Jean Rogers

Feasibility of a new application of noninvasive Brain Computer Interface (BCI): a case study of training for recovery of volitional motor control after stroke.

Background/Purpose: A large proportion of individuals with stroke have persistent deficits for which current interventions have not restored normal motor behavior. Noninvasive brain computer interfaces (BCIs) have potential advantages for restoration of function. There are also potential advantages for combining BCI with functional electrical stimulation (FES). We tested the feasibility of combined BCI + FES for motor learning after stroke. Case Description: The participant was a 43-year-old woman who was 10 months post-stroke. She was unable to produce isolated movement of any of the digits of her involved hand. With effort she exhibited simultaneous mass hyperextension of metacarpal phalangeal joints of all four fingers and thumb with simultaneous flexion of proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints of all fingers. Intervention: Brain signals from the lesioned hemisphere were used to trigger FES for movement practice. The BCI + FES intervention consisted of trials of either attempted finger movement and relax conditions or imagined finger movement and relax conditions. The training was performed three times per week for three weeks (nine sessions total). Outcome: The participant exhibited highly accurate control of brain signal in the first session for attempted movement (97%), imagined movement (83%), and some difficulties with attempted relaxation (65%). By session 6, control of relaxation (deactivation of brain signal) improved to >80%. After nine sessions (three per week) of BCI + FES intervention, the participant demonstrated recovery of volitional isolated index finger extension. Discussion: BCI + FES training for motor learning after stroke was feasible. A highly accurate brain signal control was achieved, and this signal could be reliably used to trigger the FES device for isolated index finger extension. With training, volitional control of isolated finger extension was attained in a small number of sessions. The source of motor recovery could be attributable to BCI, FES, combined BCI + FES, or whole arm or hand motor task practice.

Response to upper-limb robotics and functional neuromuscular stimulation following stroke.

Twelve moderately to severely involved chronic stroke survivors (>12 mo) were randomized to one of two treatments: robotics and motor learning (ROB-ML) or functional neuromuscular stimulation and motor learning (FNS-ML). Treatment was 5 h/d, 5 d/wk for 12 wk. ROB-ML group had 1.5 h per session devoted to robotics shoulder and elbow (S/E) training. FNS-ML had 1.5 h per session devoted to functional neuromuscular stimulation (surface electrodes) for wrist and hand (W/H) flexors/extensors. The primary outcome measure was the functional measure Arm Motor Ability Test (AMAT). Secondary measures were AMAT-S/E and AMAT-W/H, Fugl-Meyer (FM) upper-limb coordination, and the motor control measures of target accuracy (TA) and smoothness of movement (SM). ROB-ML produced significant gains in AMAT, AMAT-S/E, FM upper-limb coordination, TA, and SM. FNS-ML produced significant gains in AMAT-W/H and FM upper-limb coordination.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Functional Neuromuscular Stimulation in Chronic Stroke Subjects

Background and Purpose— Conventional therapies fail to restore normal gait to many patients after stroke. The study purpose was to test response to coordination exercise, overground gait training, and weight-supported treadmill training, both with and without functional neuromuscular stimulation (FNS) using intramuscular (IM) electrodes (FNS-IM). Methods— In a randomized controlled trial, 32 subjects (>1 year after stroke) were assigned to 1 of 2 groups: FNS-IM or No-FNS. Inclusion criteria included ability to walk independently but inability to execute a normal swing or stance phase. All subjects were treated 4 times per week for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure, obtained by a blinded evaluator, was gait component execution, according to the Tinetti gait scale. Secondary measures were coordination, balance, and 6-minute walking distance. Results— Before treatment, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups for age, time since stroke, stroke severity, and each study measure. FNS-IM produced a statistically significant greater gain versus No-FNS for gait component execution (P=0.003; parameter estimate 2.9; 95% CI, 1.2 to 4.6) and knee flexion coordination (P=0.049). Conclusion— FNS-IM can have a significant advantage versus No-FNS in improving gait components and knee flexion coordination after stroke.

