A unified scheme for the benchmarking of upper limb functions in neurological disorders.
Benchmark
Exoskeletons
Functional evaluation
Neurological disorders
Performance evaluation
Rehabilitation robotics
Stroke
Testing
Upper limb
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:
27 09 2022
27 09 2022
Historique:
received:
13
04
2022
accepted:
08
09
2022
entrez:
27
9
2022
pubmed:
28
9
2022
medline:
30
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In neurorehabilitation, we are witnessing a growing awareness of the importance of standardized quantitative assessment of limb functions. Detailed assessments of the sensorimotor deficits following neurological disorders are crucial. So far, this assessment has relied mainly on clinical scales, which showed several drawbacks. Different technologies could provide more objective and repeatable measurements. However, the current literature lacks practical guidelines for this purpose. Nowadays, the integration of available metrics, protocols, and algorithms into one harmonized benchmarking ecosystem for clinical and research practice is necessary. This work presents a benchmarking framework for upper limb capacity. The scheme resulted from a multidisciplinary and iterative discussion among several partners with previous experience in benchmarking methodology, robotics, and clinical neurorehabilitation. We merged previous knowledge in benchmarking methodologies for human locomotion and direct clinical and engineering experience in upper limb rehabilitation. The scheme was designed to enable an instrumented evaluation of arm capacity and to assess the effectiveness of rehabilitative interventions with high reproducibility and resolution. It includes four elements: (1) a taxonomy for motor skills and abilities, (2) a list of performance indicators, (3) a list of required sensor modalities, and (4) a set of reproducible experimental protocols. We proposed six motor primitives as building blocks of most upper-limb daily-life activities and combined them into a set of functional motor skills. We identified the main aspects to be considered during clinical evaluation, and grouped them into ten motor abilities categories. For each ability, we proposed a set of performance indicators to quantify the proposed ability on a quantitative and high-resolution scale. Finally, we defined the procedures to be followed to perform the benchmarking assessment in a reproducible and reliable way, including the definition of the kinematic models and the target muscles. This work represents the first unified scheme for the benchmarking of upper limb capacity. To reach a consensus, this scheme should be validated with real experiments across clinical conditions and motor skills. This validation phase is expected to create a shared database of human performance, necessary to have realistic comparisons of treatments and drive the development of new personalized technologies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In neurorehabilitation, we are witnessing a growing awareness of the importance of standardized quantitative assessment of limb functions. Detailed assessments of the sensorimotor deficits following neurological disorders are crucial. So far, this assessment has relied mainly on clinical scales, which showed several drawbacks. Different technologies could provide more objective and repeatable measurements. However, the current literature lacks practical guidelines for this purpose. Nowadays, the integration of available metrics, protocols, and algorithms into one harmonized benchmarking ecosystem for clinical and research practice is necessary.
METHODS
This work presents a benchmarking framework for upper limb capacity. The scheme resulted from a multidisciplinary and iterative discussion among several partners with previous experience in benchmarking methodology, robotics, and clinical neurorehabilitation. We merged previous knowledge in benchmarking methodologies for human locomotion and direct clinical and engineering experience in upper limb rehabilitation. The scheme was designed to enable an instrumented evaluation of arm capacity and to assess the effectiveness of rehabilitative interventions with high reproducibility and resolution. It includes four elements: (1) a taxonomy for motor skills and abilities, (2) a list of performance indicators, (3) a list of required sensor modalities, and (4) a set of reproducible experimental protocols.
RESULTS
We proposed six motor primitives as building blocks of most upper-limb daily-life activities and combined them into a set of functional motor skills. We identified the main aspects to be considered during clinical evaluation, and grouped them into ten motor abilities categories. For each ability, we proposed a set of performance indicators to quantify the proposed ability on a quantitative and high-resolution scale. Finally, we defined the procedures to be followed to perform the benchmarking assessment in a reproducible and reliable way, including the definition of the kinematic models and the target muscles.
