Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Published in: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Stroke | Research

Brain computer interface training with motor imagery and functional electrical stimulation for patients with severe upper limb paresis after stroke: a randomized controlled pilot trial

Authors: Iris Brunner, Camilla Biering Lundquist, Asger Roer Pedersen, Erika G. Spaich, Strahinja Dosen, Andrej Savic

Published in: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Restorative Brain–Computer Interfaces (BCI) that combine motor imagery with visual feedback and functional electrical stimulation (FES) may offer much-needed treatment alternatives for patients with severely impaired upper limb (UL) function after a stroke.

Objectives

This study aimed to examine if BCI-based training, combining motor imagery with FES targeting finger/wrist extensors, is more effective in improving severely impaired UL motor function than conventional therapy in the subacute phase after stroke, and if patients with preserved cortical-spinal tract (CST) integrity benefit more from BCI training.

Methods

Forty patients with severe UL paresis (< 13 on Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) were randomized to either a 12-session BCI training as part of their rehabilitation or conventional UL rehabilitation. BCI sessions were conducted 3–4 times weekly for 3–4 weeks. At baseline, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) was performed to examine CST integrity. The main endpoint was the ARAT at 3 months post-stroke. A binominal logistic regression was conducted to examine the effect of treatment group and CST integrity on achieving meaningful improvement. In the BCI group, electroencephalographic (EEG) data were analyzed to investigate changes in event-related desynchronization (ERD) during the course of therapy.

Results

Data from 35 patients (15 in the BCI group and 20 in the control group) were analyzed at 3-month follow-up. Few patients (10/35) improved above the minimally clinically important difference of 6 points on ARAT, 5/15 in the BCI group, 5/20 in control. An independent-samples Mann–Whitney U test revealed no differences between the two groups, p = 0.382. In the logistic regression only CST integrity was a significant predictor for improving UL motor function, p = 0.007. The EEG analysis showed significant changes in ERD of the affected hemisphere and its lateralization only during unaffected UL motor imagery at the end of the therapy.

