Reliable and valid robot-assisted assessments of hand proprioceptive, motor and sensorimotor impairments after stroke.

Hand function Neurorehabilitation Proprioception Recovery Robot-assisted assessments Sensorimotor impairments Somatosensation Stroke

Journal

Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1743-0003
Titre abrégé: J Neuroeng Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101232233

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
16 07 2021
Historique:
received: 12 11 2020
accepted: 24 06 2021
entrez: 17 7 2021
pubmed: 18 7 2021
medline: 26 11 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Neurological injuries such as stroke often differentially impair hand motor and somatosensory function, as well as the interplay between the two, which leads to limitations in performing activities of daily living. However, it is challenging to identify which specific aspects of sensorimotor function are impaired based on conventional clinical assessments that are often insensitive and subjective. In this work we propose and validate a set of robot-assisted assessments aiming at disentangling hand proprioceptive from motor impairments, and capturing their interrelation (sensorimotor impairments). A battery of five complementary assessment tasks was implemented on a one degree-of-freedom end-effector robotic platform acting on the index finger metacarpophalangeal joint. Specifically, proprioceptive impairments were assessed using a position matching paradigm. Fast target reaching, range of motion and maximum fingertip force tasks characterized motor function deficits. Finally, sensorimotor impairments were assessed using a dexterous trajectory following task. Clinical feasibility (duration), reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient ICC, smallest real difference SRD) and validity (Kruskal-Wallis test, Spearman correlations [Formula: see text] with Fugl-Meyer Upper Limb Motor Assessment, kinesthetic Up-Down Test, Box & Block Test) of robotic tasks were evaluated with 36 sub-acute stroke subjects and 31 age-matched neurologically intact controls. Eighty-three percent of stroke survivors with varied impairment severity (mild to severe) could complete all robotic tasks (duration: <15 min per tested hand). Further, the study demonstrated good to excellent reliability of the robotic tasks in the stroke population (ICC>0.7, SRD<30%), as well as discriminant validity, as indicated by significant differences (p-value<0.001) between stroke and control subjects. Concurrent validity was shown through moderate to strong correlations ([Formula: see text]=0.4-0.8) between robotic outcome measures and clinical scales. Finally, robotic tasks targeting different deficits (motor, sensory) were not strongly correlated with each other ([Formula: see text]0.32, p-value>0.1), thereby presenting complementary information about a patient's impairment profile. The proposed robot-assisted assessments provide a clinically feasible, reliable, and valid approach to distinctly characterize impairments in hand proprioceptive and motor function, along with the interaction between the two. This opens new avenues to help unravel the contributions of unique aspects of sensorimotor function in post-stroke recovery, as well as to contribute to future developments towards personalized, assessment-driven therapies.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Neurological injuries such as stroke often differentially impair hand motor and somatosensory function, as well as the interplay between the two, which leads to limitations in performing activities of daily living. However, it is challenging to identify which specific aspects of sensorimotor function are impaired based on conventional clinical assessments that are often insensitive and subjective. In this work we propose and validate a set of robot-assisted assessments aiming at disentangling hand proprioceptive from motor impairments, and capturing their interrelation (sensorimotor impairments).
METHODS
A battery of five complementary assessment tasks was implemented on a one degree-of-freedom end-effector robotic platform acting on the index finger metacarpophalangeal joint. Specifically, proprioceptive impairments were assessed using a position matching paradigm. Fast target reaching, range of motion and maximum fingertip force tasks characterized motor function deficits. Finally, sensorimotor impairments were assessed using a dexterous trajectory following task. Clinical feasibility (duration), reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient ICC, smallest real difference SRD) and validity (Kruskal-Wallis test, Spearman correlations [Formula: see text] with Fugl-Meyer Upper Limb Motor Assessment, kinesthetic Up-Down Test, Box & Block Test) of robotic tasks were evaluated with 36 sub-acute stroke subjects and 31 age-matched neurologically intact controls.
RESULTS
Eighty-three percent of stroke survivors with varied impairment severity (mild to severe) could complete all robotic tasks (duration: <15 min per tested hand). Further, the study demonstrated good to excellent reliability of the robotic tasks in the stroke population (ICC>0.7, SRD<30%), as well as discriminant validity, as indicated by significant differences (p-value<0.001) between stroke and control subjects. Concurrent validity was shown through moderate to strong correlations ([Formula: see text]=0.4-0.8) between robotic outcome measures and clinical scales. Finally, robotic tasks targeting different deficits (motor, sensory) were not strongly correlated with each other ([Formula: see text]0.32, p-value>0.1), thereby presenting complementary information about a patient's impairment profile.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed robot-assisted assessments provide a clinically feasible, reliable, and valid approach to distinctly characterize impairments in hand proprioceptive and motor function, along with the interaction between the two. This opens new avenues to help unravel the contributions of unique aspects of sensorimotor function in post-stroke recovery, as well as to contribute to future developments towards personalized, assessment-driven therapies.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34271954
doi: 10.1186/s12984-021-00904-5
pii: 10.1186/s12984-021-00904-5
pmc: PMC8283922
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

