TY - JOUR
T1 - Training modalities in robot-mediated upper limb rehabilitation in stroke
T2 - A framework for classification based on a systematic review
AU - Basteris, Angelo
AU - Nijenhuis, Sharon M.
AU - Stienen, Arno H. A.
AU - Buurke, Jaap H.
AU - Prange, Gerdienke B.
AU - Amirabdollahian, Farshid
N1 - © 2014 Basteris et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
The work described in this manuscript was partially funded by the European
project ‘SCRIPT’ Grant agreement no: 288698 (http://scriptproject.eu). SN has
been hosted at University of Hertfordshire in a short-term scientific mission
funded by the COST Action TD1006 European Network on Robotics for
NeuroRehabilitation
PY - 2014/7/10
Y1 - 2014/7/10
N2 - Robot-mediated post-stroke therapy for the upper-extremity dates back to the 1990s. Since then, a number of robotic devices have become commercially available. There is clear evidence that robotic interventions improve upper limb motor scores and strength, but these improvements are often not transferred to performance of activities of daily living. We wish to better understand why. Our systematic review of 74 papers focuses on the targeted stage of recovery, the part of the limb trained, the different modalities used, and the effectiveness of each. The review shows that most of the studies so far focus on training of the proximal arm for chronic stroke patients. About the training modalities, studies typically refer to active, active-assisted and passive interaction. Robot-therapy in active assisted mode was associated with consistent improvements in arm function. More specifically, the use of HRI features stressing active contribution by the patient, such as EMG-modulated forces or a pushing force in combination with spring-damper guidance, may be beneficial.Our work also highlights that current literature frequently lacks information regarding the mechanism about the physical human-robot interaction (HRI). It is often unclear how the different modalities are implemented by different research groups (using different robots and platforms). In order to have a better and more reliable evidence of usefulness for these technologies, it is recommended that the HRI is better described and documented so that work of various teams can be considered in the same group and categories, allowing to infer for more suitable approaches. We propose a framework for categorisation of HRI modalities and features that will allow comparing their therapeutic benefits.
AB - Robot-mediated post-stroke therapy for the upper-extremity dates back to the 1990s. Since then, a number of robotic devices have become commercially available. There is clear evidence that robotic interventions improve upper limb motor scores and strength, but these improvements are often not transferred to performance of activities of daily living. We wish to better understand why. Our systematic review of 74 papers focuses on the targeted stage of recovery, the part of the limb trained, the different modalities used, and the effectiveness of each. The review shows that most of the studies so far focus on training of the proximal arm for chronic stroke patients. About the training modalities, studies typically refer to active, active-assisted and passive interaction. Robot-therapy in active assisted mode was associated with consistent improvements in arm function. More specifically, the use of HRI features stressing active contribution by the patient, such as EMG-modulated forces or a pushing force in combination with spring-damper guidance, may be beneficial.Our work also highlights that current literature frequently lacks information regarding the mechanism about the physical human-robot interaction (HRI). It is often unclear how the different modalities are implemented by different research groups (using different robots and platforms). In order to have a better and more reliable evidence of usefulness for these technologies, it is recommended that the HRI is better described and documented so that work of various teams can be considered in the same group and categories, allowing to infer for more suitable approaches. We propose a framework for categorisation of HRI modalities and features that will allow comparing their therapeutic benefits.
KW - Arm
KW - Hand
KW - Neurorehabilitation
KW - Robotics
KW - Stroke
KW - Therapeutic interaction
KW - Upper extremity
KW - Wrist
U2 - 10.1186/1743-0003-11-111
DO - 10.1186/1743-0003-11-111
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84903867077
SN - 1743-0003
VL - 11
JO - Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
JF - Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
IS - 1
M1 - 111
ER -