Error augmentation enhancing arm recovery in individuals with chronic stroke: A randomized crossover design

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 120-128

  Abdollahi, Farnaz ^a,b   Case Lazarro, Emily D ^b   Listenberger, Molly ^b   Kenyon, Robert V ^a,b   Kovic, Mark ^b   Bogey, Ross A ^c   Hedeker, Donald ^a   Jovanovic, Borko D ^d   Patton, James L ^a,b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b REHABILITATION INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

error augmentation; haptic technology; physical therapy; robotics; stroke rehabilitation; upper extremity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARM MOVEMENT; ARTICLE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVALESCENCE; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; FEMALE; FUGL MEYER UE MOTOR SCORE; HEMIPARESIS; HUMAN; MALE; MEASUREMENT ERROR; MOTOR COORDINATION; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RANGE OF MOTION; ROBOTIC EXOSKELETON; SCORING SYSTEM; SIGNAL PROCESSING; STROKE PATIENT; TASK PERFORMANCE; TECHNOLOGY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VERY ELDERLY; VIRTUAL REALITY; WOLF MOTOR FUNCTION TEST;

ERROR AUGMENTATION; HAPTIC TECHNOLOGY; PHYSICAL THERAPY; ROBOTICS; STROKE REHABILITATION; UPPER EXTREMITY;

ADULT; AGED; ARM; CHRONIC DISEASE; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; FEEDBACK, SENSORY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PARESIS; PRACTICE (PSYCHOLOGY); ROBOTICS; STROKE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84892748020     PISSN: 15459683     EISSN: 15526844     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1545968313498649     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP, et al. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2006 ; 296: 2095-2104
2. Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP, et al. Retention of upper limb function in stroke survivors who have received constraint-induced movement therapy: the EXCITE randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. 2008 ; 17: 33-40
3. Dean CM, Shepherd RB. Task related training improves performance of seated reaching tasks after stroke: a randomize controlled trial. Stroke. 1997 ; 28: 722-728
4. Sanchez RJ, Liu J, Rao S, et al. Automating arm movement training following severe stroke: functional exercises with quantitative feedback in a gravity-reduced environment. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2006 ; 14: 378-389
5. Volpe BT, Ferraro M, Lynch D, et al. Robotics and other devices in the treatment of patients recovering from stroke. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2005 ; 5: 465-470
6. Lum P, Burgar C, Shor P, Majmundar M, Van der Loos M. Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper limb motor function following stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 ; 83: 952-959
7. Patton JL, Stoykov ME, Kovic M, Mussa-Ivaldi FA. Evaluation of robotic training forces that either enhance or reduce error in chronic hemiparetic stroke survivors. Exp Brain Res. 2006 ; 168: 368-383
8. Patton JL, Mussa-Ivaldi FA. Robot-assisted adaptive training: custom force fields for teaching movement patterns. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2004 ; 51: 636-646
9. Patton JL, Kovic M, Muss-Ivaldi FA. Custom-designed haptic training for restoring reaching ability to individuals with stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006 ; 43: 643-656
10. Kawato M. Advanced Neural Computers. Eckmiller R, ed. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland ; 365-372.
11. Desmurget M, Jordan M, Prablanc C, Jeannerod M. Constrained and unconstrained movements involve different control strategies. J Neurophysiol. 1997 ; 77: 1644-1650
12. Brewer B, Klatky R, Matsuoka Y. Perceptual limits for a robotic rehabilitation environment using visual feedback distortion. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005 ; 13: 1-11
13. Rossetti Y, Rode G, Pisella L, et al. Prism adaptation to a rightward optical deviation rehabilitates left hemispatial neglect. Nature. 1998 ; 395: 166-169
14. Emken JL, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Robot-enhanced motor learning: accelerating internal model formation during locomotion by transient dynamic amplification. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005 ; 13: 33-39
15. Peduzzi P, Henderson W, Hartigan P, Lavori P. Analysis of randomized controlled trials. Epidemiol Rev. 2002 ;: 26-38
16. Stanley K. Evaluation of randomized controlled trials. Circulation. 2007 ; 115: 1819-1822
17. Patton JL, Dawe G, Scharver C, Muss-Ivaldi FA, Kenyon R. Robotics and virtual reality: a perfect marriage for motor control research and rehabilitation. J Assist Technol. 2006 ; 18: 181-195
18. Rahman T, Sample W, Seliktar R, Alexander M, Scavina M. A body-powered functional upper limb orthosis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2000 ; 37: 675-680
19. Cothros N, Wong JD, Gribble PL. Are there distinct neural representations of object and limb dynamics?. Exp Brain Res. 2006 ; 173: 689-697
20. Sackett DL. Turning a blind eye: why we don't test for blindness at the end of our trials. Br J Med. 2004 ; 328: 1135
21. Wagner JM, Rhodes JA, Patten C. Reproducibility and minimal detectable change of three-dimensional kinematic analysis of reaching tasks in people with hemiparesis after stroke. Phys Ther. 2008 ; 88: 652-663
22. Platz T, Pinkowski C, van Wijck F, Kim IH, di Bella P, Johnson G. Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multicentre study. Clin Rehabil. 2005 ; 19: 404-411
23. Wolf S, Catlin P, Ellis M, Archer A, Morgan B, Piacentino A. Assessing Wolf Motor Function Test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Stroke. 2001 ; 32: 1635-1639
24. Fritz SL, Blanton S, Uswatte G, Taub E, Wolf SL. Minimal detectable change scores for the Wolf Motor Function Test. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 ; 23: 662-667
25. Chen HM, Chen CC, Hsueh IP, Huang SL, Hsieh CL. Test-retest reproducibility and smallest real difference of 5 hand function tests in patients with stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 ; 23: 435-440
26. McAuley E, Duncan TE, Tammen VV. Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1989 ; 60: 48-58
27. de NAP Shelton F, Volpe BT, Reding M. Motor impairment as a predictor of functional recovery and guide to rehabilitation treatment after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2001 ; 115: 229-237
28. Molier BI, Prange GB, Krabben T, et al. Effect of position feedback during task-oriented upper-limb training after stroke: five-case pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011 ; 48: 1109-1118
29. 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
30. Volpe BT, Lynch D, Rykman-Berland A, et al. Intensive sensorimotor arm training mediated by therapist or robot improves hemiparesis in patients with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008 ; 22: 305-310
31. Taub E. Constraint-induced movement therapy and massed practice. Stroke. 2000 ; 31: 986-988
32. Miltner WHR, Bauder H, Sommer M, Dettmers C, Taub E. Effects of constraint-induced movement therapy on patients with chronic motor deficits after stroke: a replication. Stroke. 1999 ; 30: 586-592
33. Dromerick AW, Lang CE, Birkenmeier RL, et al. Very early constraint-induced movement during stroke rehabilitation (VECTORS). Neurology. 2009 ; 73: 195-201
34. Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D, Light K, Thompson PA. The Motor Activity Log-28 assessing daily use of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. Neurology. 2006 ; 67: 1189-1194
35. Sanguineti V, Casadio M, Vergaro E, Squeri V, Giannoni P, Morasso PG. Robot therapy for stroke survivors: proprioceptive training and regulation of assistance. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009 ; 145: 126-142
36. Enoka RM. Neural adaptations with chronic physical activity. J Biomech. 1997 ; 30: 447-455
37. Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Römer C. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev. 1993 ; 100: 363-406