Cargando…

Longitudinal Electroencephalography Analysis in Subacute Stroke Patients During Intervention of Brain–Computer Interface With Exoskeleton Feedback

BACKGROUND: Brain–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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Shugeng, Cao, Lei, Shu, Xiaokang, Wang, Hewei, Ding, Li, Wang, Shui-Hua, Jia, Jie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7457033/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32922254
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00809
_version_ 1783575919298871296
author Chen, Shugeng
Cao, Lei
Shu, Xiaokang
Wang, Hewei
Ding, Li
Wang, Shui-Hua
Jia, Jie
author_facet Chen, Shugeng
Cao, Lei
Shu, Xiaokang
Wang, Hewei
Ding, Li
Wang, Shui-Hua
Jia, Jie
author_sort Chen, Shugeng
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Brain–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 METHODS: Fourteen 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. RESULTS: After 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. CONCLUSION: Brain–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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7457033
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74570332020-09-11 Longitudinal Electroencephalography Analysis in Subacute Stroke Patients During Intervention of Brain–Computer Interface With Exoskeleton Feedback Chen, Shugeng Cao, Lei Shu, Xiaokang Wang, Hewei Ding, Li Wang, Shui-Hua Jia, Jie Front Neurosci Neuroscience BACKGROUND: Brain–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 METHODS: Fourteen 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. RESULTS: After 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. CONCLUSION: Brain–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. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-08-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7457033/ /pubmed/32922254 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00809 Text en Copyright © 2020 Chen, Cao, Shu, Wang, Ding, Wang and Jia. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Chen, Shugeng
Cao, Lei
Shu, Xiaokang
Wang, Hewei
Ding, Li
Wang, Shui-Hua
Jia, Jie
Longitudinal Electroencephalography Analysis in Subacute Stroke Patients During Intervention of Brain–Computer Interface With Exoskeleton Feedback
title Longitudinal Electroencephalography Analysis in Subacute Stroke Patients During Intervention of Brain–Computer Interface With Exoskeleton Feedback
title_full Longitudinal Electroencephalography Analysis in Subacute Stroke Patients During Intervention of Brain–Computer Interface With Exoskeleton Feedback
title_fullStr Longitudinal Electroencephalography Analysis in Subacute Stroke Patients During Intervention of Brain–Computer Interface With Exoskeleton Feedback
title_full_unstemmed Longitudinal Electroencephalography Analysis in Subacute Stroke Patients During Intervention of Brain–Computer Interface With Exoskeleton Feedback
title_short Longitudinal Electroencephalography Analysis in Subacute Stroke Patients During Intervention of Brain–Computer Interface With Exoskeleton Feedback
title_sort longitudinal electroencephalography analysis in subacute stroke patients during intervention of brain–computer interface with exoskeleton feedback
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7457033/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32922254
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00809
work_keys_str_mv AT chenshugeng longitudinalelectroencephalographyanalysisinsubacutestrokepatientsduringinterventionofbraincomputerinterfacewithexoskeletonfeedback
AT caolei longitudinalelectroencephalographyanalysisinsubacutestrokepatientsduringinterventionofbraincomputerinterfacewithexoskeletonfeedback
AT shuxiaokang longitudinalelectroencephalographyanalysisinsubacutestrokepatientsduringinterventionofbraincomputerinterfacewithexoskeletonfeedback
AT wanghewei longitudinalelectroencephalographyanalysisinsubacutestrokepatientsduringinterventionofbraincomputerinterfacewithexoskeletonfeedback
AT dingli longitudinalelectroencephalographyanalysisinsubacutestrokepatientsduringinterventionofbraincomputerinterfacewithexoskeletonfeedback
AT wangshuihua longitudinalelectroencephalographyanalysisinsubacutestrokepatientsduringinterventionofbraincomputerinterfacewithexoskeletonfeedback
AT jiajie longitudinalelectroencephalographyanalysisinsubacutestrokepatientsduringinterventionofbraincomputerinterfacewithexoskeletonfeedback