Effectiveness of mixed reality-based rehabilitation on hands and fingers by individual finger-movement tracking in patients with stroke.
Equipment and supplies
Fingers
Mixed reality
Range of motion
Stroke rehabilitation
Wearable device
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:
10 Aug 2024
10 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
21
11
2023
accepted:
04
07
2024
medline:
11
8
2024
pubmed:
11
8
2024
entrez:
10
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Mixed reality (MR) is helpful in hand training for patients with stroke, allowing them to fully submerge in a virtual space while interacting with real objects. The recognition of individual finger movements is required for MR rehabilitation. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of updated MR-board 2, adding finger training for patients with stroke. Twenty-one participants with hemiplegic stroke (10 with left hemiplegia and 11 with right hemiplegia; nine female patients; 56.7 ± 14.2 years of age; and onset of stroke 32.7 ± 34.8 months) participated in this study. MR-board 2 comprised a board plate, a depth camera, plastic-shaped objects, a monitor, a palm-worn camera, and seven gamified training programs. All participants performed 20 self-training sessions involving 30-min training using MR-board 2. The outcome measurements for upper extremity function were the Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA) upper extremity score, repeated number of finger flexion and extension (Repeat-FE), the thumb opposition test (TOT), Box and Block Test score (BBT), Wolf Motor Function Test score (WMFT), and Stroke Impact Scale (SIS). One-way repeated measures analysis of variance and the post hoc test were applied for the measurements. MR-board 2 recorded the fingers' active range of motion (AROM) and Dunnett's test was used for pairwise comparisons. Except for the FMA-proximal score (p = 0.617) and TOT (p = 0.005), other FMA scores, BBT score, Repeat-FE, WMFT score, and SIS stroke recovery improved significantly (p < 0.001) during MR-board 2 training and were maintained until follow-up. All AROM values of the finger joints changed significantly during training (p < 0.001). MR-board 2 self-training, which includes natural interactions between humans and computers using a tangible user interface and real-time tracking of the fingers, improved upper limb function across impairment, activity, and participation. MR-board 2 could be used as a self-training tool for patients with stroke, improving their quality of life. This study was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS: KCT0004167).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Mixed reality (MR) is helpful in hand training for patients with stroke, allowing them to fully submerge in a virtual space while interacting with real objects. The recognition of individual finger movements is required for MR rehabilitation. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of updated MR-board 2, adding finger training for patients with stroke.
METHODS
METHODS
Twenty-one participants with hemiplegic stroke (10 with left hemiplegia and 11 with right hemiplegia; nine female patients; 56.7 ± 14.2 years of age; and onset of stroke 32.7 ± 34.8 months) participated in this study. MR-board 2 comprised a board plate, a depth camera, plastic-shaped objects, a monitor, a palm-worn camera, and seven gamified training programs. All participants performed 20 self-training sessions involving 30-min training using MR-board 2. The outcome measurements for upper extremity function were the Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA) upper extremity score, repeated number of finger flexion and extension (Repeat-FE), the thumb opposition test (TOT), Box and Block Test score (BBT), Wolf Motor Function Test score (WMFT), and Stroke Impact Scale (SIS). One-way repeated measures analysis of variance and the post hoc test were applied for the measurements. MR-board 2 recorded the fingers' active range of motion (AROM) and Dunnett's test was used for pairwise comparisons.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Except for the FMA-proximal score (p = 0.617) and TOT (p = 0.005), other FMA scores, BBT score, Repeat-FE, WMFT score, and SIS stroke recovery improved significantly (p < 0.001) during MR-board 2 training and were maintained until follow-up. All AROM values of the finger joints changed significantly during training (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
MR-board 2 self-training, which includes natural interactions between humans and computers using a tangible user interface and real-time tracking of the fingers, improved upper limb function across impairment, activity, and participation. MR-board 2 could be used as a self-training tool for patients with stroke, improving their quality of life.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
BACKGROUND
This study was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS: KCT0004167).
