Abstract
Background
Many studies have demonstrated the usefulness of repetitive task practice by using robotic-assisted gait training (RAGT) devices, including Lokomat, for the treatment of lower limb paresis. Virtual reality (VR) has proved to be a valuable tool to improve neurorehabilitation training. The aim of our pilot randomized clinical trial was to understand the neurophysiological basis of motor function recovery induced by the association between RAGT (by using Lokomat device) and VR (an animated avatar in a 2D VR) by studying electroencephalographic (EEG) oscillations.
Methods
Twenty-four patients suffering from a first unilateral ischemic stroke in the chronic phase were randomized into two groups. One group performed 40 sessions of Lokomat with VR (RAGT + VR), whereas the other group underwent Lokomat without VR (RAGT-VR). The outcomes (clinical, kinematic, and EEG) were measured before and after the robotic intervention.
Results
As compared to the RAGT-VR group, all the patients of the RAGT + VR group improved in the Rivermead Mobility Index and Tinetti Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment. Moreover, they showed stronger event-related spectral perturbations in the high-γ and β bands and larger fronto-central cortical activations in the affected hemisphere.
Conclusions
The robotic-based rehabilitation combined with VR in patients with chronic hemiparesis induced an improvement in gait and balance. EEG data suggest that the use of VR may entrain several brain areas (probably encompassing the mirror neuron system) involved in motor planning and learning, thus leading to an enhanced motor performance.
Trial registration
Retrospectively registered in Clinical Trials on 21-11-2016, n.NCT02971371.
Keywords
LokomatErspLoretaMirror neuron systemVirtual reality
Background
Virtual reality (VR) is the simulation of a real environment generated by a computer software and experienced by the user through a human–machine interface [1]. This interface enables the patient to perceive the environment as real and 3D (i.e., the sense of presence), thus increasing patient’s engagement (i.e., embodiment) [2]. Hence, VR can be used to provide the patient with repetitive, task-specific training (as opposed to simply using a limb by chance) that are effective for motor learning functions [3, 4, 5, 6]. In fact, VR provides the patient with multisensory feedbacks that can potentiate the use-dependent plasticity processes within the sensory-motor cortex, thus promoting/enhancing functional motor recovery [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. Furthermore, VR can increase patients’ motivation during rehabilitation by decreasing the perception of exertion [8], thus allowing patients to exercise more effortlessly and regularly [9].
It is possible to magnify the sense of presence by manipulating the characteristics of the VR, including screen size, duration of exposure, the realism of the presentation, and the use of animated avatar, i.e., a third-person view of the user that appears as a player in the VR [15]. About that, the use of an avatar may strengthen the use-dependent plastic changes within higher sensory-motor areas belonging to the mirror neuron system (MNS) [16, 17, 18]. In fact, the observation of an action, even simulated (on a screen, as in the case of VR), allows the recruitment of stored motor programs that would promote, in turn, movement execution recovery [19, 20]. These processes are expressed by wide changes in α and β oscillation magnitude at the electroencephalography (EEG) (including an α activity decrease and a β activity increase) across the brain areas putatively belonging to the MNS (including the inferior frontal gyrus, the lower part of the precentral gyrus, the rostral part of the inferior parietal lobule, and the temporal, occipital and parietal visual areas) [8, 9, 21, 22].
In the last years, motor function recovery has benefited from the use of robotic devices. In particular, robot-assisted gait training (RAGT) provides the patient with highly repeated movement execution, whose feedback, in turn, permits to boost the abovementioned use-dependent plasticity processes [23]. RAGT has been combined with VR to further improve gait in patients suffering from different neurologic diseases [24]. Nonetheless, the knowledge of the neurophysiologic substrate underpinning neurorobotic and VR interaction is still poor [25, 26]. Indeed, a better understanding of this interaction would allow physician to design more personalized rehabilitative approaches concerning the individual brain plasticity potential to be harnessed to gain functional recovery [27].
The relative suppression of the μ rhythm is considered as the main index of MNS activity [28]. Nonetheless, conjugating VR and neurorobotic could make brain dynamics more complex, because of many factors related to motor control and psychological aspects come into play, including intrinsic motivation, selective attention, goal setting, working memory, decision making, positive self-concept, and self-control. Altogether, these aspects may modify and extend the range of brain rhythms deriving from different cortical areas related to MNS activation by locomotion, including theta and gamma oscillations [29, 30, 31]. Specifically, theta activity has been related to the retrieval of stored motor memory traces, whereas the gamma may be linked to the conscious access to visual target representations [30, 31]. Such broadband involvement may be due to the recruitment of multiple brain pathways expressing both bottom-up (automatic recruitment of movement simulation) and top-down (task-driven) neural processes within the MNS implicated in locomotion recognition [32]. A recent work has shown that observed, executed, and imagined action representations are decoded from putative mirror neuron areas, including Broca’s area and ventral premotor cortex, which have a complex interplay with the traditional MNS areas generating the μ rhythm [33].
