In the recent past, several researchers have shown that important variables in relearning motor skills and in changing the underlying neural architecture after stroke are the quantity, duration, content, and intensity of training sessions. Unfortunately, when traditional therapy is provided in a hospital or rehabilitation center, the patient is usually seen for few hours a week. Robot-mediated therapies could improve this situation but even if interesting results have been achieved by several groups, the use of robot-mediated therapy has not become very common in clinical practice. This is due to many different reasons (e.g., the “technophobia” of some clinicians, the need for more extensive clinical trials) but one of the more important is the cost and the complexity of these devices which make them difficult to be purchased and used in all the clinical centers.
The aim of this work was to verify the possibility of improving motor recovery of hemiparetic subjects by using a simple mechatronic system. To achieve this goal, our system (named “MEchatronic system for MOtor recovery after Stroke” (MEMOS)) has been designed with the aim of using mainly “off-the-shelf products” with only few parts simply manufactured with standard technology, when commercial parts were not available. Moreover, the prototype has been developed taking into account the requirements related to the clinical applicability such as robustness and safety.
The MEMOSsystem has been used during clinical trials with subjects affected by chronic hemiparesis (<6 months from the cerebrovascular accident). The results obtained during these experiments seem to showthat notwithstanding the simple mechatronic structure characterizing theMEMOSsystem, it is able to help chronic hemiparetics to reduce their level of impairment.
Further clinical experiments with acute and chronic subjects will be carried out in order to confirm these preliminary findings. Moreover, experiments for tele-rehabilitation of patients will be also carried out.
Fasoli, S.E., Krebs, H.I., Stein, J., Frontera, W.R., and Hogan, N. 2003. Effects of robotic therapy on motor impairment and recovery in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehab, 84:477–482.Google Scholar
Fasoli, S.E., Krebs, H.I., Stein, J., Frontera, W.R., Hughes, R., and Hogan, N. 2004. Robotic therapy for chronic motor impairments after stroke: Follow-up results. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 85(7):1106–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraro, M., Hogan Demajo, J., Krol, J., Trudell, C., Rannekleiv, K., Edelstein, L., Christos, P., Aisen, M., England, J., Fasoli, S., Krebs, H.I., Hogan, N., and Volpe, B.T. 2002. Assessing the motor status score: a scale for the evaluation of upper limb motor outcomes in patient after stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neuron Repair, 16:283–289.Google Scholar
Fugl-Meyer, A.R., Jaasko, I., Leyman, I., Olssom, S., and Steglind, S. 1975. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehab Med, 7:13–31.Google Scholar
Gomez-Pinilla, F., Ying, Z., Roy, R.R., Molteni, R., and Edgerton, V.R. 2002. Voluntary exercise induces a bdnf-mediated mechanism that promotes neuroplasticity. J Neurophys, 88(5):2187–2195.Google Scholar
Granger, C.V., Cotter, A.C., Hamilton, B.B., and Fiedler, R.C. 1993. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 74:133–138.Google Scholar
Hesse, S., Schulte-Tigges, G., Konrad, M., Bardeleben, A., and Werner, C. 2003. Robot-assisted arm trainer for the passive and active practice of bilateral forearm and wrist movements in hemiparetic subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehab, 84:915–920.Google Scholar
Jones, T.A., Chu, C.J., Grande, L.A., and Gregory, A.D. 1999. Motor skills training enhances lesion-induced structural plasticity in the motor cortex of adult rats. J Neurosci 19:10153–10163.Google Scholar
Kempermann, G., Van Praag, H., and Gage, F.H. 2000. Activity-dependent regulation of neuronal plasticity and self repair. Prog Brain Res, 127:35–48.Google Scholar
Kiguchi, K., Iwami, K., Yasuda, M., Watanabe, K., and Fukuda, T. 2003. An exoskeletal robot for human shoulder joint motion assis. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech, 8:126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louriero, R., Amirabdollahian, F., Topping, M., Driessen, B., and Harwin, W. 2003. Upper limb robot mediated stroke therapy using the gentle/s approach. Auton Robot, 15:35–51.Google Scholar
Lum, P.S., Burger, C.G., and Shor, P. 2004. Evidence for improved muscle activation patterns after retraining of reaching movements with the mime robotic system in subjects with post-stroke hemiparesis. IEEE Tran Neural Sys Rehab Eng, 12(2):186–194.Google Scholar
Lum, P.S., Burgar, C.G., Shor, P.C., Majmundar, M., and Van der Loos, M. 2002. Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 83(7):952–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Micera, S., Carpaneto, J., Posteraro, F., Cenciotti, L., Popovic, M., and Dario, P. (2005) Characterization of upper arm synergies during reaching tasks in subjects affected by neurological disorders. Clin Biomech, (accepted).Google Scholar
Patton, J.L. and Mussa-Ivaldi, F.A. 2004. Robot-assisted adaptive training: Custom force fields for teaching movement patterns. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng., 51:636–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinkensmeyer, D., Dewald, P., and Rymer, W. Guidance-based quantification of arm impairment following brain injury: A pilot study. IEEE Tran Rehab Eng, 7:1–11.Google Scholar
Reinkensmeyer, D.J., Pang, C.T., Nessler, J.A., and Painter, C.C. 2002. Web-based telerehabilitation for the upper extremity after stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 10(2):102–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, J., Brand, M., Fuchs, M.B., and Arcan, M. A myosignal-based powered exoskeleton system. IEEE Trans Sys Man Cyber—Part A, 31(3):210–222.Google Scholar
Tsagarakis, N. and Caldwell, D.G. Development and control of a ‘soft-actuated’ exoskeleton for use in physiotherapy and training. Auton Robot, 15(1):21–33.Google Scholar
Volpe, B., Krebs, H., Hogan, N., Edelsteinn, L., Diels, C., and Aisen, M. 1999. A novel approach to stroke rehabilitation: Robot-aided sensorimotor stimulation. Neurology, 54:1938–1944.Google Scholar
Volpe, B.T., Krebs, H.I., Hogan, N., Edelsteinn, L., Diels, C.M., and Aisen, M.L. 1999. Robot training enhanced motor outcome in patients with stroke maintained over 3 years. Neurology, 53(8):1874–1876.Google Scholar
Werry, I., Dautenhahn, K., and Harwin, W.S. 2001. Investigating a robot as a therapy partner for children with autism. In Proc AAATE 2001, 6th European Conference For The Advancement of Assistive Technology (AAATE 2001), Ljubljana/Slovenia, pp. 374–378.Google Scholar