|
Frenkel-Toledo, S., Levin, M. F., Berman, S., Liebermann, D. G., Baniña, M. C., Solomon, J. M., et al. (2022). Shared and distinct voxel-based lesion-symptom mappings for spasticity and impaired movement in the hemiparetic upper limb. Sci Rep, 12(1).
|
Levin, M. F., Berman, S., Weiss, N., Parmet, Y., Banina, M. C., Frenkel-Toledo, S., et al. (2023). ENHANCE proof-of-concept three-arm randomized trial: effects of reaching training of the hemiparetic upper limb restricted to the spasticity-free elbow range (Vol. 13).
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.
|
Levin, M. F., Banina, M. C., Frenkel-Toledo, S., Berman, S., Soroker, N., Solomon, J. M., et al. (2018). Personalized upper limb training combined with anodal-tDCS for sensorimotor recovery in spastic hemiparesis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 19(1), 7.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Recovery of voluntary movement is a main rehabilitation goal. Efforts to identify effective upper limb (UL) interventions after stroke have been unsatisfactory. This study includes personalized impairment-based UL reaching training in virtual reality (VR) combined with non-invasive brain stimulation to enhance motor learning. The approach is guided by limiting reaching training to the angular zone in which active control is preserved (“active control zone”) after identification of a “spasticity zone”. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) is used to facilitate activation of the affected hemisphere and enhance inter-hemispheric balance. The purpose of the study is to investigate the effectiveness of personalized reaching training, with and without a-tDCS, to increase the range of active elbow control and improve UL function. METHODS: This single-blind randomized controlled trial will take place at four academic rehabilitation centers in Canada, India and Israel. The intervention involves 10 days of personalized VR reaching training with both groups receiving the same intensity of treatment. Participants with sub-acute stroke aged 25 to 80 years with elbow spasticity will be randomized to one of three groups: personalized training (reaching within individually determined active control zones) with a-tDCS (group 1) or sham-tDCS (group 2), or non-personalized training (reaching regardless of active control zones) with a-tDCS (group 3). A baseline assessment will be performed at randomization and two follow-up assessments will occur at the end of the intervention and at 1 month post intervention. Main outcomes are elbow-flexor spatial threshold and ratio of spasticity zone to full elbow-extension range. Secondary outcomes include the Modified Ashworth Scale, Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Streamlined Wolf Motor Function Test and UL kinematics during a standardized reach-to-grasp task. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence on the effectiveness of personalized treatment on spasticity and UL motor ability and feasibility of using low-cost interventions in low-to-middle-income countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02725853 . Initially registered on 12 January 2016.
|
Liebermann, D. G., Berman, S., Weingarden H., Levin, M. F., & Weiss, P. L. (2009). Kinematic features of arm and trunk movements in stroke patients and age-matched healthy controls during reaching in virtual and physical environments. In Virtual Rehabilitation International Conference (pp. 179–184).
Abstract: Motor performance of stroke patients and healthy individuals was compared in terms of selected kinematic features of arm and trunk movements while subjects reached for visual targets in virtual (VR) and physical (PH) environments. In PH, the targets were placed at an extended arm distance, while in VR comparably placed virtual targets were presented via GestureTek's IREX system. Our goal was to obtain further insights into research methods related to VR-based rehabilitation. Eight right-hemiparetic stroke patients (age =46-87 years) and 8 healthy adults (age =51-73 years) completed 84 reaching movements in VR and PH environments while seated. The results showed that arm and trunk movements differed in the two environments in patients and to a lesser extent in healthy individuals. Arm motion of patients became jerkier in VR, with larger paths and longer movement durations, and presented greater arm torsion (i.e., larger elbow rotations around the hand-shoulder axis). Interestingly, patients also showed a significant reduction of compensatory trunk movements during VR reaching. The findings indicate that when targets were perceived to be beyond hand reach, stroke patients may be less able to estimate 3D virtual target locations obtained from the 2D TV planar displays. This was not the case for healthy participants.
|