Conclusion

This is the first RCT examining BCI training in the subacute phase where only patients with severe UL paresis were included. Though more patients in the BCI group improved relative to the group size, the difference between the groups was not significant. In the present study, preserved CTS integrity was much more vital for UL improvement than which type of intervention the patients received. Larger studies including only patients with some preserved CST integrity should be attempted.
Literature
1.
Kwakkel G, Kollen B. Predicting improvement in the upper paretic limb after stroke: a longitudinal prospective study. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2007;25(5–6):453–60.PubMed
2.
Persson HC, Parziali M, Danielsson A, Sunnerhagen KS. Outcome and upper extremity function within 72 hours after first occasion of stroke in an unselected population at a stroke unit. A part of the SALGOT study. BMC Neurol. 2012;12:162.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
3.
Winters C, Kwakkel G, Nijland R, van Wegen E, EXPLICIT-Stroke Consortium. When does return of voluntary finger extension occur post-stroke? A prospective cohort study. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(8): e0160528.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
5.
6.
Thieme H, Morkisch N, Mehrholz J, Pohl M, Behrens J, Borgetto B, Dohle C. Mirror therapy for improving motor function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;7:CD008449.PubMed
7.
Hayward K, Barker R, Brauer S. Interventions to promote upper limb recovery in stroke survivors with severe paresis: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(24):1973–86.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Mehrholz J. Is electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training effective for improving arm function in people who have had a stroke?: A Cochrane review summary with commentary. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;98(4):339–40.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Xie YL, Yang YX, Jiang H, Duan XY, Gu LJ, Qing W, Zhang B, Wang YX. Brain–machine interface-based training for improving upper extremity function after stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Neurosci. 2022;16: 949575.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Remsik A, Young B, Vermilyea R, Kiekhoefer L, Abrams J, Evander Elmore S, Schultz P, Nair V, Edwards D, Williams J, Prabhakaran V. A review of the progression and future implications of brain–computer interface therapies for restoration of distal upper extremity motor function after stroke. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2016;13(5):445–54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Mazrooyisebdani M, Nair VA, Loh PL, Remsik AB, Young BM, Moreno BS, Dodd KC, Kang TJ, William JC, Prabhakaran V. Evaluation of changes in the motor network following BCI therapy based on graph theory analysis. Front Neurosci. 2018;12:861.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Mrachacz-Kersting N, Stevenson AJT, Jorgensen HRM, Severinsen KE, Aliakbaryhosseinabadi S, Jiang N, Farina D. Brain state-dependent stimulation boosts functional recovery following stroke. Ann Neurol. 2019;85(1):84–95.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Kleim JA, Jones TA. Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008;51(1):S225–39.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Carvalho R, Dias N, Cerqueira JJ. Brain–machine interface of upper limb recovery in stroke patients rehabilitation: a systematic review. Physiother Res Int. 2019;24: e1764.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Lopez-Larraz E, Sarasola-Sanz A, Irastorza-Landa N, Birbaumer N, Ramos-Murguialday A. Brain–machine interfaces for rehabilitation in stroke: a review. NeuroRehabilitation. 2018;43(1):77–97.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Cervera MA, Soekadar SR, Ushiba J, Millán JDR, Liu M, Birbaumer N, Garipelli G. Brain–computer interfaces for post-stroke motor rehabilitation: a meta-analysis. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2018;5(5):651–63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Angerhöfer C, Colucci A, Vermehren M, Hömberg V, Soekadar SR. Post-stroke rehabilitation of severe upper limb paresis in Germany—toward long-term treatment with brain–computer interfaces. Front Neurol. 2021;12: 772199.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
Ramos-Murguialday A, Curado MR, Broetz D, Yilmaz O, Brasil FL, Liberati G, Garcia-Cossio E, Cho W, Caria A, Cohen LG, Birbaumer N. Brain–machine interface in chronic stroke: randomized trial long-term follow-up. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019;33(3):188–98.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Biasiucci A, Leeb R, Iturrate I, Perdikis S, Al-Khodairy A, Corbet T, Schnider A, Schmidlin T, Zhang H, Bassolino M, Viceic D, Vuadens P, Guggisberg AG, Millán JDR. Brain-actuated functional electrical stimulation elicits lasting arm motor recovery after stroke. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):2421.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
Sebastián-Romagosa M, Cho W, Ortner R, Murovec N, Von Oertzen T, Kamada K, Allison BZ, Guger C. Brain computer interface treatment for motor rehabilitation of upper extremity of stroke patients—a feasibility study. Front Neurosci. 2020;14: 591435.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Sinha AM, Nair VA, Prabhakaran V. Brain–computer interface training with functional electrical stimulation: facilitating changes in interhemispheric functional connectivity and motor outcomes post-stroke. Front Neurosci. 2021;15: 670953.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Pichiorri F, Morone G, Petti M, Toppi J, Pisotta I, Molinari M, Paolucci S, Inghilleri M, Astolfi L, Cincotti F, Mattia D. Brain–computer interface boosts motor imagery practice during stroke recovery. Ann Neurol. 2015;77(5):851–65.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Remsik AB, Dodd K, Williams L Jr, Thoma J, Jacobson T, Allen JD, Advani H, Mohanty R, McMillan M, Rajan S, Walczak M, Young BM, Nigogosyan Z, Rivera CA, Mazrooyisebdani M, Tellapragada N, Walton LM, Gjini K, van Kan PLE, Kang TJ, Sattin JA, Nair VA, Edwards DF, Williams JC, Prabhakaran V. Behavioral outcomes following brain–computer interface intervention for upper extremity rehabilitation in stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Front Neurosci. 2018;12:752.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Norman SL, McFarland DJ, Miner A, Cramer SC, Wolbrecht ET, Wolpaw JR, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Controlling pre-movement sensorimotor rhythm can improve finger extension after stroke. J Neural Eng. 2018;15(5): 056026.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Morone G, Pisotta I, Pichiorri F, Kleih S, Paolucci S, Molinari M, Cincotti F, Kubler A, Mattia D. Proof of principle of a brain–computer interface approach to support poststroke arm rehabilitation in hospitalized patients: design, acceptability, and usability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(3 Suppl):S71–8.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Twisk J. Impact of time on improvement of outcome after stroke. Stroke. 2006;37(9):2348–53.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Krakauer JW, Carmichael ST, Corbett D, Wittenberg GF. Getting neurorehabilitation right: what can be learned from animal models? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26(8):923–31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Pizzi A, Carrai R, Falsini C, Martini M, Verdesca S, Grippo A. Prognostic value of motor evoked potentials in motor function recovery of upper limb after stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(8):654–60.