115

Informations de copyright

© 2021. The Author(s).

Références

Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Clin Rehabil. 2008 Aug;22(8):758-67
pubmed: 18678576
Exp Brain Res. 2016 Jan;234(1):83-93
pubmed: 26378004
Front Neurol. 2018 Jun 25;9:472
pubmed: 29988530
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Sep;84(9):719-23
pubmed: 16141752
Am J Occup Ther. 1985 Jun;39(6):386-91
pubmed: 3160243
Hum Mov Sci. 2018 Dec;62:1-13
pubmed: 30172030
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1147-1157
pubmed: 29435801
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019 Sep;33(9):740-750
pubmed: 31319755
Cell. 2016 Mar 10;164(6):1122-1135
pubmed: 26967280
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008 Jan-Feb;22(1):50-63
pubmed: 17626223
Stroke. 2015 Dec;46(12):3459-69
pubmed: 26542695
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002 Sep;16(3):232-40
pubmed: 12234086
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010 Feb;24(2):178-87
pubmed: 19794134
Brain. 2005 May;128(Pt 5):1112-21
pubmed: 15743873
Percept Mot Skills. 1995 Jun;80(3 Pt 2):1163-9
pubmed: 7478873
Physiol Rev. 2012 Oct;92(4):1651-97
pubmed: 23073629
Stroke. 2003 Sep;34(9):2181-6
pubmed: 12907818
Exp Brain Res. 2019 Sep;237(9):2167-2184
pubmed: 31209510
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1982;14(1):27-32
pubmed: 7063817
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1989 Feb;52(2):242-7
pubmed: 2703840
Stroke. 2002 Nov;33(11):2718-21
pubmed: 12411667
Front Integr Neurosci. 2019 May 22;13:16
pubmed: 31191265
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 01;10(6):e0128328
pubmed: 26030289
Neuropharmacology. 2000 Mar 3;39(5):733-42
pubmed: 10699440
Clin Neurophysiol. 2002 Dec;113(12):2025-9
pubmed: 12464343
Stroke. 2009 May;40(5):1772-9
pubmed: 19265051
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2020 Sep;28(9):2035-2042
pubmed: 32746329
Brain Res. 2012 May 3;1452:96-107
pubmed: 22464180
Exp Brain Res. 2018 Aug;236(8):2137-2155
pubmed: 29779050
Somatosens Mot Res. 2005 Mar-Jun;22(1-2):85-93
pubmed: 16191761
Stroke. 2019 Mar;50(3):718-727
pubmed: 30776997
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2011;2011:5975436
pubmed: 22275636
J Hand Ther. 2014 Oct-Dec;27(4):272-85; quiz 286
pubmed: 25193532
Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 Jun 29;10:316
pubmed: 27445756
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2016 Jul;40(3):186-95
pubmed: 27214520
Aust Occup Ther J. 2018 Oct;65(5):449-471
pubmed: 30306610
PLoS One. 2016 Aug 05;11(8):e0160528
pubmed: 27494257
J Phys Ther Sci. 2013 May;25(5):567-9
pubmed: 24259803
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010 Jul-Aug;24(6):528-41
pubmed: 20233965
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2009 Aug;19(4):639-50
pubmed: 18490177
BMC Neurol. 2016 Nov 2;16(1):208
pubmed: 27806698
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2015 May;40(4):406-11
pubmed: 24859993
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008 Nov-Dec;22(6):737-44
pubmed: 18645189
Clin Rehabil. 2009 Jan;23(1):91-5
pubmed: 19114441
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Apr 30;11:77
pubmed: 24885197
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Jun;23(5):435-40
pubmed: 19261767
Stroke. 2007 Mar;38(3):1088-90
pubmed: 17255546
Nat Neurosci. 1998 Oct;1(6):529-33
pubmed: 10196553
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2019 Jun;2019:441-446
pubmed: 31374669
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Apr;53(4):695-9
pubmed: 15817019
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999 Sep;80(9):1013-6
pubmed: 10489001
J Neurophysiol. 2010 Jan;103(1):164-71
pubmed: 19864441
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020 Sep 25;17(1):128
pubmed: 32977810
Clin Neurophysiol. 2018 Apr;129(4):797-808
pubmed: 29453171
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Jun 7;15(1):47
pubmed: 29880003
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Apr 29;16(1):53
pubmed: 31036003
J Neurophysiol. 1992 Feb;67(2):455-69
pubmed: 1569469
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 24;13(4):e0196205
pubmed: 29689075
Qual Life Res. 2001;10(7):571-8
pubmed: 11822790
Exp Brain Res. 2015 Aug;233(8):2449-59
pubmed: 25990821
Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2007 Jun;9(3):221-8
pubmed: 17601386
J Hand Ther. 2013 Apr-Jun;26(2):104-14;quiz 115
pubmed: 22975740
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 09;8(9):e73990
pubmed: 24040139
NPJ Digit Med. 2020 May 29;3:80
pubmed: 32529042
Brain. 2002 Aug;125(Pt 8):1896-907
pubmed: 12135979
J Neurosci. 2010 Nov 24;30(47):15895-903
pubmed: 21106828
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996 Dec;77(12):1271-8
pubmed: 8976311
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016 Sep;30(8):731-42
pubmed: 26719352
Vision Res. 2015 May;110(Pt B):144-54
pubmed: 25038472
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2020 May;34(5):403-416
pubmed: 32391744
Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1990;55:837-47
pubmed: 2132861
Clin Rehabil. 2006 Feb;20(2):160-72
pubmed: 16541937
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017 Jun;31(6):571-582
pubmed: 28443784
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(4):335-53
pubmed: 21674387
Front Neurol. 2019 Aug 12;10:836
pubmed: 31456734
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020 Jul 2;17(1):86
pubmed: 32615979
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Aug 02;12:64
pubmed: 26233571
Neurology. 2019 Mar 5;92(10):e1098-e1108
pubmed: 30728310
Lancet Neurol. 2019 May;18(5):439-458
pubmed: 30871944
Anesth Analg. 2018 May;126(5):1763-1768
pubmed: 29481436
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017 Nov 13;14(1):114
pubmed: 29132388
Top Stroke Rehabil. 1996 Jun;3(2):1-26
pubmed: 27681608

