Robotic and clinical evaluation of upper limb motor performance in patients with Friedreich's Ataxia: An observational study

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Germanotta, Marco ^a   Vasco, Gessica ^b   Petrarca, Maurizio ^b   Rossi, Stefano ^c   Carniel, Sacha ^b   Bertini, Enrico ^b   Cappa, Paolo ^b,d   Castelli, Enrico ^b  

^a IRCCS FONDAZIONE DON CARLO GNOCCHI   (Italy)

^b BAMBINO GESÙ CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TUSCIA   (Italy)

^d SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Friedreich's ataxia; Kinematics; Reaching task; Robot mediated evaluation; Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia; Smoothness; Submovements; Upper limb

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE; ARM; ARTICLE; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE DURATION; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; FRIEDREICH ATAXIA; HUMAN; KINEMATICS; LIMB MOVEMENT; MALE; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; ROBOTICS; SCALE FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND RATING OF ATAXIA; SCHOOL CHILD; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SEX DIFFERENCE; BIOMECHANICS; COMPLICATION; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; UPPER LIMB; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARM; BIOMECHANICAL PHENOMENA; CHILD; FEMALE; FRIEDREICH ATAXIA; HUMANS; MALE; MOVEMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROBOTICS; UPPER EXTREMITY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84930631210     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17430003     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12984-015-0032-6     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Delatycki MB. Evaluating the progression of Friedreich ataxia and its treatment. J Neurol. 2009;256:36-41.
2. Pandolfo M. Friedreich ataxia. Semin Pediatr Neurol. 2003;10:163-72.
3. Corben LA, Tai G, Wilson C, Collins V, Churchyard AJ, Delatycki MB. A comparison of three measures of upper limb function in Friedreich ataxia. J Neurol. 2010;257:518-23.
4. Parkinson MH, Boesch S, Nachbauer W, Mariotti C, Giunti P. Clinical features of Friedreich's ataxia: classical and atypical phenotypes. J Neurochem. 2013;126:103-17.
5. Subramony SH, May W, Lynch D, Gomez C, Fischbeck K, Hallett M. Measuring Friedreich ataxia: Interrater reliability of a neurologic rating scale. Neurology. 2005;64:1261-2.
6. Trouillas P, Takayanagi T, Hallett M, Currier RD, Subramony SH, Wessel K, et al. International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale for pharmacological assessment of the cerebellar syndrome. J Neurol Sci. 1997;145:205-11.
7. Schmahmann JD, Gardner R, MacMore J, Vangel MG. Development of a brief ataxia rating scale (BARS) based on a modified form of the ICARS. Mov Disord. 2009;24:1820-8.
8. Schmitz-Hübsch T, du Montcel ST, Baliko L, Berciano J, Boesch S, Depondt C, et al. Scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia: development of a new clinical scale. Neurology. 2006;66:1717-20.
9. Bürk K, Mälzig U, Wolf S, Heck S, Dimitriadis K, Schmitz-Hübsch T, et al. Comparison of three clinical rating scales in Friedreich ataxia (FRDA). Mov Disord. 2009;24:1779-84.
10. Reetz K, Dogan I, Costa AS, Dafotakis M, Fedosov K, Giunti P, et al. Biological and clinical characteristics of the European Friedreich's Ataxia Consortium for Translational Studies (EFACTS) cohort: a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14:174-82.
11. Brandsma R, Spits AH, Kuiper MJ, Lunsing RJ, Burger H, Kremer HP, et al. Ataxia rating scales are age-dependent in healthy children. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2014;56:556-63.
12. Krabben T, Molier BI, Houwink A, Rietman JS, Buurke JH, Prange GB. Circle drawing as evaluative movement task in stroke rehabilitation: an explorative study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011;8:15.
13. Rohrer B, Fasoli S, Krebs HI, Hughes R, Volpe B, Frontera WR, et al. Movement smoothness changes during stroke recovery. J Neurosci. 2002;22:8297-304.
14. 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.