Therefore, we hypothesized that the combined use of VR and RAGT may induce a stronger and wider modification of the brain oscillations deriving from the putative MNS areas, thus augmenting locomotor function gain [34, 35]. The aim of our pilot randomized clinical trial was to understand the neurophysiological basis underpinning gait recovery induced by the observation of an animated avatar in a 2D VR while performing RAGT by studying the temporal patterns of broadband cortical activations.
Methods
Participants
The present randomized clinical trial was conducted according to the CONSORT guidelines [36]. The trial was designed as a pilot, prospective, assessor blinded, parallel group study, and was performed at the IRCCS Centro Neurolesi “Bonino-Pulejo” (Messina, Italy). Eligible patients were enrolled between October 2015 and February 2016, according to the following criteria: (i) age ≥ 55 years; (ii) a first-ever ischemic supra-tentorial stroke (confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging -MRI) at least 6 months before their enrollment; (iii) an unilateral hemiparesis, with a Muscle Research Council -MRC- score ≤ 3 (a score of 3 indicates that muscle strength is reduced so that the joint can be moved only against gravity with the examiner’s resistance completely removed; 2 = muscle can move only if the resistance of gravity is removed; 1 = only a trace of movement; 0 = no movement observed) [37]; (iv) ability to follow verbal instructions, with a Mini-Mental State Examination >24; (v) a mild to moderate spasticity of muscles of hip, knee, and ankle (according to a Modified Ashworth Scale, MAS, ≤2) [38]; (vi) ability to perform manual gait training with or without external devices (Functional Ambulatory Categories 0-4). (vii) no severe bone or joint disease; and (viii) no history of concomitant neurodegenerative diseases or brain surgery.
We preferred to select patients with a first-ever ischemic supra-tentorial stroke, as this represents a better model of stroke lesion to perform EEG analysis. In fact, multiple vascular lesions could represent a significant limit for data interpretation, as they can generate variable signals that can interfere with signal recording. For instance, it has been reported that hemispheric powers differ clearly in single acute ischemic episodes, but correlate less well with the subtle, multifocal, or more gradual changes [39]. Moreover, single lesion model is more suitable to study interhemispheric balance. Last, patients with multiple vascular lesions may have different functional recovery. For the same reason, we limited the age of inclusion to >55, because beneath this age it is necessary to take into account other several, additional risk factors (including hemostatic, inflammatory and autoimmune factors, and cardioembolic sources, such as patent foramen ovale) that altogether increase the risk of multiple vascular lesions and may account for heterogeneity of sample [40].
Clinic-demographic characteristics are reported in Table 1. All participants gave informed consent before study participation. Additionally, written informed consent for publication of clinical images was obtained from the participants. Approval was obtained from our local Ethics Committee before beginning the study (study number registration 43/2013). The study was retrospectively registered in Clinical Trials on 21-11-2016, n.NCT02971371.
