Abstract: Post-stroke motor recovery processes remain unknown. Timescales and patterns of upper-limb (UL) recovery suggest a major impact of biological factors, with modest contributions from rehabilitation. We assessed a novel impairment-based training motivated by motor control theory where reaching occurs within the spasticity-free elbow range. Patients with subacute stroke (</= 6 month; n = 46) and elbow flexor spasticity were randomly allocated to a 10-day UL training protocol, either personalized by restricting reaching to the spasticity-free elbow range defined by the tonic stretch reflex threshold (TSRT) or non-personalized (non-restricted) and with/without anodal transcranial direct current stimulation. Outcomes assessed before, after, and 1 month post-intervention were elbow flexor TSRT angle and reach-to-grasp arm kinematics (primary) and stretch reflex velocity sensitivity, clinical impairment, and activity (secondary). Results were analyzed for 3 groups as well as those of the effects of impairment-based training. Clinical measures improved in both groups. Spasticity-free range training resulted in faster and smoother reaches, smaller (i.e., better) arm-plane path length, and closer-to-normal shoulder/elbow movement patterns. Non-personalized training improved clinical scores without improving arm kinematics, suggesting that clinical measures do not account for movement quality. Impairment-based training within a spasticity-free elbow range is promising since it may improve clinical scores together with arm movement quality.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique Identifier: NCT02725853; Initial registration date: 01/04/2016.

Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the effects of adding vibrotactile feedback to myoelectric prosthesis users on the performance time and visual attention in a dual-task paradigm.
Design: A repeated-measures design with a counterbalanced order of two conditions.
Setting: Laboratory setting.
Subjects: Transradial amputees using a myoelectric prosthesis with normal or corrected eyesight (N=12, median age=65 ± 13 years). Exclusion criteria were orthopedic or neurologic problems.
Interventions: Subjects performed grasping tasks with their prosthesis, while controlling a virtual car on a road with their intact hand. The dual task was performed twice: with and without vibrotactile feedback.
Main measures: Performance time of each of the grasping tasks and gaze behavior, measured by the number of times the subjects shifted their gaze toward their hand, the relative time they applied their attention to the screen, and percentage of error in the secondary task.
Results: The mean performance time was significantly shorter (P=0.024) when using vibrotactile feedback (93.2 ± 9.6 seconds) compared with the performance time measured when vibrotactile feedback was not available (107.8 ± 20.3seconds). No significant differences were found between the two conditions in the number of times the gaze shifted from the screen to the hand, in the time the subjects applied their attention to the screen, and in the time the virtual car was off-road, as a percentage of the total game time
(51.4 ± 15.7 and 50.2 ± 19.5, respectively).
Conclusion: Adding vibrotactile feedback improved performance time during grasping in a dual-task paradigm. Prosthesis users may use vibrotactile feedback to perform better during daily tasks, when multiple cognitive demands are present.

Abstract: Purpose: Motor recovery of the upper limb (UL) is related to exercise intensity, defined as movement repetitions divided by minutes in active therapy, and task difficulty. However, the degree to which UL training in virtual reality (VR) applications deliver intense and challenging exercise and whether these factors are considered in different centres for people with different sensorimotor impairment levels is not evidenced. We determined if (1) a VR programme can deliver high UL exercise intensity in people with sub-acute stroke across different environments and (2) exercise intensity and difficulty differed among patients with different levels of UL sensorimotor impairment.Methods: Participants with sub-acute stroke (<6 months) with Fugl-Meyer scores ranging from 14 to 57, completed 10 approximately 50-min UL training sessions using three unilateral and one bilateral VR activity over 2 weeks in centres located in three countries. Training time, number of movement repetitions, and success rates were extracted from game activity logs. Exercise intensity was calculated for each participant, related to UL impairment, and compared between centres.Results: Exercise intensity was high and was progressed similarly in all centres. Participants had most difficulty with bilateral and lateral reaching activities. Exercise intensity was not, while success rate of only one unilateral activity was related to UL severity.Conclusion: The level of intensity attained with this VR exercise programme was higher than that reported in current stroke therapy practice. Although progression through different activity levels was similar between centres, clearer guidelines for exercise progression should be provided by the VR application.Implications for rehabilitationVR rehabilitation systems can be used to deliver intensive exercise programmes.VR rehabilitation systems need to be designed with measurable progressions through difficulty levels.