CONCLUSIONS
This work represents the first unified scheme for the benchmarking of upper limb capacity. To reach a consensus, this scheme should be validated with real experiments across clinical conditions and motor skills. This validation phase is expected to create a shared database of human performance, necessary to have realistic comparisons of treatments and drive the development of new personalized technologies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36167552
doi: 10.1186/s12984-022-01082-8
pii: 10.1186/s12984-022-01082-8
pmc: PMC9513990
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
102Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Sensors (Basel). 2021 Dec 24;22(1):
pubmed: 35009661
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2022 Jan 12;19(1):2
pubmed: 35016694
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012 Sep;26(7):842-54
pubmed: 22357633
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 03;9:CD006876
pubmed: 30175845
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Dec 17;15(1):119
pubmed: 30558608
Sci Robot. 2022 Mar 30;7(64):eabk2378
pubmed: 35353601
Front Neurol. 2020 Oct 02;11:573616
pubmed: 33123079
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2014 Sep;22(5):1020-9
pubmed: 24760936
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016 Sep 23;13(1):86
pubmed: 27663356
J Biomech. 2005 May;38(5):981-992
pubmed: 15844264
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Oct;23(8):837-46
pubmed: 19531605
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020 Jan 30;17(1):10
pubmed: 32000790
Sci Rep. 2018 Aug 27;8(1):12918
pubmed: 30150687
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2013 Mar;21(2):153-64
pubmed: 22855233
Front Neuroinform. 2018 Jan 18;11:76
pubmed: 29403370
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020 Jan 24;7:450
pubmed: 32039171
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 May;90(5):793-802
pubmed: 19406299
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010 Sep;24(7):620-35
pubmed: 20424192
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2000 Oct;10(5):361-74
pubmed: 11018445
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2021;29:916-925
pubmed: 33872155
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Nov 8;18(1):162
pubmed: 34749752
Front Neurol. 2020 Sep 02;11:934
pubmed: 32982942
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2019 Dec;66(12):3290-3300
pubmed: 31180833
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005 Sep;13(3):311-24
pubmed: 16200755
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Jun 2;18(1):92
pubmed: 34078400
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2017 Jul;2017:547-554
pubmed: 28813877
J Neurophysiol. 2007 Aug;98(2):757-68
pubmed: 17553941
Front Robot AI. 2021 Dec 07;8:745018
pubmed: 34950707
J Neurosci. 2002 Sep 15;22(18):8297-304
pubmed: 12223584
Lancet. 2019 Jul 6;394(10192):51-62
pubmed: 31128926
Stroke. 2019 Mar;50(3):718-727
pubmed: 30776997
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016 Jun 08;13(1):52
pubmed: 27278277
Acta Inform Med. 2008;16(4):219-25
pubmed: 24109156
Exp Brain Res. 2004 Jul;157(2):162-73
pubmed: 14985899
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 Jan;25(1):71-80
pubmed: 20829411
J Neurophysiol. 2005 Oct;94(4):2284-94
pubmed: 15917316
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Aug 12;12:66
pubmed: 26265327
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010 Jul-Aug;24(6):528-41
pubmed: 20233965
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Oct;88(10):1332-8
pubmed: 17908578
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005 Nov-Dec;42(6):723-36
pubmed: 16680610
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 May;25(4):359-68
pubmed: 21343527
Front Neurol. 2019 Jun 25;10:567
pubmed: 31293493
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2019 Jul;2019:4198-4204
pubmed: 31946795
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2017 Jul;2017:652-657
pubmed: 28813894
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2019 Jun;2019:423-428
pubmed: 31374666
Front Neurol. 2017 Dec 14;8:679
pubmed: 29312116
Front Neurorobot. 2021 Nov 26;15:733738
pubmed: 34899227
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2014 Aug;29(7):719-27
pubmed: 25017296
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2020 Aug;53:102438
pubmed: 32569878
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Sep 12;11:137
pubmed: 25217124
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2008;2008:3475-8
pubmed: 19163457
Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 5;11(1):5323
pubmed: 33674675
J Hand Ther. 2013 Apr-Jun;26(2):104-14;quiz 115
pubmed: 22975740
NPJ Digit Med. 2020 May 29;3:80
pubmed: 32529042
Front Neurorobot. 2021 Oct 27;15:742163
pubmed: 34776920
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008 Jan-Feb;22(1):31-9
pubmed: 17595381
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013 Apr 12;10:35
pubmed: 23587106
J Neurophysiol. 2002 Aug;88(2):991-1004
pubmed: 12163548
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(4):335-53
pubmed: 21674387
Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:484131
pubmed: 26539500
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2011 Jun;47(2):223-36
pubmed: 21445028
IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med. 2013 Jul 24;1:2100109
pubmed: 27170850
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Jul 16;18(1):115
pubmed: 34271954
Front Neurol. 2019 Aug 20;10:857
pubmed: 31481922
Physiother Theory Pract. 2019 Sep;35(9):822-832
pubmed: 29658813
BMJ Case Rep. 2017 Mar 17;2017:
pubmed: 28314812
Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 May 01;6:117
pubmed: 22557961
Med Eng Phys. 2018 Mar;53:13-31
pubmed: 29361407
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2011;2011:5975422
pubmed: 22275623
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Jul 10;11:111
pubmed: 25012864
Appl Bionics Biomech. 2019 Oct 21;2019:4251089
pubmed: 31772604
Front Robot AI. 2020 Nov 13;7:561774
pubmed: 33501326
J Mot Behav. 2011;43(2):121-30
pubmed: 21347950
Motor Control. 2006 Oct;10(4):311-29
pubmed: 17293615