Paladyn

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 193–201 | Cite as

Design and pilot study of a Gait Enhancing Mobile Shoe

  • Ismet Handzic
  • Eileen M. Barno
  • Erin V. Vasudevan
  • Kyle B. Reed
Research Article

Abstract

Hemiparesis is a frequent and disabling consequence of stroke and can lead to asymmetric and ineffcient walking patterns. Training on a split-belt treadmill, which has two separate treads driving each leg at a different speed, can correct such asymmetries post-stroke. However, the effects of split-belt treadmill training only partially transfer to everyday walking over ground and extended training sessions are required to achieve long-lasting effects. Our aim is to develop an alternative device, the Gait Enhancing Mobile Shoe (GEMS), that mimics the actions of the split-belt treadmill, but can be used during over-ground walking and in one’s own home, thus enabling long-term training. The GEMS does not require any external power and is completely passive; all necessary forces are redirected from the natural forces present during walking. Three healthy subjects walked on the shoes for twenty minutes during which one GEMS generated a backward motion and the other GEMS generated a forward motion. Our preliminary experiments suggest that wearing the GEMS did cause subjects to modify coordination between the legs and these changes persisted when subjects returned to normal over-ground walking. The largest effects were observed in measures of temporal coordination (e.g., duration of double-support). These results suggest that the GEMS is capable of altering overground walking coordination in healthy controls and could potentially be used to correct gait asymmetries post-stroke.

