Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Forging Mens et Manus: The MIT Experience in Upper Extremity Robotic Therapy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Neurorehabilitation Technology

Abstract

MIT’s motto is “Mens et Manus” (Mind and Hand) and we have adopted it as the guiding rule (principle) for our line of research: using robotics and information technology to re-connect the brain to the hand. Training and treatment protocols enhance this re-connection phenomenon, reduce impairment, increase function, and improve the quality of life beyond natural recovery. This chapter describes our efforts towards attaining this goal since the initial development of the MIT-MANUS in 1989. Numerous clinical trials involving thousands of participants working with (receiving therapy using) different versions of the MIT-Manus have been conducted since then and we have created a complete robotic gym for the upper extremity. In fact, for over 10 years, the American Heart Association and the Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense endorsed the use of robot-assisted therapy in stroke rehabilitation for upper extremities, and we have been focusing on how to tailor and augment therapy to a particular patient’s need and in determining who is a responder (and non-responder) to this kind of intervention.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Miller EL, et al. Comprehensive overview of nursing and interdisciplinary rehabilitation care of the stroke patient: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association (in eng). Stroke Practice Guideline. 2010;41(10):2402–48.

    Google Scholar 

  2. G. Management of Stroke Rehabilitation Working, VA/DOD Clinical practice guideline for the management of stroke rehabilitation (in eng). J Rehabil Res Dev, Practice Guideline. 2010;47(9):1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hogan N, Krebs HI, Charnnarong J, Srikrishna P, Sharon A. MIT-MANUS: a workstation for manual therapy and training. I. In: 1992 Proceedings of IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication. 1992 (pp. 161–65). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Krebs HI, Hogan N, Aisen ML, Volpe BT. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation, (in eng). IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng, Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. 1998;6(1):75–87.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Scott SH, Dukelow SP. Potential of robots as next-generation technology for clinical assessment of neurological disorders and upper-limb therapy, (in eng). J Rehabil Res Dev, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Review. 2011;48(4):335–53.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dukelow SP, Herter TM, Bagg SD, Scott SH. The independence of deficits in position sense and visually guided reaching following stroke, (in eng). J Neuroeng Rehabil, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't.2012;9:72.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Casadio M, Sanguineti V, Morasso PG, Arrichiello V. Braccio di Ferro: a new haptic workstation for neuromotor rehabilitation. Technol Health Care. 2006;14(3):123–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Krebs HI et al. Rehabilitation robotics: pilot trial of a spatial extension for MIT-Manus, (in Eng). J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2004;1(1):5.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Krebs HI et al. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: a robot for wrist rehabilitation, (in eng). IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Review. 2007;15(3):327–35.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Charles SK, Hogan N. Dynamics of wrist rotations, (in eng). J Biomech, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. 2011;44(4):614–21.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Masia L, Krebs HI, Cappa P, Hogan N. Design and characterization of hand module for whole-arm rehabilitation following stroke (in Eng). IEEE ASME Trans Mechatron. 2007;12(4):399–407.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Riener R, Lunenburger L, Jezernik S, Anderschitz M, Colombo G, Dietz V. Patient-cooperative strategies for robot-aided treadmill training: first experimental results, (in eng). IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, Clinical Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. 2005;13(3):380–94.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kwakkel G, et al. Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: consensus-based core recommendations from the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable. Int J Stroke. 2017;12(5):451–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Volpe BT, Krebs HI, Hogan N. Is robot-aided sensorimotor training in stroke rehabilitation a realistic option? (in eng). Curr Opin Neurol, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. Review.2001;14(6):745–52.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Krebs HI, et al. Rehabilitation robotics: performance-based progressive robot-assisted therapy. Auton Robot. 2003;15(1):7–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Emken JL, Benitez R, Sideris A, Bobrow JE, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Motor adaptation as a greedy optimization of error and effort, (in eng). J Neurophysiol, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. 2007;97(6):3997–4006.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wolbrecht ET, Chan V, Reinkensmeyer DJ, Bobrow JE. Optimizing compliant, model-based robotic assistance to promote neurorehabilitation, (in eng). IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural. 2008;16(3):286–97.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Aisen ML, Krebs HI, Hogan N, McDowell F, Volpe BT. The effect of robot-assisted therapy and rehabilitative training on motor recovery following stroke, (in eng), Arch Neurol, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. 1997;54(4):443–6.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Krebs HI, Volpe BT, Aisen ML, Hogan N. Increasing productivity and quality of care: robot-aided neuro-rehabilitation, (in eng). J Rehabil Res Dev, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. 2000;37(6):639–52.