|
|
Liebermann, D. G., Buchman, A. S., & Franks, I. M. (2006). Enhancement of motor rehabilitation through the use of information technologies. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon), 21(1), 8–20.
Abstract: The recent development of information technologies has dramatically increased the tools available for facilitating motor rehabilitation. This review focuses on technologies which can be used to augment movement-related information both to patients as well as to their therapists. A brief outline of the motor system emphasizes the role of spinal motor neurons in the control of voluntary movement and rehabilitative efforts. Technologies which induce passive motion to stimulate spinal motor output as well as technologies that stimulate active voluntary movements are discussed. Finally, we review technologies and notational methods that can be used to quantify and assess the quality of movement for evaluating the efficacy of motor rehabilitation efforts. We conclude that stronger evidence is necessary to determine the applicability of the wide range of technologies now available to clinical rehabilitation efforts.
|
|
|
|
Raveh, E., Portnoy, S., & Friedman, J. (2018). Myoelectric Prosthesis Users Improve Performance Time and Accuracy Using Vibrotactile Feedback When Visual Feedback Is Disturbed. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 99(11), 2263–2270.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of adding vibrotactile feedback (VTF) in myoelectric prosthesis users during performance of a functional task when visual feedback is disturbed. DESIGN: A repeated-measures design with a counter-balanced order of 3 conditions. SETTING: Laboratory setting. PARTICIPANTS: Transradial amputees using a myoelectric prosthesis with normal or corrected eyesight (N=12, median age 65+/-13y). Exclusion criteria were orthopedic or neurologic problems. INTERVENTIONS: All participants performed the modified Box and Blocks Test, grasping and manipulating 16 blocks over a partition using their myoelectric prosthesis. This was performed 3 times: in full light, in a dark room without VTF, and in a dark room with VTF. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Performance time, that is, the time needed to transfer 1 block, and accuracy during performance, measured by number of empty grips, empty transitions with no block and block drops from the hand. RESULTS: Significant differences were found in all outcome measures when VTF was added, with improved performance time (4.2 vs 5.3s) and a reduced number of grasping errors (3.0 vs 6.5 empty grips, 1.5 vs 4 empty transitions, 2.0 vs 4.5 block drops). CONCLUSIONS: Adding VTF to myoelectric prosthesis users has positive effects on performance time and accuracy when visual feedback is disturbed.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
