Rehabilitation of Stroke Patients with a Bioengineered “Brain–Computer Interface with Exoskeleton” System
- 149 Downloads
Objective. To study the potential for use of a bioengineered system consisting of an electroencephalograph, a personal computer running a program for the synchronous data transmission, recognition, and classification of electroencephalogram (EEG) signals, and formation of control commands in real time, combined with a hand exoskeleton (a bioengineered “brain–computer interface (BCI) with exoskeleton” system) for the motor rehabilitation of patients with poststroke upper limb paresis. Materials and methods. Brain–computer interfaces have potential for use in neurorehabilitation. A total of five patients with poststroke upper limb paresis received neurorehabilitation courses consisting of 8–10 sessions. All the patients had large foci of poststroke changes of cortical-subcortical locations as demonstrated by MRI scans. Results. Improvements in neurological status on the NIHSS were seen after courses of sessions, with significant increases in the volume and strength of movements in the paralyzed hand, improvements in the coordination of its movements, and minor decreases in the level of spasticity. There was an increase in daily activity on the Barthel index, mainly due to improvement in fi ne motor function. Levels of disability showed clear changes on the modified Rankin scale. Conclusions. Use of the “brain–computer interface (BCI) with exoskeleton” system in the rehabilitation of patients with poststroke paresis of the hand gave positive results, pointing to the need to continue these studies.
Keywordsstroke paresis of the hand rehabilitation brain–computer interface exoskeleton
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.S. V. Kotov, L. V. Stakhovskaya (eds.), E. V. Isakova, et al., Stroke, MIA. Moscow (2004).Google Scholar
- 7.J. M. Belda-Lois, S. Mena-Del Horno, I. Bermejo-Bosch, et al., “Rehabilitation of gait after stroke: a review towards a top-down approach,” J. Neuroeng. Rehabil., 13, 8–66 (2011).Google Scholar
- 8.M. Iosa, G. Morone, A. Fusco, et al., Seven Capital Devices for the Future of Stroke Rehabilitation, Hindawi Publishing Corporation Stroke Research and Treatment (2012), doi: 10.1155/2012/187965.
- 9.P. Bobrov, A. Frolov, C. Cantor, et al., “Brain–computer interface based on generation of visual images,” PLoS One, 6, No. 6, 20674 (2011), doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020674.
- 11.G. Pfurtscheller, G. R. Muller-Putz, R. Scherer, and C. Neuper, “Rehabilitation with brain–computer interface systems,” Computer, 41, No. 10, 58–65 (2008).Google Scholar
- 13.D. S. Nichols-Larsen, P. C. Clark, A. Zeringue, et al., “Factors influencing stroke survivors’ quality of life during subacute recovery,” Stroke, 36, No. 7, 1480–1484 (2005).Google Scholar
- 14.S. J. Albert and J. Kesselring, “Neurorehabilitation,” in: Textbook of Stroke Medicine, M. Brainin and W.-D. Heiss (eds.), Cambridge University Press (2010), pp. 283–306.Google Scholar
- 15.R. Dickstein and J. E. Deutsch, “Motor imagery in physical therapist practice,” Phys. Ther., 87, 942–953 (2007), doi: 10.2522/ptj.20060331.
- 16.N. Sharma, V. M. Pomeroy, and J. C. Baron, “Motor imagery: a back door to the motor system after stroke?” Stroke, 37, 1941–1952 (2006), doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000226902.43357.fc.