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Volpe BT, Krebs HI, Hogan N, Edelsteinn L, Diels CM, Aisen ML. Robot training enhanced motor outcome in patients with stroke maintained over 3 years,” (in eng), Neurology, Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. 1999;53(8):1874–6.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ferraro M et al. Assessing the motor status score: a scale for the evaluation of upper limb motor outcomes in patients after stroke, (in eng). Neurorehabil Neural Repair, Clinical Trial Comparative Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. 2002;16(3):283–9.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Twitchell TE. The restoration of motor function following hemiplegia in man, (in eng). Brain. 1951;74(4):443–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nakayama H, Jørgensen HS, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen Stroke Study,” (in eng), Arch Phys Med Rehabil, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't.1994;75(4):394–8.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jørgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Vive-Larsen J, Støier M, Olsen TS. Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part I: outcome. The Copenhagen stroke study, (in eng). Arch Phys Med Rehabil, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. 1995;76(5):399–405.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jørgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Vive-Larsen J, Støier M, Olsen TS. Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part II: Time course of recovery. The Copenhagen stroke study, (in eng). Arch Phys Med Rehabil, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. 1995;76(5):406–12.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lo AC et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke, (in eng). N Engl J Med, Comparative Study Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. 2010;362(19):1772–83.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Page SJ, Fulk GD, Boyne P. Clinically important differences for the upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer Scale in people with minimal to moderate impairment due to chronic stroke,” (in eng). Phys Ther, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. 2012;92(6):791–8.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wu X, Guarino P, Lo AC, Peduzzi P, Wininger M. Long-term effectiveness of intensive therapy in chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016;30(6):583–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wagner TH et al. An economic analysis of robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke, (in eng). Stroke. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rodgers H et al. Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18(1):340.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rodgers H, et al. Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10192):51–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Bosomworth H, et al. Evaluation of the enhanced upper limb therapy programme within the Robot-Assisted Training for the Upper Limb after Stroke trial: descriptive analysis of intervention fidelity, goal selection and goal achievement. Clin Rehabil. 2021;35(1):119–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Volpe BT et al. Intensive sensorimotor arm training mediated by therapist or robot improves hemiparesis in patients with chronic stroke, (in eng). Neurorehabil Neural Repair, Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. 2008;22(3):305–10.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lo AC et al. Multicenter randomized trial of robot-assisted rehabilitation for chronic stroke: methods and entry characteristics for VA ROBOTICS, (in eng). Neurorehabil Neural Repair, Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. 2009;23(8):775–83.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Fernandez-Garcia C et al. Economic evaluation of robot-assisted training versus an enhanced upper limb therapy programme or usual care for patients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation due to stroke: results from the RATULS randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open;11(5):e042081.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lyle RC. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res. 1981;4(4):483–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wilson N, Howel D, Bosomworth H, Shaw L, Rodgers H. Analysing the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT): a cautionary tale from the RATULS trial. Int J Rehabil Res. 2021;44(2):166–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Hung CS, Hsieh YW, Wu CY, Lin YT, Lin KC, Chen CL. The effects of combination of robot-assisted therapy with task-specific or impairment-oriented training on motor function and quality of life in chronic stroke. PM R. 2016;8(8):721–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Conroy SS, Wittenberg GF, Krebs HI, Zhan M, Bever CT, Whitall J. Robot-assisted arm training in chronic stroke: addition of transition-to-task practice. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019;33(9):751–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Conroy SS et al. Effect of gravity on robot-assisted motor training after chronic stroke: a randomized trial, (in Eng). Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Perez-Ibarra JC, Siqueira AAG, Silva-Couto MA, de Russo TL, Krebs HI. Adaptive impedance control applied to robot-aided neuro-rehabilitation of the ankle, (in English). IEEE Robot Autom Lett. 2019;4(2):185–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Michmizos KP, Rossi S, Castelli E, Cappa P, Krebs HI. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: a pediatric robot for ankle rehabilitation, (in Eng). IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Brashers-Krug T, Shadmehr R, Bizzi E. Consolidation in human motor memory, (in eng). Nature, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. 1996;382(6588):252–5.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Shadmehr R. Generalization as a behavioral window to the neural mechanisms of learning internal models, (in eng). Hum Mov Sci, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. 2004;23(5):543–68.