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Stinear CM, Byblow WD, Ackerley SJ, Barber PA, Smith MC. Predicting recovery potential for individual stroke patients increases rehabilitation efficiency. Stroke. 2017;48(4):1011–9.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Groppa S, Oliviero A, Eisen A, Quartarone A, Cohen LG, Mall V, Kaelin-Lang A, Mima T, Rossi S, Thickbroom GW, Rossini PM, Ziemann U, Valls-Sole J, Siebner HR. A practical guide to diagnostic transcranial magnetic stimulation: report of an IFCN committee. Clin Neurophysiol. 2012;123(5):858–82.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Morita H, Baumgarten J, Petersen N, Christensen LO, Nielsen J. Recruitment of extensor-carpi-radialis motor units by transcranial magnetic stimulation and radial-nerve stimulation in human subjects. Exp Brain Res. 1999;128(4):557–62.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Pfurtscheller G, Andrew C. Event-related changes of band power and coherence: methodology and interpretation. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1999;16(6):512–9.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Platz T, Pinkowski C, van Wijck F, Kim IH, di Bella P, Johnson G. Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer test, action research arm test and box and block test: a multicentre study. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19(4):404–11.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Lundquist CB, Maribo T. The Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity: reliability, responsiveness and validity of the Danish version. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(9):934–9.PubMedCrossRef
35.
van der Lee JH, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. The responsiveness of the action research arm test and the Fugl-Meyer assessment scale in chronic stroke patients. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33(3):110–3.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Christensen H, Boysen G, Truelsen T. The Scandinavian stroke scale predicts outcome in patients with mild ischemic stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2005;20(1):46–8.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Persson HC, Opheim A, Lundgren-Nilsson A, Alt Murphy M, Danielsson A, Sunnerhagen KS. Upper extremity recovery after ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke: part of the SALGOT study. Eur Stroke J. 2016;1(4):310–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, van der Grond J, Prevo AJ. Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke. 2003;34(9):2181–6.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Stinear CM, Barber PA, Petoe M, Anwar S, Byblow WD. The PREP algorithm predicts potential for upper limb recovery after stroke. Brain. 2012;135(Pt 8):2527–35.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Boyd LA, Hayward KS, Ward NS, Stinear CM, Rosso C, Fisher RJ, Carter AR, Leff AP, Copland DA, Carey LM, Cohen LG, Basso DM, Maguire JM, Cramer SC. Biomarkers of stroke recovery: consensus-based core recommendations from the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(10–11):864–76.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Hoonhorst MHJ, Nijland RHM, van den Berg PJS, Emmelot CH, Kollen BJ, Kwakkel G. Does transcranial magnetic stimulation have an added value to clinical assessment in predicting upper-limb function very early after severe stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2018;32(8):682–90.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Lundquist CB, Nielsen JF, Arguissain FG, Brunner IC. Accuracy of the upper limb prediction algorithm PREP2 applied 2 weeks poststroke: a prospective longitudinal study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2021;35(1):68–78.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Powell ES, Westgate PM, Goldstein LB, Sawaki L. Absence of motor-evoked potentials does not predict poor recovery in patients with severe-moderate stroke: an exploratory analysis. Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2019;1(3–4): 100023.PubMedPubMedCentral
44.
45.
Lemon RN, Landau W, Tutssel D, Lawrence DG. Lawrence and Kuypers (1968a, b) revisited: copies of the original filmed material from their classic papers in brain. Brain. 2012;135(Pt 7):2290–5.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Choudhury S, Shobhana A, Singh R, Sen D, Anand SS, Shubham S, Baker MR, Kumar H, Baker SN. The relationship between enhanced reticulospinal outflow and upper limb function in chronic stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019;33(5):375–83.PubMedCrossRef
47.
48.
Hammerbeck U, Tyson SF, Samraj P, Hollands K, Krakauer JW, Rothwell J. The strength of the corticospinal tract not the reticulospinal tract determines upper-limb impairment level and capacity for skill-acquisition in the sub-acute post-stroke period. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2021;35(9):812–22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
49.
Hoonhorst MH, Nijland RH, van den Berg JS, Emmelot CH, Kollen BJ, Kwakkel G. How do Fugl-Meyer arm motor scores relate to dexterity according to the action research arm test at 6 months poststroke? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96(10):1845–9.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Winters C, Kwakkel G, van Wegen EEH, Nijland RHM, Veerbeek JM, Meskers CGM. Moving stroke rehabilitation forward: the need to change research. NeuroRehabilitation. 2018;43(1):19–30.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Ramos-Murguialday A, Broetz D, Rea M, Laer L, Yilmaz O, Brasil FL, Liberati G, Curado MR, Garcia-Cossio E, Vyziotis A, Cho W, Agostini M, Soares E, Soekadar S, Caria A, Cohen LG, Birbaumer N. Brain–machine interface in chronic stroke rehabilitation: a controlled study. Ann Neurol. 2013;74(1):100–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Kim T, Kim S, Lee B. Effects of action observational training plus brain–computer interface-based functional electrical stimulation on paretic arm motor recovery in patient with stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Occup Ther Int. 2016;23(1):39–47.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Kaiser V, Daly I, Pichiorri F, Mattia D, Müller-Putz GR, Neuper C. Relationship between electrical brain responses to motor imagery and motor impairment in stroke. Stroke. 2012;43(10):2735–40.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Brain computer interface training with motor imagery and functional electrical stimulation for patients with severe upper limb paresis after stroke: a randomized controlled pilot trial
Authors
Iris Brunner
Camilla Biering Lundquist
Asger Roer Pedersen
Erika G. Spaich
Strahinja Dosen
Andrej Savic
Publication date
01-12-2024

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 1/2024 Go to the issue

Research

Effect of task-oriented training assisted by force feedback hand rehabilitation robot on finger grasping function in stroke patients with hemiplegia: a randomised controlled trial

Research

Immediate application of low-intensity electrical noise reduced responses to visual perturbations during walking in individuals with cerebral palsy

Research

The independence of impairments in proprioception and visuomotor adaptation after stroke

Research

Exploring the challenges of avoiding collisions with virtual pedestrians using a dual-task paradigm in individuals with chronic moderate to severe traumatic brain injury

Research

Unsupervised robot-assisted rehabilitation after stroke: feasibility, effect on therapy dose, and user experience

Research

Effects of flexor reflex stimulation on gait aspects in stroke patients: randomized clinical trial