New generation emerging technologies for neurorehabilitation and motor assistance

Acta Myologica

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 141-144

  Frisoli, Antonio ^a   Solazzi, Massimiliano ^a   Loconsole, Claudio ^b   Barsotti, Michele ^a  

^a SCUOLA SUPERIORE SANT ANNA   (Italy)

^b POLITECNICO DI BARI   (Italy)

Author keywords

ADL; EEG; Emerging technologies; EMG; Exoskeletons; Human machine interface; Motor assistance; Neurorehabilitation

Indexed keywords

ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY; BODY MOVEMENT; BRAIN COMPUTER INTERFACE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; ELECTROMYOGRAM; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MAN MACHINE INTERACTION; MOTOR LEARNING; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; NEUROREHABILITATION; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; ROBOTICS; STROKE PATIENT; DEVICES; ELECTRONIC DEVICE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EXOSKELETON (REHABILITATION); MOTOR ACTIVITY; NEUROMUSCULAR DISEASE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EXOSKELETON DEVICE; HUMANS; MOTOR ACTIVITY; NEUROLOGICAL REHABILITATION; NEUROMUSCULAR DISEASES; QUALITY OF LIFE; WEARABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES;

EID: 85030787748     PISSN: 11282460     EISSN: 25321900     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Vertechy R, Accoto D, Fontana M. Wearable Robotics [From the Guest Editors]. Robotics & Automation Magazine, IEEE 2014;21:19-110.
2. Dollar AM, Herr H. Lower extremity exoskeletons and active orthoses: Challenges and state-of-the-art. IEEE Trans Robot 2008;24:144-58.
3. Desrosiers J, Malouin F, Bourbonnais D, et al. Arm and leg impairments and disabilities after stroke rehabilitation: relation to handicap. Clin Rehabil 2003;17:666-73.
4. Burdet E, Franklin DW, Milner TE. Human robotics: neuromechan-ics and motor control. MIT Press 2013.
5. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH. Motor control: translating research into clinical practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2007.
6. Bayouk JF, Boucher JP, Leroux A. Balance training following stroke: effects of task-oriented exercises with and without altered sensory input. Int J Rehabil Res 2006;29:51-9.
7. Van Peppen RP, Kwakkel G, Wood-Dauphinee S, et al. The impact of physical therapy on functional outcomes after stroke: what’s the evidence? Clin Rehabil 2004;18:833-62.
8. Huang VS, Krakauer JW. Robotic neurorehabilitation: a computational motor learning perspective. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2009;6:5.
9. Lo AC, Guarino PD, Richards LG, et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1772-83.
10. Mehrholz J, Hädrich A, Platz T, et al. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving generic activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;13:CD006876.
11. Frisoli A, Procopio C, Chisari C, et al. Positive effects of robotic exoskeleton training of upper limb reaching movements after stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2012;9:36.
12. Bergamasco M, Salsedo F, Lenzo B. An exoskeleton structure for physical interaction with a human being. Patent no. WO2013186705 2014.
13. Yana T, Cempinia M, Calogero MO, et al. Review of assistive strategies in powered lower-limb orthoses and exoskeletons. Robotic AGE 2015;64:120-36.
14. Hogan N, Krebs H, Rohrer B, et al. Motions or muscles? Some behavioral factors underlying robotic assistance of motor recovery. J Rehabil Res Dev 2006;43:605.
15. Marchal-Crespo L, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Review of control strategies for robotic movement training after neurologic injury. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2009;6:20.
16. Lenzi T, De Rossi SM, Vitiello N, et al. Intention-based EMG control for powered exoskeletons. Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2012;59:2180-90.
17. Loconsole C, Dettori S, Frisoli A, et al. An EMG-based approach for on-line predicted torque control in robotic-assisted rehabilitation. IEEE HAPTICS 2014;181-6.
18. Basteris A, Nijenhuis SM, Stienen AH, et al. Training modalities in robot-mediated upper limb rehabilitation in stroke: a framework for classification based on a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2014;11:111.
19. Wolpaw R, McFarland DJ, Schalket G, et al. Brain-computer interface technology: a review of the first international meeting. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 2000;8:164-73.
20. Silvoni S, Ramos-Murguialday A, Cavinato M, et al. Brain-computer interface in stroke: a review of progress. Clin EEG Neurosci 2011;42:245-52.
21. Soekadar SR, Witkowski M, Mellinger J, et al. ERD-based online brain-machine interfaces (BMI) in the context of neurorehabilitation: optimizing BMI learning and performance. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2011;19:542-9.
22. Pfurtscheller G, Müller GR, Pfurtscheller J, et al. ‘Thought’-control of functional electrical stimulation to restore hand grasp in a patient with tetraplegia. Neurosci Lett 2003;351:33-6.
23. Ortner R, Allison BZ, Korisek G, et al. An SSVEP BCI to control a hand orthosis for persons with tetraplegia. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2011;19:1-5.
24. Young BM, Nigogosyan Z,Walton L, et al. Changes in functional brain organization and behavioral correlations after rehabilitative therapy using a brain-computer interface. Front Neuroeng 2014;7:26.
25. Ang, K.K. and C. Guan, Brain-computer interface in stroke rehabilitation. J Comput Sci Eng 2013;7:139-46.
26. Ramos-Murguialday A, Broetz D, Rea M, et al., Brain-machine interface in chronic stroke rehabilitation: a controlled study. Ann Neurol 2013; 74:100-8.