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Caithness G et al. Failure to consolidate the consolidation theory of learning for sensorimotor adaptation tasks, (in eng). J Neurosci, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. 2004;24(40):8662–71.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Stickgold R. Sleep-dependent memory consolidation, (in eng). Nature, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. Review. 2005;437(7063):1272–8.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Overduin SA, Richardson AG, Lane CE, Bizzi E, Press DZ. Intermittent practice facilitates stable motor memories, (in eng). J Neurosci, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural. 2006;26(46):11888–92.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lee SH et al. Comparisons between end-effector and exoskeleton rehabilitation robots regarding upper extremity function among chronic stroke patients with moderate-to-severe upper limb impairment. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1806.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Dohle CI, Rykman A, Chang J, Volpe BT. Pilot study of a robotic protocol to treat shoulder subluxation in patients with chronic stroke, (in eng). J Neuroeng Rehabil, Clinical Trial Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural. 2013;10:88.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Swinnen SP, Wenderoth N. Two hands, one brain: cognitive neuroscience of bimanual skill. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004;8(1):18–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Swinnen SP, Walter CB, Lee TD, Serrien DJ. Acquiring bimanual skills: contrasting forms of information feedback for interlimb decoupling. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1993;19(6):1328–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Wenderoth N, Debaere F, Sunaert S, van Hecke P, Swinnen SP. Parieto-premotor areas mediate directional interference during bimanual movements. Cereb Cortex. 2004;14(10):1153–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Swinnen SP. Intermanual coordination: from behavioural principles to neural-network interactions. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3(5):348–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kennerley SW, Diedrichsen J, Hazeltine E, Semjen A, Ivry RB. Callosotomy patients exhibit temporal uncoupling during continuous bimanual movements. Nat Neurosci. 2002;5(4):376–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Sternad D, Wei K, Diedrichsen J, Ivry RB. Intermanual interactions during initiation and production of rhythmic and discrete movements in individuals lacking a corpus callosum, (in eng). Exp Brain Res, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. 2007;176(4):559–74.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Haken H, Kelso JA, Bunz H. A theoretical model of phase transitions in human hand movements. Biol Cybern. 1985;51(5):347–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Zanone PG, Kelso JA. Evolution of behavioral attractors with learning: nonequilibrium phase transitions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1992;18(2):403–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Nozaki D, Kurtzer I, Scott SH. Limited transfer of learning between unimanual and bimanual skills within the same limb. Nat Neurosci. 2006;9(11):1364–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Bays PM, Wolpert DM. Actions and consequences in bimanual interaction are represented in different coordinate systems. J Neurosci. 2006;26(26):7121–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Howard IS, Ingram JN, Wolpert DM. Composition and decomposition in bimanual dynamic learning. J Neurosci. 2008;28(42):10531–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Tcheang L, Bays PM, Ingram JN, Wolpert DM. Simultaneous bimanual dynamics are learned without interference. Exp Brain Res. 2007;183(1):17–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Casadio M, Squeri V, Masia L, Morasso P, Sanguineti V, Sandini G. Characterizing “direct” bimanual coordination while adapting to a dynamic environment. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Biennial IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Burgess JK, Bareither R, Patton JL. Single limb performance following contralateral bimanual limb training. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2007;15(3):347–54.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Lewis GN, Perreault EJ. An assessment of robot-assisted bimanual movements on upper limb motor coordination following stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2009;17(6):595–604.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Burgar CG, Lum PS, Shor PC, Van der Loos HM. Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: the Palo Alto VA/Stanford experience. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2000;37(6):663–73.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Whitall J, Waller SM, Silver KH, Macko RF. Repetitive bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing improves motor function in chronic hemiparetic stroke. Stroke. 2000;31(10):2390–5.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC. Evidence for improved muscle activation patterns after retraining of reaching movements with the MIME robotic system in subjects with post-stroke hemiparesis. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2004;12(2):186–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Hesse S, Werner C, Pohl M, Mehrholz J, Puzich U, Krebs HI Mechanical arm trainer for the treatment of the severely affected arm after a stroke: a single-blinded randomized trial in two centers, (in eng). Am J Phys Med Rehabil, Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't.2008;87(10):779–88.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Luft AR et al. Repetitive bilateral arm training and motor cortex activation in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial, (in eng). JAMA, Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. 2004;292(15):1853–61.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Lum PS, Burgar CG, Van der Loos M, Shor PC, Majmundar M, Yap R. MIME robotic device for upper-limb neurorehabilitation in subacute stroke subjects: A follow-up study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43(5):631–42.