Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rehabilitation of the Arm Motor Function in Poststroke Patients with an Exoskeleton-Controlling Brain–Computer Interface: Effect of Repeated Hospitalizations

  • Published:
Human Physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A brain–computer interface (BCI) used to control a hand exoskeleton provides a tool for rehabilitation of the arm motor function (MF) after stroke and has proven efficacy and a potential to stimulate brain neuroplasticity. A study was made to analyze the effect of repeated rehabilitation courses with a BCI + exoskeleton (2 to 9 months after the first course) on the MF restoration in the late recovery period. MF recovery was assessed using a biomechanical analysis of the patient’s movements and clinical scales: the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) scale, the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and the Medical Research Council Weakness Scale sum score (MRC-SS). A positive effect of repeated rehabilitation courses with a BCI + exoskeleton on the MF recovery was observed in both patients with moderate paresis in the late recovery period and patients with severe paresis. The data may be useful for developing an appropriate protocol for the rehabilitation procedures that employ the exoskeleton controlled via a BCI with kinesthetic imagination of movements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Kelly-Hayes, M., Beiser, A., Kase, C., et al., The influence of gender and age on disability following ischemic stroke: the Framingham study, J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis., 2003, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 119.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nudo, R.J., Milliken, G.W., Jenkins, W.M., and Merzenich, M.M., Use-dependent alterations of movement representations in primary motor cortex of adult squirrel monkeys, J. Neurosci., 1996, vol. 16, no. 2, p. 785.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Bach-Y-Rita, P., Theoretical and practical considerations in the restoration of function after stroke, Top Stroke Rehabil., 2001, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 1.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Butler, A.J. and Page, S.J., Mental practice with motor imagery: evidence for motor recovery and cortical reorganization after stroke, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 2006, vol. 87, no. 12, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sharma, N., Pomeroy, V.M., and Baron, J.C., Motor imagery: a backdoor to the motor system after stroke? Stroke., 2006, vol. 37, no. 7, p. 1941.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pfurtscheller, G., EEG event-related desynchronization (ERD) and event related synchronization (ERS), in Electroencephalography: Basic Principles, Clinical Applications, and Related Fields, Niedermeyer, E. and Lopes da Silva, F.H., Eds., 4th ed., Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1999, p. 958.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Frolov, A., Husek, D., and Bobrov, P., Comparison of four classification methods for brain computer interface, Neural Network World, 2011, vol. 21, no. 2, p. 101.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ang, K.K., Guan, C., Phua, K.S., et al., Brain-computer interface-based robotic end effector system for wrist and hand rehabilitation: results of a three-armed randomized controlled trial for chronic stroke, Front. Neuroeng., 2014, vol. 7, no. 30, p. 30.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Ang, K.K., Chua, K.S., Phua, K.S., et al., A randomized controlled trial of EEG-based motor imagery brain-computer interface robotic rehabilitation for stroke, Clin. EEG Neurosci., 2015, vol. 46, no. 4, p. 310.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ono, T., Shindo, K., Kawashima, K., et al., Brain-computer interface with somatosensory feedback improves functional recovery from severe hemiplegia due to chronic stroke, Front. Neuroeng., 2014, vol. 7, p. 19.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Ramos-Murguialday, A., Broetz, D., Rea, M., et al., Brain-machine interface in chronic stroke rehabilitation: a controlled study, Ann. Neurol., 2013, vol. 74, no. 1, p. 100.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Frolov, A.A., Mokienko, O., Lyukmanov, R., et al., Post-stroke rehabilitation training with a motor-imagery-based brain-computer interface (BCI)-controlled hand exoskeleton: a randomized controlled multicenter trial, Front. Neurosci., 2017, vol. 11, p. 400.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Hétu, S., Grégoire, M., Saimpont, A., et al., The neural network of motor imagery: an ALE meta-analysis, Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., 2013, vol. 37, no. 5, p. 930.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Frolov, A.A., Fedotova, I.R., Gusek, D., and Bobrov, P.D., Rhythmic brain activity and brain computer interface based on motor imagery, Usp. Fiziol. Nauk, 2017, vol. 48, no. 3, p. 72.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cervera, M.A., Soekadar, S.R., Ushiba, J., et al., Brain-computer interfaces for post-stroke motor rehabilitation: a meta-analysis, Ann. Clin. Transl. Neurol., 2018, vol. 5, no. 5, p. 651.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Monge-Pereira, E., Ibañez-Pereda, J., Alguacil-Diego, I.M., et al., Use of electroencephalography brain-computer interface systems as a rehabilitative approach for upper limb function after a stroke: a systematic review, PM&R, 2017, vol. 9, no. 9, p. 918.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lee, D. and Hwang, S., Motor imagery on upper extremity function for persons with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Phys. Ther. Rehabil. Sci., 2019, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 52.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Frolov, A.A., Mokienko, O.A., Lyukmanov, R.Kh., et al., Preliminary results of a controlled study of the effectiveness of IMC–exoskeleton technology in post-stroke paresis of the arm, Vestn. Ros. Gos. Med. Univ., 2016, no. 2, p. 17.

