Back to results list
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||A comparison of the rehabilitation effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation robotic hand training and pure robotic hand training after stroke : a randomized controlled trial||Authors:||Huang, YH
|Keywords:||Neuromuscular electrical stimulation
|Issue Date:||2020||Publisher:||Elsevier||Source:||Biomedical signal processing and control, Feb. 2020, v. 56, 101723, p. 1-10 How to cite?||Journal:||Biomedical signal processing and control||Abstract:||Objective: To compare the rehabilitation effects of the electromyography (EMG)-driven neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) robotic hand and EMG-driven robotic hand for chronic stroke.
Methods: This study was a randomized controlled trial with a 3-month follow-up. Thirty chronic stroke patients were randomly assigned to receive 20-session upper limb training with either EMG-driven NMES robotic hand (NMES group, n =15) or EMG-driven robotic hand (pure group, n = 15). The training effects were evaluated before and after the training, as well as 3 months later, using the clinical scores of Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Session-by-session EMG parameters, including the normalized EMG activation level and co-contraction indexes (CIs) of the target muscles were applied to monitor the recovery progress in muscular coordination patterns.
Results: Both groups achieved significantly increased FMA and ARAT scores (p <0.05), and the NMES group improved more (p <0.05). A significant improvement in MAS was obtained in the NMES group (p < 0.05) but absence in the pure group. Meanwhile, better performance could be obtained in the NMES group in releasing the EMG activation levels and CIs than the pure group across the training sessions (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Both training systems were effective in improving the long-term distal motor functions in upper limb, where the NMES robot-assisted training achieved better voluntary motor recovery and muscle coordination and more release in muscle spasticity.
Significance: This study indicated more effective distal rehabilitation using the NMES robot than the pure robot-assisted rehabilitation.
|URI:||http://hdl.handle.net/10397/81736||ISSN:||1746-8094||DOI:||10.1016/j.bspc.2019.101723||Rights:||©2019 The Authors.Published by Elsevier Ltd.This is an open access article under the CCBY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
The following publication Huang, Y. H., Nam, C. Y., Li, W. M., Rong, W., Xie, Y. N., Liu, Y. C., . . . Hu, X. L. (2020). A comparison of the rehabilitation effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation robotic hand training and pure robotic hand training after stroke : a randomized controlled trial. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 56, 101723, 1-10 is available at https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2019.101723
|Appears in Collections:||Journal/Magazine Article|
Show full item record
Files in This Item:
|Huang_Rehabilitation_neuromuscular_Electrical.pdf||1.67 MB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
Citations as of May 6, 2020
Citations as of May 6, 2020
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.