15. Kahn LE, Zygman ML, Rymer WZ, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Robot-assisted reaching exercise promotes arm movement recovery in chronic hemiparetic stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2006;3:12.
16. Dipietro L, Krebs HI, Fasoli SE, Volpe BT, Stein J, Bever C, et al. Changing motor synergies in chronic stroke. J Neurophysiol. 2007;98:757-68.
17. Lewis GN, Perreault EJ. An assessment of robot-assisted bimanual movements on upper limb motor coordination following stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2009;17:595-604.
18. Celik O, O'Malley MK, Boake C, Levin HS, Yozbatiran N, Reistetter TA. Normalized movement quality measures for therapeutic robots strongly correlate with clinical motor impairment measures. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2010;18:433-44.
19. Balasubramanian S, Colombo R, Sterpi I, Sanguineti V, Burdet E. Robotic assessment of upper limb motor function after stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91(11 Suppl 3):S255-69.
20. Zollo L, Gallotta E, Guglielmelli E, Sterzi S. Robotic technologies and rehabilitation: new tools for upper-limb therapy and assessment in chronic stroke. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2011;47:223-36.
21. Gilliaux M, Lejeune T, Detrembleur C, Sapin J, Dehez B, Stoquart G. A robotic device as a sensitive quantitative tool to assess upper limb impairments in stroke patients: a preliminary prospective cohort study. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44:210-7.
22. Colombo R, Cusmano I, Sterpi I, Mazzone A, Delconte C, Pisano F. Test-retest reliability of robotic assessment measures for the evaluation of upper limb recovery. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2014;22:1020-9.
23. Scott SH, Dukelow SP. Potential of robots as next-generation technology for clinical assessment of neurological disorders and upper-limb therapy. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48:335-53.
24. Nordin N, Xie SQ, Wünsche B. Assessment of movement quality in robot- assisted upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: a review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11:137.
25. Frascarelli F, Masia L, Di Rosa G, Cappa P, Petrarca M, Castelli E, et al. The impact of robotic rehabilitation in children with acquired or congenital movement disorders. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2009;45:135-41.
26. Frascarelli F, Masia L, Di Rosa G, Petrarca M, Cappa P, Castelli E. Robot-mediated and clinical scales evaluation after upper limb botulinum toxin type A injection in children with hemiplegia. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41:988-94.
27. Masia L, Frascarelli F, Morasso P, Di Rosa G, Petrarca M, Castelli E, et al. Reduced short term adaptation to robot generated dynamic environment in children affected by Cerebral Palsy. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011;8:28.
28. Cappa P, Clerico A, Nov O, Porfiri M. Can force feedback and science learning enhance the effectiveness of neuro-rehabilitation? An experimental study on using a low-cost 3D joystick and a virtual visit to a zoo. PLoS One. 2013;8:e83945.
29. Vergaro E, Squeri V, Brichetto G, Casadio M, Morasso P, Solaro C, et al. Adaptive robot training for the treatment of incoordination in Multiple Sclerosis. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2010;7:37.
30. Ramos E, Latash MP, Hurvitz EA, Brown SH. Quantification of upper extremity function using kinematic analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:491-6.
31. Bastian AJ, Zackowski KM, Thach WT. Cerebellar ataxia: torque deficiency or torque mismatch between joints? J Neurophysiol. 2000;83:3019-30.
32. Erasmus LP, Sarno S, Albrecht H, Schwecht M, Pöllmann W, König N. Measurement of ataxic symptoms with a graphic tablet: standard values in controls and validity in Multiple Sclerosis patients. J Neurosci Methods. 2001;108:25-37.
33. Ferrarin M, Gironi M, Mendozzi L, Nemni R, Mazzoleni P, Rabuffetti M. Procedure for the quantitative evaluation of motor disturbances in cerebellar ataxic patients. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2005;43:349-56.