  19. Kotov, S.V., Turbina, L.G., Bobrov, P.D., et al., Rehabilitation of stroke patients with a bioengineered “brain–computer interface with exoskeleton” system, Neurosci. Behav. Physiol., 2016, vol. 46, no. 5, p. 518.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ivanova, G.E., Bushkova, Yu.V., Suvorov, A.Yu., et al., Use of a BCI-exoskeleton simulator with multichannel biofeedback in a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program in poststroke patients, Neurosci. Behav. Physiol., 2018, vol. 48, no. 9, p. 1100.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mokienko, O.A., Lyukmanov, R.Kh., Chernikova, L.A., et al., Brain–computer interface: the first experience of clinical use in Russia, Hum. Physiol., 2016, vol. 42, no. 1, p. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Biryukova, E.V., Pavlova, O.G., Kurganskaya, M.E., et al., Recovery of the motor function of the arm with the aid of a hand exoskeleton controlled by a brain–computer interface in a patient with an extensive brain lesion, Hum. Physiol., 2016, vol. 42, no. 1, p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ramos-Murguialday, A., Curado, M.R., Broetz, D., et al., Brain-machine interface in chronic stroke: randomized trial long-term follow-up, Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 2019, vol. 33, no. 3, p. 188.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Frolov, A.A., Bobrov, P.D., Biryukova, E.V., et al., Electrical, hemodynamic and motor activities in post-stroke rehabilitation provided by the hand exoskeleton under control of brain-computer interface: clinical case study, Front. Neurol., 2018, vol. 9, p. 1135.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Zackowski, K.M., Dromerick, A.W., Sahrmann, S.A., et al., How do strength, sensation, spasticity and joint individuation relate to the reaching deficits of people with chronic hemiparesis? Brain., 2004, vol. 127, no. 5, p. 1035.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Miller, L.C. and Dewald, J.P., Involuntary paretic wrist/finger flexion forces and EMG increase with shoulder abduction load in individuals with chronic stroke, Clin. Neurophysiol., 2012, vol. 123, no. 6, p. 1216.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Ohn, S.H., Yoo, W.K., Kim, D.Y., et al., Measurement of synergy and spasticity during functional movement of the post-stroke hemiplegic upper limb, J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol., 2013, vol. 23, no. 2, p. 501.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kondur, A.A., Biryukova, E.V., Kotov, S.V., et al., Kinematics of a patient as an objective indicator of the motor function during neurorehabilitation using a hand exoskeleton controlled by a brain-computer interface, Uch. Zap. S.-Peterb. Gos. Med. Univ. im. I.P. Pavlova, 2016, vol. 23, no. 3, p. 28.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Colombo, R., Sterpi, I., Mazzone, A., et al., Measuring changes of movement dynamics during robot-aided neurorehabilitation of stroke patients, IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng., 2010, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Santello, M. and Lang, C.E., Are movement disorders and sensorimotor injuries pathologic synergies? When normal multi-joint movement synergies become pathologic, Front. Hum. Neurosci., 2015, vol. 8, p. 1050.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Fugl-Meyer, A.R., Jääskü, L., Leyman, I., et al., The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance, Scand. J. Rehabil Med., 1975, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bobrov, P.D., Korshakov, A.V., Roshchin, V.Yu., and Frolov, A.A., Bayesian approach to the implementation of the brain–computer interface based on the imaging of movements, Zh. Vyssh. Nervn. Deyat. im. I.P. Pavlova, 2012, vol. 62, no. 1, p. 89.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Biryukova, E.V., Roby-Brami, A., Frolov, A.A., and Mokhtari, M., Kinematics of human arm reconstructed from Spatial Tracking System recordings, J. Biomech., 2000, vol. 33, no. 8, p. 985.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hamming, R.W., Numerical Methods for Scientists and Engineers, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sinel’nikov, R.D., Atlas anatomii cheloveka (Atlas of Human Anatomy), Moscow: Meditsina, 1967, vol. 1, p. 1326.

