BCI-Based Control for Ankle Exoskeleton T-FLEX: Comparison of Visual and Haptic Stimuli with Stroke Survivors.
ankle exoskeleton
beta rebound
brain–computer interface (BCI)
central nervous system (CNS)
electroencephalography (EEG)
haptic stimulus
motor imagery (MI)
visual stimulus
Journal
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1424-8220
Titre abrégé: Sensors (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101204366
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Sep 2021
26 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
01
06
2021
revised:
31
08
2021
accepted:
15
09
2021
entrez:
13
10
2021
pubmed:
14
10
2021
medline:
15
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Brain-computer interface (BCI) remains an emerging tool that seeks to improve the patient interaction with the therapeutic mechanisms and to generate neuroplasticity progressively through neuromotor abilities. Motor imagery (MI) analysis is the most used paradigm based on the motor cortex's electrical activity to detect movement intention. It has been shown that motor imagery mental practice with movement-associated stimuli may offer an effective strategy to facilitate motor recovery in brain injury patients. In this sense, this study aims to present the BCI associated with visual and haptic stimuli to facilitate MI generation and control the T-FLEX ankle exoskeleton. To achieve this, five post-stroke patients (55-63 years) were subjected to three different strategies using T-FLEX: stationary therapy (ST) without motor imagination, motor imagination with visual stimulation (MIV), and motor imagination with visual-haptic inducement (MIVH). The quantitative characterization of both BCI stimuli strategies was made through the motor imagery accuracy rate, the electroencephalographic (EEG) analysis during the MI active periods, the statistical analysis, and a subjective patient's perception. The preliminary results demonstrated the viability of the BCI-controlled ankle exoskeleton system with the beta rebound, in terms of patient's performance during MI active periods and satisfaction outcomes. Accuracy differences employing haptic stimulus were detected with an average of 68% compared with the 50.7% over only visual stimulus. However, the power spectral density (PSD) did not present changes in prominent activation of the MI band but presented significant variations in terms of laterality. In this way, visual and haptic stimuli improved the subject's MI accuracy but did not generate differential brain activity over the affected hemisphere. Hence, long-term sessions with a more extensive sample and a more robust algorithm should be carried out to evaluate the impact of the proposed system on neuronal and motor evolution after stroke.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34640750
pii: s21196431
doi: 10.3390/s21196431
pmc: PMC8512904
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Departamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (COLCIENCIAS)
ID : 801-2017
Organisme : Departamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (COLCIENCIAS)
ID : 845-2020
Références
Neurosci Lett. 2005 Apr 22;378(3):156-9
pubmed: 15781150
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2020 Jul;2020:3027-3030
pubmed: 33018643
NeuroRehabilitation. 2014;34(2):355-63
pubmed: 24401829
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Sep 17;7:568
pubmed: 24062669
Front Neurosci. 2020 Jun 23;14:528
pubmed: 32655347
Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2013 Jan;41(1):36-43
pubmed: 23038242
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2016 Nov;54(11):1655-1666
pubmed: 26906278
Neurosci Lett. 1997 Dec 19;239(2-3):65-8
pubmed: 9469657
J Neural Eng. 2018 Apr;15(2):021004
pubmed: 29345632
Comput Intell Neurosci. 2007;:48937
pubmed: 18354734
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020 Sep 03;8:735
pubmed: 33014987
BMJ. 2015 Apr 27;350:h1736
pubmed: 25918354
Clin EEG Neurosci. 2011 Oct;42(4):245-52
pubmed: 22208122
Clin Neurophysiol. 2013 Nov;124(11):2153-60
pubmed: 23757379
Clin Rehabil. 2011 Nov;25(11):1050-5
pubmed: 21795406
Materials (Basel). 2019 May 03;12(9):
pubmed: 31058841
Front Neurosci. 2018 Oct 23;12:757
pubmed: 30405340
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2021;29:1583-1592
pubmed: 34343094
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2014 Jul;61(7):2092-101
pubmed: 24686231
Front Hum Neurosci. 2018 Aug 06;12:312
pubmed: 30127730
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 Dec;87(12 Suppl 2):S2-11
pubmed: 17140874
Behav Brain Res. 2020 Jan 27;378:112240
pubmed: 31614183
Int J Psychophysiol. 2003 Jan;47(1):75-85
pubmed: 12543448
Ann Biomed Eng. 2001 Mar;29(3):202-13
pubmed: 11310782
Front Syst Neurosci. 2014 May 14;8:85
pubmed: 24860444
Clin Neurophysiol. 1999 Nov;110(11):1842-57
pubmed: 10576479
Front Neurosci. 2017 Jul 20;11:400
pubmed: 28775677
Clin Neurophysiol. 2011 Mar;122(3):567-577
pubmed: 20800538
Neurobiol Dis. 2015 Nov;83:172-9
pubmed: 25489973
Sensors (Basel). 2016 Dec 02;16(12):
pubmed: 27918413
Clin EEG Neurosci. 2011 Oct;42(4):236-44
pubmed: 22208121
Brain Sci. 2021 Mar 24;11(4):
pubmed: 33805216
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017 Sep;25(9):1633-1640
pubmed: 27845668
J Clin Neurophysiol. 1999 Jul;16(4):373-82
pubmed: 10478710
J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2012 Jan;16(1):14-21
pubmed: 22196422
Brain Sci. 2020 Oct 12;10(10):
pubmed: 33053681
Front Neurorobot. 2020 Aug 27;14:48
pubmed: 32973481
Clin Neurophysiol. 2014 Aug;125(8):1689-99
pubmed: 24457137
PLoS One. 2018 Jan 11;13(1):e0190715
pubmed: 29324886
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1997 Sep;103(3):386-94
pubmed: 9305287