Recovery of Coordinated Gait: Randomized Controlled Stroke Trial of Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) Versus No FES, With Weight-Supported Treadmill and Over-Ground Training

Background. No single intervention restores the coordinated components of gait after stroke. Objective. The authors tested the multimodal Gait Training Protocol, with or without functional electrical stimulation (FES), to improve volitional walking (without FES) in patients with persistent (>6 months) dyscoordinated gait. Methods. A total of 53 subjects were stratified and randomly allocated to either FES with intramuscular (IM) electrodes (FES-IM) or No-FES. Both groups received 1.5-hour training sessions 4 times a week for 12 weeks of coordination exercises, body weight–supported treadmill training (BWSTT), and over-ground walking, provided with FES-IM or No-FES. The primary outcome was the Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool (G.A.I.T.) of coordinated movement components, with secondary measures, including manual muscle testing, isolated leg movements (Fugl-Meyer scale), 6-Minute Walk Test, and Locomotion/Mobility subscale of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Results. No baseline differences in subject characteristics and measures were found. The G.A.I.T. showed an additive advantage with FES-IM versus No-FES (parameter statistic 1.10; P = .045, 95% CI = 0.023-2.179) at the end of training. For both FES-IM and No-FES, a within-group, pre/posttreatment gain was present for all measures (P < .05), and a continued benefit from mid- to posttreatment (P < .05) was present. For FES-IM, recovered coordinated gait persisted at 6-month follow-up but not for No-FES. Conclusion. Improved gait coordination and function were produced by the multimodal Gait Training Protocol. FES-IM added significant gains that were maintained for 6 months after the completion of training.

Response of sagittal plane gait kinematics to weight-supported treadmill training and functional neuromuscular stimulation following stroke

After stroke, persistent gait deficits cause debilitating falls and poor functional mobility. Gait restoration can preclude these outcomes. Sixteen subjects (>12 months poststroke) were randomized to two gait training groups. Group 1 received 12 weeks of treatment, 4 times a week, 90 min per session, including 30 min strengthening and coordination, 30 min over-ground gait training, and 30 min weight-supported treadmill training. Group 2 received the same treatment, but also used functional neuromuscular stimulation (FNS) with intramuscular (IM) electrodes (FNS-IM) for each aspect of treatment. Outcome measures were kinematics of gait swing phase. Both groups showed no significant pre-/posttreatment gains in peak swing hip flexion. Group 1 (no FNS) had no significant gains in other gait components at posttreatment or at follow-up. Group 2 (FNS-IM) had significant gains in peak swing knee flexion and mid-swing ankle dorsiflexion (p < 0.05) that were maintained for 6 months.

Development and Testing of The Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool (G.A.I.T.): A Measure of Coordinated Gait Components

Recent neuroscience methods have provided the basis upon which to develop effective gait training methods for recovery of the coordinated components of gait after neural injury. We determined that there was not an existing observational measure that was, at once, adequately comprehensive, scored in an objectively-based manner, and capable of assessing incremental improvements in the coordinated components of gait. Therefore, the purpose of this work was to use content valid procedures in order to develop a relatively inexpensive, more comprehensive measure, scored with an objectively-based system, capable of incrementally scoring improvements in given items, and that was both reliable and capable of discriminating treatment response for those who had a stroke. Eight neurorehabilitation specialists developed criteria for the gait measure, item content, and scoring method. In subjects following stroke (>12 months), the new measure was tested for intra- and inter-rater reliability using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient; capability to detect treatment response using Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test; and discrimination between treatment groups, using the Plum Ordinal Regression. The Gait Assessment and Intervention Tool (G.A.I.T.) is a 31-item measure of the coordinated movement components of gait and associated gait deficits. It exhibited the following advantages: comprehensive, objective-based scoring method, incremental measurement of improvement within given items. The G.A.I.T. had good intra- and inter-rater reliability (ICC=.98, p=.0001, 95% CI=.95, .99; ICC=.83, p=.007, 95% CI=.32, .96, respectively. The inexperienced clinician who had training, had an inter-rater reliability with an experienced rater of ICC=.99 (p=.0001, CI=.97, .999). The G.A.I.T. detected improvement in response to gait training for two types of interventions: comprehensive gait training (z=-2.93, p=.003); and comprehensive gait training plus functional electrical stimulation (FES; z=-3.3, p=.001). The G.A.I.T. was capable of discriminating between two gait training interventions, showing an additive advantage of FES to otherwise comparable comprehensive gait training (parameter estimate=1.72, p=.021; CI, .25, 3.1).