Identifiants
pubmed: 39127667
doi: 10.1186/s12984-024-01418-6
pii: 10.1186/s12984-024-01418-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
140Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet. 2011;377:1693–702.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60325-5
pubmed: 21571152
Chen Y, Abel KT, Janecek JT, Chen Y, Zheng K, Cramer SC. Home-based technologies for stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review. Int J Med Informatics. 2019;123:11–22.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.12.001
Pereira MF, Prahm C, Kolbenschlag J, Oliveira E, Rodrigues NF. Application of AR and VR in hand rehabilitation: a systematic review. J Biomed Inform. 2020;111:103584.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103584
pubmed: 33011296
Ham Y, Shin J-H. Efficiency and usability of a modified pegboard incorporating computerized technology for upper limb rehabilitation in patients with stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749357.2022.2058293 .
doi: 10.1080/10749357.2022.2058293
pubmed: 35348031
Colomer C, Llorens R, Noé E, Alcañiz M. Effect of a mixed reality-based intervention on arm, hand, and finger function on chronic stroke. J NeuroEng Rehabil. 2016;13:45.
doi: 10.1186/s12984-016-0153-6
pubmed: 27169462
pmcid: 4864937
Mateu J, Lasala MJ, Alamán X. Developing mixed reality educational applications: the virtual touch toolkit. Sensors (Basel). 2015;15:21760–84.
doi: 10.3390/s150921760
pubmed: 26334275
Ishii H. The tangible user interface and its evolution. Commun ACM. 2008;51:32–6.
doi: 10.1145/1349026.1349034
Ham Y, Yang D, Choi Y, Shin J-H. The feasibility of mixed reality-based upper extremity self-training for patients with stroke-A pilot study. Front Neurol. 2022;13:994586.
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.994586
pubmed: 36247775
pmcid: 9555565
Thielbar KO, Lord TJ, Fischer HC, Lazzaro EC, Barth KC, Stoykov ME, et al. Training finger individuation with a mechatronic-virtual reality system leads to improved fine motor control post-stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11:171.
doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-171
pubmed: 25542201
pmcid: 4292811
Wenzelburger R, Kopper F, Frenzel A, Stolze H, Klebe S, Brossmann A, et al. Hand coordination following capsular stroke. Brain. 2004;128:64–74.
doi: 10.1093/brain/awh317
pubmed: 15471902
Wolbrecht ET, Rowe JB, Chan V, Ingemanson ML, Cramer SC, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Finger strength, individuation, and their interaction: relationship to hand function and corticospinal tract injury after stroke. Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;129:797–808.
doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.01.057
pubmed: 29453171
pmcid: 5856636
Rashid A, Hasan O. Wearable technologies for hand joints monitoring for rehabilitation: a survey. Microelectron J. 2019;88:173–83.
doi: 10.1016/j.mejo.2018.01.014
Baldi TL, Mohammadi M, Scheggi S, Prattichizzo D, editors. Using inertial and magnetic sensors for hand tracking and rendering in wearable haptics. 2015 IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC). IEEE; 2015.
Huang M-C, Xu W, Su Y, Lange B, Chang C-Y, Sarrafzadeh M, editors. Smartglove for upper extremities rehabilitative gaming assessment. Proceedings of the 5th international conference on pervasive technologies related to assistive environments; 2012.
Markus V, Christina S, Thomas S, Daniel L, Thomas S. Modular finger and hand motion capturing system based on inertial and magnetic sensors. Curr Dir Biomed Eng. 2017;3:19–23.
doi: 10.1515/cdbme-2017-0005
Connolly J, Condell J, O’Flynn B, Sanchez JT, Gardiner P. IMU sensor-based electronic goniometric glove for clinical finger movement analysis. IEEE Sens J. 2018;18:1273–81.
Yang D, Lee K, Choi Y. TapSix: A palm-worn glove with a low-cost camera sensor that turns a tactile surface into a six-key chorded keyboard by detection finger taps. Int J Hum Comp Interact. 2020;36:1–14.
doi: 10.1080/10447318.2019.1597573
Kim H, Shin JH. Assessment of upper extremity function in people with stroke based on the framework of the ICF: a narrative review. Brain Neurorehabil. 2022;15: e16.
doi: 10.12786/bn.2022.15.e16
pubmed: 36743205
pmcid: 9833478
Sawner KA, LaVigne JM, Brunnstrom S. Brunnstrom's movement therapy in hemiplegia: a neurophysiological approach: Lippincott; 1992.
Van Allen MW. Aids to the examination of the peripheral nervous system. Arch Neurol. 1977;34:61.
doi: 10.1001/archneur.1977.00500130081027
Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–98.
doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
pubmed: 1202204
Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987;67:206–7.
doi: 10.1093/ptj/67.2.206
pubmed: 3809245
Naghdi S, Ansari NN, Mansouri K, Hasson S. A neurophysiological and clinical study of Brunnstrom recovery stages in the upper limb following stroke. Brain Inj. 2010;24:1372–8.
doi: 10.3109/02699052.2010.506860
pubmed: 20715900
Rehab F. The Brunnstrom Stages of Stroke Recovery: What Each Milestone Means. 2022.