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Richards LG, Senesac CR, Davis SB, Woodbury ML, Nadeau SE. Bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing in chronic stroke: not always efficacious. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22(2):180–4.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Hung CS, et al. Unilateral vs bilateral hybrid approaches for upper limb rehabilitation in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100(12):2225–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Hung CS et al. Comparative assessment of two robot-assisted therapies for the upper extremity in people with chronic stroke. Am J Occup Ther. 2019;73(1):7301205010p1–7301205010p9.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Hung CS, et al. Hybrid rehabilitation therapies on upper-limb function and goal attainment in chronic stroke. OTJR (Thorofare N J). 2019;39(2):116–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Yang CL, Lin KC, Chen HC, Wu CY, Chen CL. Pilot comparative study of unilateral and bilateral robot-assisted training on upper-extremity performance in patients with stroke. Am J Occup Ther 2012;66(2):198–206.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Edwards DJ et al. Raised corticomotor excitability of M1 forearm area following anodal tDCS is sustained during robotic wrist therapy in chronic stroke, (in eng). Restor Neurol Neurosci, Clinical Trial Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural. 2009;27(3):199–207.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Volpe BT et al. Robotic devices as therapeutic and diagnostic tools for stroke recovery, (in eng). Arch Neurol, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Review.2009;66(9):1086–90.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Moretti CB et al. Robotic Kinematic measures of the arm in chronic Stroke: part 1—Motor Recovery patterns from tDCS preceding intensive training. Bioelectron Med. 2021;7(1):20.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Edwards DJ, et al. Clinical improvement with intensive robot-assisted arm training in chronic stroke is unchanged by supplementary tDCS. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2019;37(2):167–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Hogan N et al. Motions or muscles? Some behavioral factors underlying robotic assistance of motor recovery, (in eng). J Rehabil Res Dev, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. Review. 2006;43(5):605–18.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Ferraro M, Palazzolo JJ, Krol J, Krebs HI, Hogan N, Volpe BT. Robot-aided sensorimotor arm training improves outcome in patients with chronic stroke, (in eng). Neurology, Clinical Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. 2003;61(11):1604–7.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Schmidt R, Lee T. Motor Control and learning: a behavioral emphasis Champaign, Il: Human Kinetics. 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Duarte JE, Gebrekristos B, Perez S, Rowe JB, Sharp K, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Effort, performance, and motivation: Insights from robot-assisted training of human golf putting and rat grip strength, (in eng). IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2013;2013:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Bosecker C, Dipietro L, Volpe B, Igo Krebs H. Kinematic robot-based evaluation scales and clinical counterparts to measure upper limb motor performance in patients with chronic stroke, (in eng), Neurorehabil Neural Repair, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. 2010;24(1):62–9.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Agrafiotis DK, et al. Accurate prediction of clinical stroke scales and improved biomarkers of motor impairment from robotic measurements. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(1): e0245874.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Colombo R et al. Robotic techniques for upper limb evaluation and rehabilitation of stroke patients, (in eng). IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. 2005;13(3):311–24.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Colombo R et al. Assessing mechanisms of recovery during robot-aided neurorehabilitation of the upper limb, (in eng). Neurorehabil Neural Repair, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. 2008;22(1):50–63.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Alt Murphy M, Sunnerhagen KS, Johnels B, Willen C. Three-dimensional kinematic motion analysis of a daily activity drinking from a glass: a pilot study,” (in eng), J Neuroeng Rehabil, vol. 3, p. 18, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Alt Murphy M, Willen C, Sunnerhagen KS. Kinematic variables quantifying upper-extremity performance after stroke during reaching and drinking from a glass, (in eng), Neurorehabil Neural Repair, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. 2011;25(1):71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Alt Murphy M, Willen C, Sunnerhagen KS. Responsiveness of upper extremity kinematic measures and clinical improvement during the first three months after stroke, (in eng). Neurorehabil Neural Repair, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. 2013;27(9):844–53.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Moretti CB et al. Robotic kinematic measures of the arm in chronic Stroke: part 2 - strong correlation with clinical outcome measures. Bioelectron Med. 2021;7(1):21.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Krebs HI, et al. Robotic measurement of arm movements after stroke establishes biomarkers of motor recovery, (in eng). Stroke. 2014;45(1):200–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Fugel-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Ollson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance, (in eng). Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13–31.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Duncan PW, Propst M, Nelson SG. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor recovery following cerebrovascular accident, (in eng). Phys Ther. 1983;63(10):1606–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Krebs HI et al. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: from evidence-based to science-based rehabilitation, (in eng). Top Stroke Rehabil. 2002;8(4):54–70.

