Virtual Reality for Sensorimotor Rehabilitation Post-Stroke: The Promise and Current State of the Field

Current Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Reports

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 9-20

  Fluet, Gerard G ^a   Deutsch, Judith E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY   (United States)

Author keywords

Arm; Balance; Gait; Hand; Haptics; Immersive; Mobility; Rehabilitation; Robotics; Semi immersive; Stroke; Upper extremity; Virtual environment; Virtual reality; Walking

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892704305     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21674833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40141-013-0005-2     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Rizzo AA, et al. Analysis of assets for virtual reality in neuropsychology. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2004;14:207–39. DOI: 10.1080/09602010343000183
2. Weiss PL, et al. Video capture virtual reality as a flexible and effective rehabilitation tool. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2004;1(1):12. DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-1-12
3. Kimberley TJ, et al. Comparison of amounts and types of practice during rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury and stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47(9):851–62. DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2010.02.0019
4. Adamovich SV, et al. Sensorimotor training in virtual reality: a review. Neurorehabilitation. 2009;25(1):29–44.
5. Sveistrup H. Motor rehabilitation using virtual reality. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2004;1(1):10. DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-1-10
6. Saposnik G, Levin M. Outcome research Canada working, virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: a meta-analysis and implications for clinicians. Stroke. 2011;42(5):1380–6. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.605451
7. • Laver KE, et al. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;9:CD008349. This cochrane review identified eight UL and three gait studies, four global motor function, four activity re-training and one visual-perceptual training, in which VR was compared to the standard of care. Studies were performed primarily on individuals in the chronic phase post-stroke, in outpatient settings. Most of the systems were custom made virtual environments, with a two off-the-shelf game console. The primary findings were: limited evidence that the use of virtual reality and interactive video gaming may be beneficial in improving arm function and activities of daily living function when compared with the same dose of conventional therapy. There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions about the effect on gait speed.
8. Holden MK. Virtual environments for motor rehabilitation: review. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2005;8(3):187–211. DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2005.8.187
9. Deutsch JE, et al. Post-stroke rehabilitation with the Rutgers ankle system: a case study. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ. 2001;10(4):416–30. DOI: 10.1162/1054746011470262
10. Holden MK, et al. Virtual environment training improves motor performance in two stroke patients. J Neurol Phys Ther. 1998;22(5):179.
11. Jaffe DL, et al. Stepping over obstacles to improve walking in individuals with poststroke hemiplegia. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004;41(3A):283–92. DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2004.03.0283
12. Levin MF, et al. Virtual reality environments to enhance upper limb functional recovery in patients with hemiparesis. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;145:94–108.
13. Weiss PL, et al. Video capture virtual reality: a decade of rehabilitation assessment and intervention. Phys Ther Rev. 2009;14(5):307–21. DOI: 10.1179/108331909X12488667117339
14. Magill RA. Motor learning and control. 8th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2006.
15. •• da Silva Cameirao M, et al. Virtual reality based rehabilitation speeds up functional recovery of the upper extremities after stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study in the acute phase of stroke using the rehabilitation gaming system. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2011; 29(5):287–98. This paper is the most extensive study of virtual rehabilitation for persons in the early acute phase of recovery from stroke (less than thirty days) done to date. Multiple authors hypothesize that this phase of rehabilitation may be particularly amenable to virtual interventions.
16. Crosbie JH, et al. Virtual reality in the rehabilitation of the arm after hemiplegic stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26(9):798–806. DOI: 10.1177/0269215511434575
17. Levin MF, et al. Virtual reality versus conventional treatment of reaching ability in chronic stroke: clinical feasibility study. Neurol Ther. 2012;1(3):1–15.
