Abstract
BackgroundBrain–computer interface (BCI) has been regarded as a newly developing intervention in promoting motor recovery in stroke survivors. Several studies have been performed in chronic stroke to explore its clinical and subclinical efficacy. However, evidence in subacute stroke was poor, and the longitudinal sensorimotor rhythm changes in subacute stroke after BCI with exoskeleton feedback were still unclear.Materials and MethodsFourteen stroke patients in subacute stage were recruited and randomly allocated to BCI group (n = 7) and the control group (n = 7). Brain–computer interface training with exoskeleton feedback was applied in the BCI group three times a week for 4 weeks. The Fugl–Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) scale was used to assess motor function improvement. Brain–computer interface performance was calculated across the 12-time interventions. Sensorimotor rhythm changes were explored by event-related desynchronization (ERD) changes and topographies.ResultsAfter 1 month BCI intervention, both the BCI group (p = 0.032) and the control group (p = 0.048) improved in FMA-UE scores. The BCI group (12.77%) showed larger percentage of improvement than the control group (7.14%), and more patients obtained good motor recovery in the BCI group (57.1%) than did the control group (28.6%). Patients with good recovery showed relatively higher online BCI performance, which were greater than 70%. And they showed a continuous improvement in offline BCI performance and obtained a highest value in the last six sessions of interventions during BCI training. However, patients with poor recovery reached a platform in the first six sessions of interventions and did not improve any more or even showed a decrease. In sensorimotor rhythm, patients with good recovery showed an enhanced ERD along with time change. Topographies showed that the ipsilesional hemisphere presented stronger activations after BCI intervention.ConclusionBrain–computer interface training with exoskeleton feedback was feasible in subacute stroke patients. Brain–computer interface performance can be an index to evaluate the efficacy of BCI intervention. Patients who presented increasingly stronger or continuously strong activations (ERD) may obtain better motor recovery.
Highlights
Brain–computer interface (BCI) is increasingly developing in the neurological treatment, especially in stroke rehabilitation (López-Larraz et al, 2018)
Three patients (OME1, OME4, and OME7) maintained a level of greater than 70% in BCI performance across the 12 training sessions
Patients with good recovery showed relatively higher online BCI performance, which were greater than 70%
Summary
Brain–computer interface (BCI) is increasingly developing in the neurological treatment, especially in stroke rehabilitation (López-Larraz et al, 2018). It is an intervention focused on the central nerve system, which played a role in both treatment and assessment. More and more studies have been performed to verify the positive effects in motor recovery by BCI training and to explore its possible mechanism as for promoting related cortical plasticity. Brain–computer interface intervention has been applied to train stroke patients both in chronic and subacute stages for motor rehabilitation. Ang et al (2014) applied 12-session BCI training in chronic stroke and reported motor improvements. Brain–computer interface (BCI) has been regarded as a newly developing intervention in promoting motor recovery in stroke survivors. Evidence in subacute stroke was poor, and the longitudinal sensorimotor rhythm changes in subacute stroke after BCI with exoskeleton feedback were still unclear
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
