4.6 Article

Near-infrared spectroscopy and imaging for investigating stroke rehabilitation: Test-retest reliability and review of the literature

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 87, Issue 12, Pages S12-S19

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.07.269

Keywords

hemodynamics; motor skills; oxyhemoglobins; rehabilitation; spectroscopy; near infrared

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To review the use of near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) in stroke rehabilitation and to evaluate NIRS test-retest reliability within-session on a motor control task commonly used in neuroimaging of stroke recovery. Design: Cohort study. Setting: Hospital-based research laboratory. Participants: Nineteen healthy control subjects (age range, 22-55y). Interventions: Subjects performed 2 experimental runs of a finger-opposition task in a block-design paradigm (finger opposition alternated with a fixation rest period) while undergoing multichannel NIRS and physiologic monitoring. Main Outcome Measure: Reliability coefficients (Pearson r) for oxyhemoglobin (O(2)Hb) and deoxyhemoglobin (HHb) correlated amplitude modulations across measurement channels during individual blocks and block averages. Results: Correlations between single blocks (ie, 16-s slices of data) exhibited a correlation intercept of 33 +/- .09 for O(2)Hb. This value was minimally decreased by increasing lag between compared blocks (slope, -.012; P=.019) but was substantially enhanced by averaging across blocks (within-run slope, 11: between-run slope, .044). Correlations using 64 seconds of data reached 0.6. Results for HHb were virtually identical. Conclusions: NIRS modulations were repeatable even when comparing very short segments of data. When averaging longer data segments, the test-retest correspondences compared favorably to neuroimaging using other modalities. This suggests that NIRS is a reliable tool for longitudinal stroke rehabilitation and recovery studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available