Keywords

locomotion hemiparesis rehabilitation shoe asymmetric gait adaptation learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    C. K. Balasubramanian, M. G. Bowden, R. R. Neptune, and S. A. Kautz, Relationship between step length asymmetry and walking performance in subjects with chronic hemiparesis, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 88, (2007), 43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. E. Bouton, J. B. Nelson, and J. M. Rosas, Stimulus generalization, context change, and forgetting, Psychol. Bull. 125, (1999), 171–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. G. Bowden, C. K. Balasubramanian, R. R. Neptune, and S. A. Kautz, Anterior-posterior ground reaction forces as a measure of paretic leg contribution in hemiparetic walking, Stroke 37, (2006), 872–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    L. A. Boyd, and C. J. Winstein, Cerebellar stroke impairs temporal but not spatial accuracy during implicit motor learning, Neurorehabil Neural Repair 18, (2004), 134–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. E. Brandstater, H. de Bruin, C. Gowland, and B. M. Clark, Hemiplegic gait: analysis of temporal variables, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 64, (1983), 583–587Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    B. Brouwer, K. Parvataneni, and S. J. Olney, A comparison of gait biomechanics and metabolic requirements of overground and treadmill walking in people with stroke, Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon) 24, (2009), 729–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    A. M. Bronstein, K. L. Bunday, and R. Reynolds, What the “broken escalator” phenomenon teaches us about balance, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., vol. 1164, (2009), 82–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    K. L. Bunday and A. M. Bronstein, Visuo-vestibular Influences on the Moving Platform Locomotor Aftereffect, J. Neurophysiol. 99, (2008), 1354–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. T. Choi, and A. J. Bastian, Adaptation reveals independent control networks for human walking, Nat. Neurosci. 10, (2007), 1055–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. de Groot, R. Decker, and K. B. Reed, Gait enhancing mobile shoe (GEMS) for rehabilitation, in Proc. Joint Eurohaptics Conf. and Symp. on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, March 2009, 190–195Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    I. Handzic, E. Vasudevan, and K. B. Reed, Motion Controlled Gait Enhancing Mobile Shoe for Rehabilitation, Proc. of the 12th Intl. Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), (2011), 583–587Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    F. M. Ivey, R. F. Macko, A. S. Ryan, and C. E. Hafer-Macko, Cardiovascular health and fitness after stroke, Top Stroke Rehabil. 12, (2005), 1–16Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. H. Kahn, and T. G. Hornby, Rapid and long-term adaptations in gait symmetry following unilateral step training in people with hemiparesis, Phys. Ther. 89, (2009), 474–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    C. Honeycutt, J. Sushko, and K. B. Reed, Asymmetric passive dynamic walker, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Rehabilitation Robotics, (2011), 852–857Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. Krakauer, M. Ghilardi, and G. Ghez, Independent learning of internal models for kinematic and dynamic control of reaching, Nature Neuroscience, vol. 2, (1999), 1026–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    T. Lam, M. Anderschitz, and V. Dietz, Contribution of feedback and feedforward strategies to locomotor adaptations, J. Neurophysiol., vol. 95, (2006), 766–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    T. Lam, C. Wolstenholme, and J. F. Yang, How do infants adapt to loading of the limb during the swing phase of stepping?, Journal of Neurophysiology, vol. 89, no. 4, (2003), 1920–1928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    D. Lloyd-Jones, et al., Heart disease and stroke statistics-2010 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 121, (2010), e46–e215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    J.-S. Lou and J. R. Bloedel, A new conditioning paradigm: Conditioned limb movements in locomoting decerebrate ferrets, Neuroscience Letters, vol. 84, no. 2, (1988), 185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    L. A. Malone, and A. J. Bastian, Thinking about walking: effects of conscious correction versus distraction on locomotor adaptation, J. Neurophysiol. 103, (2010), 1954–1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    T. A. Martin, J. G. Keating, H. P. Goodkin, A. J. Bastian, and W. T. Thach, Throwing while looking through prisms. I. Focal olivocerebellar lesions impair adaptation, Brain 119( Pt 4), (1996), 1183–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    S. Morton and A. Bastian, Cerebellar Contributions to Locomotor Adaptations during Splitbelt Treadmill Walking, J. Neurosci., vol. 26, no. 36, (2006), 9107–9116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    S. J. Olney, M. P. Griffn, and I. D. McBride, Temporal, kinematic, and kinetic variables related to gait speed in subjects with hemiplegia: a regression approach, Phys. Ther. 74, (1994), 872–885Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    J. Perry, Gait Analysis: Normal and pathological function, N. S. Inc., Ed. Thorofare, vol. 50, 1992Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    D. Reinkensmeyer, J. Emken, and S. Cramer, Robotics, motor learning, and neurologic recovery, Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng., vol. 6, (2004), 497–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    D. Reisman, R. Wityk, and A. Bastian, Split-belt treadmill walking adaptation in post-stroke hemiparesis, J. Neurologic Physical Therapy, vol. 29, (2005), p. 196Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    D. Reisman, R. Wityk, K. Silver, and A. Bastian, Locomotor adaptation on a split-belt treadmill can improve walking symmetry post-stroke, Brain, vol. 130, no. 7, (2009), 1861–1872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    D. S. Reisman, R. Wityk, K. Silver, and A. J. Bastian, Split-belt treadmill adaptation transfers to overground walking in persons poststroke, Neurorehabil Neural Repair, vol. 23, no. 7, (2009), 735–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    D. S. Reisman, H. McLean, and A. J. Bastian, Split-belt treadmill training poststroke: a case study, J. Neurol. Phys. Ther., 34, (2010), 202–207Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    R. F. Reynolds and A. M. Bronstein, The broken escalator phenomenon aftereffect of walking onto a moving platform, Exp. Brain. Res., vol. 151, no. 3, (2003), 301–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    R. Shadmehr, and F. A. Mussa-Ivaldi, Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task, J. Neurosci., 14, (1994), 3208–3224Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    N. E. Spear, Retrieval of memory in animals. Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum, 1978Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    E. B. Titianova, and I. M. Tarkka, Asymmetry in walking performance and postural sway in patients with chronic unilateral cerebral infarction, J. Rehabil. Res. Dev., 32, (1995), 236–244Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    G. Torres-Oviedo, and A. J. Bastian, Seeing is believing: effects of visual contextual cues on learning and transfer of locomotor adaptation, J. Neurosci., 30, (2010), 17015–17022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    E. Tulving, and D. M. Thomson, Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory, Psychol. Rev. 80, (1973), 352–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    E. V. Vasudevan, and A. J. Bastian, Split-belt treadmill adaptation shows different functional networks for fast and slow human walking, J. Neurophysiol., 103, (2010), 183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    E. V. Vasudevan, G. Torres-Oviedo, S. M. Morton, J. F. Yang, and A. J. Bastian, Younger is not always better: development of locomotor adaptation from childhood to adulthood, J. Neurosci., 31, (2011), 3055–3065CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© © Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Wien 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ismet Handzic
    • 1
  • Eileen M. Barno
    • 2
  • Erin V. Vasudevan
    • 2
  • Kyle B. Reed
    • 1
  1. 1.University of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.Moss Rehabilitation Research InstituteElkins ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations