Epub ahead of print].
20. Cameirão MS, Badia SB, Duarte E, Frisoli A, Verschure PF. The combined impact of virtual reality neurorehabilitation and its interfaces on upper extremity functional recovery in patients with chronic stroke. Stroke (2012) 43:2720-8. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.653196
21. Ramos-Murguialday A, Halder S, Birbaumer N. Propioceptive feedback in BCI. Proceedings of NER'09 4th International IEEE EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering; 2009 Apr 29-May 2; Antalya (2009). p. 279-82. doi:10.1109/NER.2009.5109287
22. Gomez-Rodriguez M, Peters J, Hill J, Schölkopf B, Gharabaghi A, Grosse-Wentrup M. Closing the sensorimotor loop: haptic feedback facilitates decoding of motor imagery. J Neural Eng (2011) 8:036005. doi:10.1088/1741-2560/8/3/036005
23. Ramos-Murguialday A, Schürholz M, Caggiano V, Wilgrüber M, Caria A, Hammer EM, et al. Proprioceptive feedback and brain computer interface (BCI) based neuroprostheses. PLos One (2012) 7:e47048. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047048
24. Ramos-Murguialday A, Broetz D, Rea M, Läer L, Yilmaz O, Brasil FL, et al. Brain-machine-interface in chronic stroke rehabilitation: a controlled study. Ann Neurol (2013) 74:100-8. doi:10.1002/ana.23879
25. Pichiorri F, De Vico Fallani F, Cincotti F, Babiloni F, Molinari M, Kleih SC, et al. Sensorimotor rhythm-based brain-computer interface training: the impact on motor cortical responsiveness. J Neural Eng (2011) 8(2):025020. doi:10.1088/1741-2560/8/2/025020
26. Daly JJ, Cheng R, Rogers J, Litinas K, Hrovat K, Dohring M. Feasibility of a new application of noninvasive Brain Computer Interface (BCI): a case study of training for recovery of volitional motor control after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther (2009) 33:203-11. doi:10.1097/NPT.0b013e3181c1fc0b
27. Prasad G, Herman P, Coyle D, McDonough S, Crosbie J. Applying a brain-computer interface to support motor imagery practice in people with stroke for upper limb recovery: a feasibility study. J Neuroeng Rehabil (2010) 7:60. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-7-60
28. Niazi IK, Jiang N, Tiberghien O, Nielsen JF, Dremstrup K, Farina D. Detection of movement intention from single-trial movement-related cortical potentials. J Neural Eng (2011) 8:066009. doi:10.1088/1741-2560/8/6/066009
29. Silvoni S, Ramos-Murguialday A, Cavinato M, Volpato C, Cisotto G, Turolla A, et al. Brain-computer interface in stroke: a review of progress. Clin EEG Neurosci (2011) 42:245-52. doi:10.1177/155005941104200410
30. Dipietro L, Krebs HI, Fasoli SE, Volpe BT, Hogan N. Submovement changes characterize generalization of motor recovery after stroke. Cortex (2009) 45:318-24. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2008.02.008
31. Schalk G, McFarland DJ, Hinterberger T, Birbaumer N, Wolpaw JR. BCI2000: a general-purpose brain-computer interface (BCI) system. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng (2004) 51:1034-43. doi:10.1109/TBME.2004.827072
32. Scott MacKenzie I, Buxton W. Extending Fitts' law to two-dimensional tasks. CHI 1992 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM (1992). p. 219-26. doi:10.1145/142750.142794
33. McFarland DJ, Miner LA, Vaughan TM, Wolpaw JR. Mu and beta rhythm topographies during motor imagery and actual movements. Brain Topogr (2000) 12:177-86. doi:10.1023/A:1023437823106
34. Labyt E, Szurhaj W, Bourriez JL, Cassim F, Defebvre L, Destée A, et al. Changes in oscillatory cortical activity related to a visuomotor task in young and elderly healthy subjects. Clin Neurophysiol (2003) 114:1153-66. doi:10.1016/S1388-2457(03)00058-0
35. Kim DH, Cruse H. Two kinds of body representation are used to control hand movements following tactile stimulation. Exp Brain Res (2001) 139:76-91. doi:10.1007/s002210100741
36. Mirabella G, Pani P, Paré M, Ferraina S. Inhibitory control of reaching movements in humans. Exp Brain Res (2006) 174:240-55. doi:10.1007/s00221-006-0456-0
37. Naranjo JR, Brovelli A, Longo R, Budai R, Kristeva R, Battaglini PP. EEG dynamics of the frontoparietal network during reaching preparation in humans. Neuroimage (2007) 34:1673-82. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.07.049
38. Perfetti B, Moisello C, Landsness EC, Kvint S, Pruski A, Onofrj M, et al. Temporal evolution of oscillatory activity predicts performance in a choice-reaction time reaching task. J Neurophysiol (2011) 105:18-27. doi:10.1152/jn.00778.2010
39. Klatzky RL, Fikes TG, Pellegrino JW. Planning for hand shape and arm transport when reaching for objects. Acta Psychol (Amst) (1995) 88:209-32. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(93)E0068-D
40. Barthélémy S, Boulinguez P. Orienting visuospatial attention generates manual reaction time asymmetries in target detection and pointing. Behav Brain Res (2002) 133:109-16. doi:10.1016/S0166-4328(01)00446-6
41. Birbaumer N, Ramos-Murguialday A, Cohen L. Brain-computer interface in paralysis. Curr Opin Neurol (2008) 21:634-8. doi:10.1097/WCO.0b013e328315ee2d