  36. Lyle, R.C., A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research, Int. J. Rehabil. Res., 1981, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 483.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Canolli, A., Jones, D., Curtis, A., et al., Clinical predictive value of manual muscle strength testing during critical illness: an observational cohort study, Crit. Care, 2013, vol. 17, no. 5, p. 229.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mokienko, O.A., Suponeva, N.A., Aziatskaya, G.A., et al., Insul’t u vzroslykh: tsentral’nyi parez verkhnei konechnosti. Klinicheskie rekomendatsii (Stroke in Adults: Central Paresis of Upper Limb. Clinical Recommendations), Moscow: MEDpress-Inform, 2018.

  39. Duncan, P.W., Lai, S.M., and Keighley, J., Defining post-stroke recovery: implications for design and interpretation of drug trials, Neuropharmacology, 2000, vol. 39, no. 5, p. 835.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Alt Murphy, M.A. and Häger, C.K., Kinematic analysis of the upper extremity after stroke – how far have we reached and what have we grasped? Phys. Ther. Rev., 2015, vol. 20, no. 3, p. 137.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Dzhalagoniya, I., Biryukova, E., Bushkova, Y., et al., Biomechanical assessment of Fugl-Meyer score: the case of one post stroke patient who has undergone the rehabilitation using hand exoskeleton controlled by brain-computer interface, Int. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 2018, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 468.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hesam-Shariati, N., Trinh, T., Thompson-Butel, A.G., et al., A longitudinal electromyography study of complex movements in post-stroke therapy. 2: Changes in coordinated muscle activation, Front. Neurol., 2017, vol. 8, p. 277.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Yao, J., Chen, A., Carmona, C., and Dewald, J.P.A., Cortical overlap of joint representations contributes to the loss of independent joint control following stroke, NeuroImage, 2009, vol. 45, no. 2, p. 490.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Cramer, S.C., Nelles, G., Benson, R.R., et al., A functional MRI study of subjects recovered from hemiparetic stroke, Stroke, 1997, vol. 28, no. 12, p. 2518.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. García-Cossio, E., Broetz, D., Birbaumer, N., and Ramos-Murguialday, A., Cortex integrity relevance in muscle synergies in severe chronic stroke, Front. Hum. Neurosci., 2014, vol. 8, p. 744.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Corti, M., McGuirk, T.E., Wu, S.S., and Patten, C., Differential effects of power training versus functional task practice on compensation and restoration of arm function after stroke, Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 2012, vol. 26, no. 7, p. 842.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Harris, J.E. and Eng, J.J., Strength training improves upper-limb function in individuals with stroke: a meta-analysis, Stroke, 2010, vol. 41, no. 1, p. 136.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Gladstone, D.J., Danells, C.J., and Black, S.E., The Fugl-Meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties, Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 2012, vol. 16, no. 3, p. 232.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kotov, S.V., Biryukova, E.V., Turbina, L.G., et al., Recovery dynamics in patients with poststroke motor disorders after multiple courses of neurorehabilitation using an exoskeleton controlled by a brain–computer interface, Neurosci. Behav. Physiol., 2018, vol. 48, no. 9, p. 1088.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Levin, M.F., Hiengkaew, V., Nilanont, Y., et al., Relationship between clinical measures of upper limb movement quality and activity poststroke, Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 2019, vol. 33, no. 6, p. 432.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Villàn-Villàn, M.A., Pérez-Rodríguez, R., Martin, C., et al., Objective motor assessment for personalized rehabilitation of upper extremity in brain injury patients, NeuroRehabilitation, 2018, vol. 42, no. 4, p. 429.