Cargando…

Does Real-Time Feedback Affect Sensorimotor EEG Patterns in Routine Motor Imagery Practice?

Background. Motor imagery engages much of the same neural circuits as an overt movement. Therefore, the mental rehearsal of movements is often used to supplement physical training and might aid motor neurorehabilitation after stroke. One attempt to capture the brain’s involvement in imagery involves...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vasilyev, Anatoly N., Nuzhdin, Yury O., Kaplan, Alexander Y.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8469546/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34573253
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11091234
_version_ 1784573960048869376
author Vasilyev, Anatoly N.
Nuzhdin, Yury O.
Kaplan, Alexander Y.
author_facet Vasilyev, Anatoly N.
Nuzhdin, Yury O.
Kaplan, Alexander Y.
author_sort Vasilyev, Anatoly N.
collection PubMed
description Background. Motor imagery engages much of the same neural circuits as an overt movement. Therefore, the mental rehearsal of movements is often used to supplement physical training and might aid motor neurorehabilitation after stroke. One attempt to capture the brain’s involvement in imagery involves the use, as a marker, of the depression or event-related desynchronization (ERD) of thalamocortical sensorimotor rhythms found in a human electroencephalogram (EEG). Using fast real-time processing, it is possible to make the subject aware of their own brain reactions or—even better—to turn them into actions through a technology called the brain–computer interface (BCI). However, it remains unclear whether BCI-enabled imagery facilitates a stronger or qualitatively different brain response compared to the open-loop training. Methods. Seven healthy volunteers who were experienced in both closed and open-loop motor imagery took part in six experimental sessions over a period of 4.5 months, in which they performed kinesthetic imagery of a previously known set of finger and arm movements with simultaneous 30-channel EEG acquisition. The first and the last session mostly consisted of feedback trials in which the subjects were presented with the classification results of the EEG patterns in real time; during the other sessions, no feedback was provided. Spatiotemporal and amplitude features of the ERD patterns concomitant with imagery were compared across experimental days and between feedback conditions using linear mixed-effects modeling. Results. The main spatial sources of ERD appeared to be highly stable across the six experimental days, remaining nearly identical in five of seven subjects (Pearson’s ρ > 0.94). Only in one subject did the spatial pattern of activation statistically significantly differ (p = 0.009) between the feedback and no-feedback conditions. Real-time visual feedback delivered through the BCI did not significantly increase the ERD strength. Conclusion. The results imply that the potential benefits of MI could be yielded by well-habituated subjects with a simplified open-loop setup, e.g., through at-home self-practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8469546
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84695462021-09-27 Does Real-Time Feedback Affect Sensorimotor EEG Patterns in Routine Motor Imagery Practice? Vasilyev, Anatoly N. Nuzhdin, Yury O. Kaplan, Alexander Y. Brain Sci Article Background. Motor imagery engages much of the same neural circuits as an overt movement. Therefore, the mental rehearsal of movements is often used to supplement physical training and might aid motor neurorehabilitation after stroke. One attempt to capture the brain’s involvement in imagery involves the use, as a marker, of the depression or event-related desynchronization (ERD) of thalamocortical sensorimotor rhythms found in a human electroencephalogram (EEG). Using fast real-time processing, it is possible to make the subject aware of their own brain reactions or—even better—to turn them into actions through a technology called the brain–computer interface (BCI). However, it remains unclear whether BCI-enabled imagery facilitates a stronger or qualitatively different brain response compared to the open-loop training. Methods. Seven healthy volunteers who were experienced in both closed and open-loop motor imagery took part in six experimental sessions over a period of 4.5 months, in which they performed kinesthetic imagery of a previously known set of finger and arm movements with simultaneous 30-channel EEG acquisition. The first and the last session mostly consisted of feedback trials in which the subjects were presented with the classification results of the EEG patterns in real time; during the other sessions, no feedback was provided. Spatiotemporal and amplitude features of the ERD patterns concomitant with imagery were compared across experimental days and between feedback conditions using linear mixed-effects modeling. Results. The main spatial sources of ERD appeared to be highly stable across the six experimental days, remaining nearly identical in five of seven subjects (Pearson’s ρ > 0.94). Only in one subject did the spatial pattern of activation statistically significantly differ (p = 0.009) between the feedback and no-feedback conditions. Real-time visual feedback delivered through the BCI did not significantly increase the ERD strength. Conclusion. The results imply that the potential benefits of MI could be yielded by well-habituated subjects with a simplified open-loop setup, e.g., through at-home self-practice. MDPI 2021-09-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8469546/ /pubmed/34573253 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11091234 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Vasilyev, Anatoly N.
Nuzhdin, Yury O.
Kaplan, Alexander Y.
Does Real-Time Feedback Affect Sensorimotor EEG Patterns in Routine Motor Imagery Practice?
title Does Real-Time Feedback Affect Sensorimotor EEG Patterns in Routine Motor Imagery Practice?
title_full Does Real-Time Feedback Affect Sensorimotor EEG Patterns in Routine Motor Imagery Practice?
title_fullStr Does Real-Time Feedback Affect Sensorimotor EEG Patterns in Routine Motor Imagery Practice?
title_full_unstemmed Does Real-Time Feedback Affect Sensorimotor EEG Patterns in Routine Motor Imagery Practice?
title_short Does Real-Time Feedback Affect Sensorimotor EEG Patterns in Routine Motor Imagery Practice?
title_sort does real-time feedback affect sensorimotor eeg patterns in routine motor imagery practice?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8469546/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34573253
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11091234
work_keys_str_mv AT vasilyevanatolyn doesrealtimefeedbackaffectsensorimotoreegpatternsinroutinemotorimagerypractice
AT nuzhdinyuryo doesrealtimefeedbackaffectsensorimotoreegpatternsinroutinemotorimagerypractice
AT kaplanalexandery doesrealtimefeedbackaffectsensorimotoreegpatternsinroutinemotorimagerypractice