34. Menegoni F, Milano E, Trotti C, Galli M, Bigoni M, Baudo S, et al. Quantitative evaluation of functional limitation of upper limb movements in subjects affected by ataxia. Eur J Neurol. 2009;16:232-9.
35. Day BL, Thompson PD, Harding AE, Marsden CD. Influence of vision on upper limb reaching movements in patients with cerebellar ataxia. Brain. 1998;121:357-72.
36. Bardorfer A, Munih M, Zupan A, Primozic A. Upper limb motion analysis using haptic interface. IEE/ASME Trans. 2001;6:253-60.
37. Rohrer B, Fasoli S, Krebs HI, Volpe B, Frontera WR, Stein J, et al. Submovements grow larger, fewer, and more blended during stroke recovery. Mot Control. 2004;8:472-83.
38. Dipietro L, Krebs HI, Fasoli SE, Volpe BT, Hogan N. Submovement changes characterize generalization of motor recovery after stroke. Cortex. 2009;45:318-24.
39. Maurel N, Diop A, Gouelle A, Alberti C, Husson I. Assessment of upper limb function in young Friedreich ataxia patients compared to control subjects using a new three-dimensional kinematic protocol. Clin Biomech. 2013;28:386-94.
40. Lo AC, Guarino P, Krebs HI, Volpe BT, Bever CT, Duncan PW, et al. Multicenter randomized trial of robot-assisted rehabilitation for chronic stroke: methods and entry characteristics for VA ROBOTICS. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:775-83.
41. Pandolfo M. Molecular basis of Friedreich ataxia. Mov Disord. 2001;16:815-21.
42. Pacilli A, Germanotta M, Rossi S, Cappa P. Quantification of age-related differences in reaching and circle-drawing using a robotic rehabilitation device. Appl Bionics Biomech. 2014;11:91-104.
43. Dorfberger S, Adi-Japha E, Karni A. Sex differences in motor performance and motor learning in children and adolescents: an increasing male advantage in motor learning and consolidation phase gains. Behav Brain Res. 2009;198:165-71.
44. Krebs HI, Hogan N, Aisen ML, Volpe BT. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 1998;6:75-87.
45. Balasubramanian S. A robust and sensitive metric for quantifying movement smoothness. Biomed Eng IEEE Trans. 2012;59:2126-36.
46. Teulings HL, Contreras-Vidal JL, Stelmach GE, Adler CH. Parkinsonism reduces coordination of fingers, wrist, and arm in fine motor control. Exp Neurol. 1997;146:159-70.
47. Friedman J, Finkbeiner M: Temporal dynamics of masked congruence priming: evidence from reaching trajectories. ASCS09 Proc 9th Conf Australas Soc Cogn Sci Sydney Macquarie Cent Cogn Sci 2010:98-105.
48. Flash T, Hogan N. The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. J Neurosci. 1985;5:1688-703.
49. Rohrer B, Hogan N. Avoiding spurious submovement decompositions II: a scattershot algorithm. Biol Cybern. 2006;94:409-14.
50. Friedman J, Brown S, Finkbeiner M. Linking cognitive and reaching trajectories via intermittent movement control. J Math Psychol. 2013;57:140-51.
51. Casadio M, Sanguineti V, Morasso P, Solaro C. Abnormal sensorimotor control, but intact force field adaptation, in multiple sclerosis subjects with no clinical disability. Mult Scler. 2008;14:330-42.
52. Corben LA, Georgiou-Karistianis N, Bradshaw JL, Hocking DR, Churchyard AJ, Delatycki MB. The Fitts task reveals impairments in planning and online control of movement in Friedreich ataxia: reduced cerebellar-cortico connectivity? Neuroscience. 2011;192:382-90.
53. Lynch DR, Farmer JM, Rochestie D, Balcer LJ. Contrast letter acuity as a measure of visual dysfunction in patients with Friedreich ataxia. J neuro-ophthalmology. 2002;22:270-4.
54. Fahey MC, Cremer PD, Aw ST, Millist L, Todd MJ, White OB, et al. Vestibular, saccadic and fixation abnormalities in genetically confirmed Friedreich ataxia. Brain. 2008;131(Pt 4):1035-45.
55. Hocking DR, Fielding J, Corben LA, Cremer PD, Millist L, White OB, et al. Ocular motor fixation deficits in Friedreich ataxia. Cerebellum. 2010;9:411-8.
56. Seyer LA, Galetta K, Wilson J, Sakai R, Perlman S, Mathews K, et al. Analysis of the visual system in Friedreich ataxia. J Neurol. 2013;260:2362-9.
57. Nocchi F, Gazzellini S, Grisolia C, Petrarca M, Cannatà V, Cappa P, et al. Brain network involved in visual processing of movement stimuli used in upper limb robotic training: an fMRI study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012;9:49.