    Google Scholar 

  96. See J et al. A standardized approach to the Fugl-Meyer assessment and its implications for clinical trials, (in eng). Neurorehabil Neural Repair, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural. 2013;27(8):732–41.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Gregson JM, Leathley MJ, Moore AP, Smith TL, Sharma AK, Watkins CL. Reliability of measurements of muscle tone and muscle power in stroke patients, (in eng). Age Ageing. 2000;29(3):223–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity, (in eng). Phys Ther. 1987;67(2):206–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Gregson JM, Leathley MJ, Moore AP, Smith TL, Sharma AK, Watkins CL. Clinical measures: reliable or not? (in eng). Age Ageing Comment Lett. 2001;30(1):86–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Pomeroy VM et al. The unreliability of clinical measures of muscle tone: implications for stroke therapy, (in eng). Age Ageing, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. 2000;29(3):229–33.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Levy-Tzedek S, Krebs HI, Song D, Hogan N, Poizner H. Non-monotonicity on a spatio-temporally defined cyclic task: evidence of two movement types? (in eng). Exp Brain Res, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. 2010;202(4):733–46.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Krebs HI, Aisen ML, Volpe BT, Hogan N. Quantization of continuous arm movements in humans with brain injury, (in eng). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. 1999;96(8):4645–9.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Hogan N, Sternad D. Dynamic primitives of motor behavior. Biol Cybern. 2012;106:727–39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements and Disclosures

This work was supported in part by a grant from NIH R21 HD060999 and R01 HD069776. H. I. Krebs is a co-inventor in several MIT-held patents for the robotic technology. He was one of the founders and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Interactive Motion Technologies, Watertown, MA, USA from 1998 to 2016. He sold it to Bionik Laboratories, where he served as its Chief Science Officer and on the Board of Directors until July 2017. He later founded 4Motion Robotics.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Office 3-155, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA

    Hermano Igo Krebs

  2. Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, Elkins Park, USA

    Dylan J. Edwards

  3. Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, NY, USA

    Bruce T. Volpe

Authors
  1. Hermano Igo Krebs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dylan J. Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruce T. Volpe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hermano Igo Krebs .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

    David J. Reinkensmeyer

  2. Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Laura Marchal-Crespo

  3. Spinal Cord Injury Center, University Hospital Balgrist, Zürich, Switzerland

    Volker Dietz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Krebs, H.I., Edwards, D.J., Volpe, B.T. (2022). Forging Mens et Manus: The MIT Experience in Upper Extremity Robotic Therapy. In: Reinkensmeyer, D.J., Marchal-Crespo, L., Dietz, V. (eds) Neurorehabilitation Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08995-4_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08995-4_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-08994-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-08995-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation