4.7 Article

Evidence for improved muscle activation patterns after retraining of reaching movements with the MIME robotic system in subjects with post-stroke hemiparesis

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2004.827225

关键词

arm; electromyography (EMG); movement; rehabilitation; robotics; stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previously, we reported that chronic stroke subjects had significant improvements in isometric strength, free reaching extent, and clinical evaluations of function after training in the mirror-image movement enabler (MIME) robotic device. Our primary goal in this analysis was to investigate the hypothesis that the robotic training promoted improved muscle activation patterns. To this end, we examined the interaction forces, kinematics, and electromyograms recorded during training of eight different movement patterns in active-constrained mode. In this mode, the robot constrained the reaching movements to be toward the target, and the movement velocity was proportional to the force produced along the trajectory. Thirteen chronic stroke subjects trained in MIME for 24 1-h sessions over an eight-week period. Work output was significantly increased by week five in all eight movement patterns. Low-level subjects increased their extent of reach, while high-level subjects increased their speed. Directional errors in force production were reduced in six of eight movement patterns. Electromyographic data. provided evidence for improved muscle activation patterns in the four movement patterns that started at tabletop level and ended at shoulder level. In contrast, there was no evidence of improved muscle activation patterns in any of the tabletop movements, with increased activation of antagonists in two movement patterns. This dichotomy may have been related to compensation at the shoulder girdle during movements that remained at tabletop level. A simple biomechanical model will be introduced to demonstrate the likelihood of this possibility.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据