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Frolov, A.A., Husek, D., Biryukova, E.V., et al., Principles of motor recovery in post-stroke patients using hand exoskeleton controlled by the brain-computer interface based on motor imagery, Neural Network World, 2017, vol. 27, no. 1, p. 107.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Timmermans, A.A., Verbunt, J.A., van Woerden, R., et al., Effect of mental practice on the improvement of function and daily activity performance of the upper extremity in patients with subacute stroke: a randomized clinical trial, J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc., 2013, vol. 14, no. 3, p. 204.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Krakauer, J.W., Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation, Curr. Opin. Neurol., 2006, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Hanlon, R.E., Motor learning following unilateral stroke, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 1996, vol. 77, p. 811.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Shindo, K., Kawashima, K., Ushiba, J., et al., Effects of neurofeedback training with an electroencephalogram-based brain-computer interface for hand paralysis in patients with chronic stroke: a preliminary case series study, J. Rehabil. Med., 2011, vol. 43, no. 10, p. 951.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Broetz, D., Braun, C., Weber, C., et al., Combination of brain-computer interface training and goal-directed physical therapy in chronic stroke: a case report, Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 2010, vol. 24, no. 7, p. 674.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Studies performed by A.A. Kondur, L.G. Turbina, and S.V. Kotov were supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project no. 19-015-00192). Studies performed by E.V. Biryukova, A.A. Frolov, and P.D. Bobrov were supported by a state contract with the Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University and the program 2591-r “Development of Biologically Adequate Principles to Control Robot-based Neurorehabilitation Systems” of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vladimirsky Moscow Regional Research Clinical Institute, Moscow, Russia

    A. A. Kondur, L. G. Turbina, S. V. Kotov & E. V. Zaytseva

  2. Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

    E. V. Biryukova, A. A. Frolov & P. D. Bobrov

  3. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia

    E. V. Biryukova, A. A. Frolov & P. D. Bobrov

Authors
  1. A. A. Kondur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. V. Biryukova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. A. Frolov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. D. Bobrov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. L. G. Turbina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. V. Kotov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. E. V. Zaytseva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to A. A. Kondur or E. V. Biryukova.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests. The authors declare that they have no real or potential conflict of interest.

Statement of compliance with standards of research involving humans as subjects. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments and were approved by the local Ethics Committee at the Vladimirsky Moscow Regional Research Clinical Institute (Minutes no. 9 dated October 2, 2014, Moscow). All individual participants involved in the study voluntarily gave their written informed consent for participation after being informed about potential risk and benefits and the nature of the study.

Additional information

Translated by T. Tkacheva

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kondur, A.A., Biryukova, E.V., Frolov, A.A. et al. Rehabilitation of the Arm Motor Function in Poststroke Patients with an Exoskeleton-Controlling Brain–Computer Interface: Effect of Repeated Hospitalizations. Hum Physiol 46, 321–331 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1134/S036211972003007X

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S036211972003007X

Keywords:

Search

Navigation