18. • Subramanian SK, et al. Arm motor recovery using a virtual reality intervention in chronic stroke: randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27(1);13–23. This paper presents a particularly well-controlled comparison of VR and non-VR based interventions. It also highlights the issue that different training modalities may elicit adaptations resulting in differing patterns of change movement patterns that do not translate to differing levels of improvement in clinical tests of motor function.
19. Hwang CH, Seong JW, Son D-S. Individual finger synchronized robot-assisted hand rehabilitation in subacute to chronic stroke: a prospective randomized clinical trial of efficacy. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26(8):696–704. DOI: 10.1177/0269215511431473
20. • Abdollahi F, et al. Arm control recovery enhanced by error augmentation. In: IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot.; 2011. p. 1–6. This paper describes the responses of persons with stroke to error augmentation, an approach that cannot be duplicated in traditionally presented rehabilitation environments.
21. •• Cameirao MS, et al. The combined impact of virtual reality neurorehabilitation and its interfaces on upper extremity functional recovery in patients with chronic stroke. Stroke. 2012;43(10):2720–8. This paper provides a controlled comparison of virtual rehabilitation presented in isolation, augmented by an exoskeleton robot and the same intervention interfaced with a simpler haptic interface. It is the first study that considers the additive effects of robotics on virtual rehabilitation. This consideration will have impact on the development of future virtual rehabilitation systems, the economics of virtual rehabilitation and the translation of lab based systems to tele-rehabilitation and clinical environments.
22. Connelly L, et al. A pneumatic glove and immersive virtual reality environment for hand rehabilitative training after stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2010;18(5):551–9. DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2010.2047588
23. Yang S, et al. Improving balance skills in patients who had stroke through virtual reality treadmill training. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;90(12):969–78. DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e3182389fae
24. • Mirelman A, et al. Effects of virtual reality training on gait biomechanics of individuals post-stroke. Gait Posture. 2010;31(4):433–7. Companion to paper published in stroke in which VR coupled with a LE robot interface had superior outcomes for gait speed (measured in the lab and community), gait endurance (6 min walk) when compared to training with a repetition matched dose using the LE robot alone. In this paper the biomechanics describing the groups indicated that push-off during gait was the primary between group outcome. This supports specificity of training the distal effector. However, it raises the question of why task-based (navigation in a VE) training transferred to improved walking in the real world (in the absence of task specific training of walking).
25. Gaubert CS, Mockett SP. Inter-rater reliability of the Nottingham method of stereognosis assessment. Clin Rehabil. 2000;14(2):153–9. DOI: 10.1191/026921500677422368
26. Hodkinson HM. Evaluation of a mental test score for assessment of mental impairment in the elderly. Age Ageing. 1972;1(4):233–8. DOI: 10.1093/ageing/1.4.233
27. • Mirelman A, et al. Virtual reality for gait training: can it induce motor learning to enhance complex walking and reduce fall risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011;66(2):234–40. Paper explicitly illustrates the integration of cognitive and motor elements into VR training.
28. Bart O, et al. Using video-capture virtual reality for children with acquired brain injury. Disabil Rehabils. 2011;33(17–18):1579–86. DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2010.540291
29. Fugl-Meyer AR, et al. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13–31.
30. Knaut LA, et al. Kinematics of pointing movements made in a virtual versus a physical 3-dimensional environment in healthy and stroke subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(5):793–802. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2008.10.030
31. Subramanian SK, Levin MF. Viewing medium affects arm motor performance in 3D virtual environments. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011;8:36. DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-8-36
32. Henderson A, Korner-Bitensky N, Levin M. Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review of its effectiveness for upper limb motor recovery. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2007;14(2):52–61. DOI: 10.1310/tsr1402-52
33. Kwakkel G. Impact of intensity of practice after stroke: issues for consideration. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28(13–14):823–30. DOI: 10.1080/09638280500534861
34. Kwakkel G, et al. Effects of augmented exercise therapy time after stroke: a meta-analysis. Stroke. 2004;35(11):2529–39. DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000143153.76460.7d
35. Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Twisk J. Impact of time on improvement of outcome after stroke. Stroke. 2006;37(9):2348–53. DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000238594.91938.1e