Feasibility of combining gait robot and multichannel functional electrical stimulation with intramuscular electrodes

After stroke rehabilitation, many survivors of stroke exhibit persistent gait deficits. In previous work, we demonstrated significant gains in gait kinematics for survivors of chronic stroke using multichannel functional electrical stimulation with intramuscular electrodes (FES-IM). For this study, we tested the feasibility of combining FES-IM and gait robot technologies for treating persistent gait deficits after stroke. Six subjects, >or= 6 months after stroke, received 30-minute intervention sessions of combined FES-IM and gait robotics 4 days a week for 12 weeks. Feasibility was assessed according to three factors: (1) performance of the interface of the two technologies during intervention sessions, (2) clinicians success in using two technologies simultaneously, and (3) subject satisfaction. FES-IM system hardware and software design features combined with the gait robot technology proved feasible to use. Each technology alone provided unique advantages and disadvantages of gait practice characteristics. Because of the unique advantages and disadvantages of each technology, gait deficits need to be accurately identified and a judicious treatment plan properly targeted before FES-IM, a gait robot, or both combined are selected.

Guest Editorial: Gait coordination protocol for recovery of coordinated gait, function, and quality of life following stroke

INTRODUCTION The Gait Coordination Protocol (GCP) was successful in producing clinically and statistically significant gains in impairment, function, and life-role participation for those in the chronic phase after stroke who had exhibited persistent moderate to severe gait deficits [1-3]. The GCP was initially developed to test response to functional electrical stimulation (FES); notably, the GCP produced enhanced coordinated gait regardless of whether FES was used [1]. (The Video shows gait recovery in response to the GCP for a participant from the No-FES group.) In response to national and state presentations, there was a strong call for description of the details of the GCP and its clinical implementation. Therefore, the purpose here is to detail the implementation of this treatment protocol. We constructed the GCP based on the phenomenon of brain plasticity and associated motor learning principles that included task-specific practice (practice as close-to-normal movement as possible [4-7] with continual progression toward normal), high repetition of the desired movement pattern [8-10], focused attention on the part of the learner [11], training specificity [9,12-14], and awareness and feedback [15]. The GCP, described subsequently, was provided 1.5 h/d, 4 d/wk, and for at least 48 visits (12 weeks) [1-2]. Before treatment, the initial assessment included muscle strength, coordination, muscle tone, balance, gait coordination, gait speed, function, and quality of life. Critical aspects of the assessment included the ability to generate normal movement at the hip, knee, and ankle for the motor tasks listed in Figure 1: A-J. For those movements that were impaired, assessment included not only the ability to volitionally generate each of these movements, but also the ability to move in conjunction with an array of assistive movement devices (body-weight support [BWS], bodyweight supported treadmill training [BWSTT], FES) and gait support devices (parallel bars, walker, cane). Each motor task (Figure 1) was assessed for the following characteristics: * Percentage of the normal range of movement that could be executed, volitionally and independently. * Percentage of the motor task that could be executed with the support of verbal or tactile facilitation. * Percentage of the normal range of movement that could be executed along with an assistive movement device. * Normality of effort level during the task (e.g., holding breath, abnormal co-contraction of muscles distant from the targeted task joints or antagonist muscle contractions). * Compensatory strategies employed during execution of the motor task. * Percentage of the task for which compensatory strategies were employed. * Number of repetitions of the motor task that could be performed with only a beat between repetitions before the motor task was performed in an abnormal fashion. In this manner, the assessment was used to identify the initial training level in the hierarchy schema of difficulty (Figure 1). For those motor tasks that could not be volitionally performed, an array of motor learning tools were employed (Figure 2). The GCP utilized an array of tools to optimally apply the principles of motor learning. These tools included selective body positioning (Figure 2: B.1-B.1.1), awareness training (Figure 2: B.2), and practice-assist devices (Figure 2: B.3). The position for motor task practice was selected to satisfy practice of both the most normal movement possible and also the most challenging body position, both of which are required for motor skill acquisition [16-19] (Figure 2: B.1). Practice included the standing position (Figure 2: B.1.1) and dynamic walking, of course, to satisfy the learning principle of task specificity (Figure 2: B.1.2). [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] Awareness training (Figure 2: B.2) consisted of learning to identify and differentiate between normal coordinated movement and the abnormal movement, learning to monitor oneself during practice, assessing how close ones movement was to the normal movement pattern, and assessing the frequency of execution of the more normal movement pattern during a series of practice trials [15]. …