Fugl-Meyer AR, Jääskö L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7:13–31.
doi: 10.2340/1650197771331
pubmed: 1135616
Kim T-L, Hwang SH, Lee WJ, Hwang JW, Cho I, Kim E-H, et al. The Korean version of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment: reliability and validity evaluation. Ann Rehabil Med. 2021;45:83–98.
doi: 10.5535/arm.20225
pubmed: 33849084
pmcid: 8137384
Lee J-M, Gracies J-M, Park S-B, Lee KH, Lee JY, Shin J-H. Botulinum toxin injections and electrical stimulation for spastic paresis improve active hand function following stroke. Toxins. 2018;10:426.
doi: 10.3390/toxins10110426
pubmed: 30366407
pmcid: 6267216
Tonkin M. Thumb opposition: its definition and my approach to its measurement. J Hand Surg (Eur Vol). 2019;45:315–7.
doi: 10.1177/1753193419889504
pubmed: 31793377
Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Kashman N, Volland G. Adult norms for the nine hole peg test of finger dexterity. Occup Ther J Res. 1985;5:24–38.
doi: 10.1177/153944928500500102
Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Ellis M, Archer AL, Morgan B, Piacentino A. Assessing Wolf motor function test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Stroke. 2001;32:1635–9.
doi: 10.1161/01.STR.32.7.1635
pubmed: 11441212
Choi SU, Lee HS, Shin JH, Ho SH, Koo MJ, Park KH, et al. Stroke impact Scale 3.0: reliability and validity evaluation of the Korean version. Ann Rehabil Med. 2017;41:387–93.
doi: 10.5535/arm.2017.41.3.387
pubmed: 28758075
pmcid: 5532343
Duncan PW, Bode RK, Min Lai S, Perera S. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:950–63.
doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00035-2
pubmed: 12881816
Lee S, Lee DK. What is the proper way to apply the multiple comparison test? Korean J Anesthesiol. 2018;71:353–60.
doi: 10.4097/kja.d.18.00242
pubmed: 30157585
pmcid: 6193594
Hubbard IJ, Parsons MW, Neilson C, Carey LM. Task-specific training: evidence for and translation to clinical practice. Occup Ther Int. 2009;16:175–89.
doi: 10.1002/oti.275
pubmed: 19504501
Conway BJ, Taquet L, Boerger TF, Young SC, Krucoff KB, Schmit BD, et al. Quantitative assessments of finger individuation with an instrumented glove. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2023;20:48.
doi: 10.1186/s12984-023-01173-0
pubmed: 37081513
pmcid: 10120262
Johansson AM, Grip H, Rönnqvist L, Selling J, Boraxbekk CJ, Strong A, et al. Influence of visual feedback, hand dominance and sex on individuated finger movements. Exp Brain Res. 2021;239:1911–28.
doi: 10.1007/s00221-021-06100-0
pubmed: 33871660
pmcid: 8277644
Choukou MA, Mbabaali S, Bani Hani J, Cooke C. Haptic-enabled hand rehabilitation in stroke patients: a scoping review. Appl Sci. 2021;11:3712.
doi: 10.3390/app11083712
Shin JH, Kim MY, Lee JY, Jeon YJ, Kim S, Lee S, et al. Effects of virtual reality-based rehabilitation on distal upper extremity function and health-related quality of life: a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13:17.
doi: 10.1186/s12984-016-0125-x
pubmed: 26911438
pmcid: 4765099
Friedman N, Chan V, Reinkensmeyer AN, Beroukhim A, Zambrano GJ, Bachman M, et al. Retraining and assessing hand movement after stroke using the MusicGlove: comparison with conventional hand therapy and isometric grip training. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11:76.
doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-76
pubmed: 24885076
pmcid: 4022276
Sanders Q, Chan V, Augsburger R, Cramer SC, Reinkensmeyer DJ, Do AH. Feasibility of wearable sensing for in-home finger rehabilitation early after stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2020;28:1363–72.
doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2020.2988177
pubmed: 32305930
pmcid: 9345607
Overtoom EM, Horeman T, Jansen FW, Dankelman J, Schreuder HWR. Haptic feedback, force feedback, and force-sensing in simulation training for laparoscopy: a systematic overview. J Surg Educ. 2019;76:242–61.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.06.008
pubmed: 30082239
Cobos S, Ferre M, Aracil R, Ortego J, Sanchéz-Urán MÁ. Models for manipulation tasks. Spain Universidad Politécnica de Madrid; 2010:155. https://doi.org/10.5772/10326