Auteurs

Monika Zbytniewska (M)

Rehabilitation Engineering Laboratory, Institute of Robotics and Intelligent Systems, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. relab.publications@hest.ethz.ch.

Christoph M Kanzler (CM)

Rehabilitation Engineering Laboratory, Institute of Robotics and Intelligent Systems, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Future Health Technologies, Singapore-ETH Centre, Campus for Research Excellence And Technological Enterprise (CREATE), Singapore, Singapore.

Lisa Jordan (L)

Rehabilitation Engineering Laboratory, Institute of Robotics and Intelligent Systems, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Christian Salzmann (C)

Kliniken Schmieder Allensbach, Zum Tafelholz 8, 78476, Allensbach, Germany.

Joachim Liepert (J)

Kliniken Schmieder Allensbach, Zum Tafelholz 8, 78476, Allensbach, Germany.

Olivier Lambercy (O)

Rehabilitation Engineering Laboratory, Institute of Robotics and Intelligent Systems, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Future Health Technologies, Singapore-ETH Centre, Campus for Research Excellence And Technological Enterprise (CREATE), Singapore, Singapore.

Roger Gassert (R)

Rehabilitation Engineering Laboratory, Institute of Robotics and Intelligent Systems, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Future Health Technologies, Singapore-ETH Centre, Campus for Research Excellence And Technological Enterprise (CREATE), Singapore, Singapore.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH