Back

Robotic-Assisted Gait for lower-limb Rehabilitation: Evidence of Altered Neural Mechanisms in Stroke

Mayor-Torres, J. M.; O'Callaghan, B.; Korirk, A.; Del Felice, A.; Coyle, D.; Murphy, S.; Lennon, O.

2022-02-01 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.1101/2022.02.01.22269218 medRxiv
Show abstract

Robotic-Assisted Gait training (RAGT) offers an innovative therapeutic option for restoration of functional gait in stroke survivors, complementing existing physical rehabilitation strategies. However, there is a limited understanding of the neurophysiological response induced by this training in end-users. Neural desynchronization and Cortico-Muscular Coherence (CMC) are two biomarkers that define the level of muscle-cortex association during gait phases and can be used to estimate induced users adaptation during RAGT. In this study, we measure Event-Related Spectral Perturbation (ERSP) and CMC from three healthy individuals and three stroke survivors during overground-gait with and without an exoskeleton. Results show that (1) the use of the exoskeleton in healthy individuals is associated with a different and more refined motor-control represented in a high{theta} -desynchronization, (2) altered and noisy ERSP and lower and non-focal {beta}-CMC patterns are observed in Stroke patients when performing overground-gait both with and without the Exoskeleton, and (3) Exoskeleton use in stroke survivors is associated with a reduction in swing-time during gait-cycle, but this effect is not correlated with an increment of{theta} -desynchronization and/or {beta}-CMC. ERSP and CMC demonstrated evidence of neural modulation in able-bodied users during RAGT, which could not be detected in subacute stroke survivors during RAGT. These results suggest that the gait-parameters changes observed during exoskeleton use in subacute stroke survivors are unlikely to be neurally driven.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.