Table 1
Shows the individual clinical-demographic characteristics. There were no significant between-group differences in any parameter
group |
age |
gender |
lesion location |
stroke onset |
comorbidities |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
RAGT + VR |
68 |
M |
r FP |
12 |
3 |
63 |
M |
l PO |
7 |
2,3 |
|
57 |
M |
r TP |
5 |
1,4 |
|
62 |
F |
l PO |
7 |
1 |
|
60 |
M |
r FP |
6 |
1,2 |
|
59 |
M |
r P |
10 |
2,3 |
|
66 |
M |
l F |
6 |
3 |
|
56 |
F |
r FP |
10 |
1,2 |
|
58 |
M |
l PO |
8 |
1,2,4 |
|
55 |
F |
r FP |
8 |
1,4 |
|
65 |
F |
l PO |
8 |
1,3 |
|
55 |
F |
r TP |
7 |
1,4 |
|
mean ± SD |
60 ± 4 |
7 M;5F |
8 ± 2 |
||
RAGT-VR |
58 |
M |
r P |
8 |
1,3,5 |
72 |
F |
l F |
11 |
2,3 |
|
59 |
M |
l F |
5 |
1,2 |
|
54 |
M |
r P |
5 |
2 |
|
55 |
F |
r P |
10 |
1 |
|
73 |
M |
r TP |
8 |
3,5 |
|
63 |
F |
l TP |
8 |
2,2 |
|
64 |
M |
r P |
11 |
2,3 |
|
64 |
F |
l F |
6 |
3 |
|
65 |
M |
r P |
8 |
1,3,5 |
|
65 |
F |
l F |
8 |
2,3 |
|
66 |
M |
l F |
8 |
3 |
|
mean ± SD |
63 ± 6 |
7 M;5F |
8 ± 2 |
Table 3
Significant different LORETA activation (ANOVA F and p values) during gait cycle at TPOST as compared to TPRE (post-hoc p-value). Not reported data are non-significant
t × g × e |
RAGT + VR |
RAGT-VR |
||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
t × e |
TPRE-TPOST differences related to gait cycle phases |
t × e |
TPRE-TPOST differences related to gait cycle phases |
|||||||||
S1 |
T1 |
S2 |
T2 |
S1 |
T1 |
S2 |
T2 |
|||||
21, <0.001 |
28, <0.001 |
C |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
0.03 |
<0.001 |
8, 0.01 |
C |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
F |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
F |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
|||
PO |
0.004 |
0.005 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
PO |
<0.001 |
Table 4
Summarizes the ANOVA findings concerning PRE-POST group differences of ERSP (F, p) (top) and the post-hoc p-values (t, p) (bottom) related to each phase of gait cycle. Not reported data are non-significant
band |
t × g × e |
RAGT + VR |
RAGT-VR |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
t × e |
C |
F |
t × e |
C |
F |
|||
μ |
8.6, <0.001 |
77, <0.001 |
71, <0.001 |
50, <0.001 |
16, <0.001 |
3, 0.007 |
5, <0.001 |
|
β |
15, <0.001 |
72, <0.001 |
87, <0.001 |
55, <0.001 |
39, <0.001 |
8, <0.001 |
9, <0.001 |
|
Lγ |
9.2, <0.001 |
66, <0.001 |
53, <0.001 |
12, <0.001 |
25, <0.001 |
|||
Hγ |
28, <0.001 |
37, <0.001 |
12, <0.001 |
|||||
ϑ |
8.9, <0.001 |
57, <0.001 |
51, <0.001 |
10, <0.001 |
18, <0.001 |
|||
band |
electrode |
group |
PRE-POST differences related to gait cycle phases |
|||||
S1 |
T1 |
S2 |
T2 |
|||||
μ |
C |
RAGT + VR |
3.3, 0.01 |
−14, <0.001 |
3.4, 0.01 |
|||
RAGT-VR |
2.4, 0.04 |
−6.3, 0.001 |
3.3, 0.01 |
|||||
F |
RAGT + VR |
5, 0.002 |
4.5, 0.004 |
|||||
RAGT-VR |
3.6, 0.01 |
2.7, 0.03 |
||||||
PO |
RAGT + VR |
-3.4, 0.01 |
−5, 0.002 |
−3.4, 0.01 |
−3.6, 0.01 |
|||
RAGT-VR |
-3.3, 0.01 |
4.5, 0.002 |
−3.3, 0.01 |
−2.7, 0.03 |
||||
β |
C |
RAGT + VR |
-26, <0.001 |
6, 0.001 |
4.8, 0.003 |
|||
RAGT-VR |
-2.9, 0.02 |
3.9, 0.007 |
2.9, 0.02 |
|||||
F |
RAGT + VR |
-24, <0.001 |
8.3, <0.001 |
5.3, 0.002 |
||||
RAGT-VR |
-3.5, 0.01 |
3.5, 0.02 |
3.5, 0.01 |
|||||
ϑ |
C |
RAGT + VR |
5.1, 0.002 |
|||||
RAGT-VR |
3, 0.02 |
|||||||
Hγ |
F |
RAGT + VR |
-3.5, 0.01 |
−2.6, 0.03 |
−5.2, 0.002 |
|||
RAGT-VR |
||||||||
PO |
RAGT + VR |
-2.8, 0.02 |
−4.4, 0.004 |
−7, <0.001 |
−4.5, 0.003 |
|||
RAGT-VR |
||||||||
Lγ |
C |
RAGT + VR |
6, 0.001 |
5.1, 0.002 |
||||
RAGT-VR |
3.5, 0.02 |
3.8, 0.008 |
||||||
F |
RAGT + VR |
15, <0.001 |
13, <0.001 |
|||||
RAGT-VR |
4.9, 0.003 |
4.9, 0.003 |
Table 5
Summarizes the significant PRE-POST differences (t, p) of scalp projections. Not reported data are non-significant