Robot-Assisted Therapy and Motor Learning: An Active Learning Program for Stroke

Not Applicable

Completed

Conditions: Stroke

Interventions: Device: Robot & Task-Oriented Training (RT-TOT)
Device: Robot-Assisted Therapy (RT)

Registration Number: NCT02747433

Lead Sponsor: Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital

Brief Summary: Stroke is the leading cause of long-term disability in older adults in the United States. At six months after stroke, up to 65% of the more than 795,000 persons who experience a stroke each year continue to have motor impairments that inhibit functional use of the weaker arm during daily activities and negatively impact quality of life. Rehabilitation robots provide clinicians with new treatment options to improve movement and arm function after stroke. The purpose of this pilot study is to develop and test a therapy called the "Active Learning Program for Stroke" (ALPS). We are combining this therapy program with robot-assisted therapy and a home program for the stroke-affected arm and hand.

Detailed Description: Little is known about how individuals learn to utilize robot-trained movements during upper extremity (UE) activities in the home and community and whether specific instruction can enhance motor learning and carry-over.. Systematic reviews of robot-assisted therapy for the paretic UE confirm gains in motor capacity as measured by clinical assessments, but provide little evidence of improved UE performance during daily tasks and occupations. These findings may be attributed to the limited availability of rehabilitation robots to train the paretic hand and a primary focus on intensity of practice with little regard for other principles of motor learning and experience-dependent neuroplasticity. These principles, including the salience of training tasks, transfer of acquired skills to similar activities, and active engagement and problem solving, are key to task-oriented training paradigms in stroke (e.g. constraint-induced movement therapy) but have not been well integrated into robot-assisted therapy protocols. The transfer of robot-trained movements to UE activities within the home and community needs further exploration before widespread use in rehabilitation practice is expected.

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status: COMPLETED

Sex: All

Target Recruitment: 11

Inclusion Criteria

Moderate UE hemiparesis (i.e. some ability to move shoulder, elbow & hand and initial score on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) between 21-50/66))
Intact cognitive function to understand and actively engage in the ALPS robotic therapy procedures (Montreal Cognitive Assessment Score >/=26/30)12 during initial evaluation visit

Exclusion Criteria

No more than moderate impairments in paretic UE sensation, passive range of motion, and pain that would limit ability to engage in therapy
Increased muscle tone as indicated by score of >/= 3 on the Modified Ashworth Scale;
Hemispatial neglect or visual field loss measured by the symbol cancellation subtest on the Cognitive Linguistic Quick Test 13
Aphasia sufficient to limit comprehension and completion of the treatment protocol
Currently enrolled or has plans to enroll in other upper limb therapy/research during the study period
Contraindications for robot-assisted therapy including recent fracture or skin lesion of paretic UE

Study & Design

Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL

Study Design: FACTORIAL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
ALPS + Robot + Task-Oriented Training (RT-TOT)	Robot & Task-Oriented Training (RT-TOT)	Armeo and Amadeo robot-assisted intensive upper extremity therapy 30 mins, 3x week for 6 weeks plus ALPS training. Task oriented training will be provided for remaining 30 min of each treatment session
ALPS + Robot-Assisted Therapy (RT)	Robot-Assisted Therapy (RT)	Armeo and Amadeo robot-assisted intensive upper extremity therapy 1 hr sessions 3x week for 6 weeks plus ALPS training

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Change From Baseline in Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT)	Baseline and 1-month follow-up	The WMFT examined changes in ability to complete timed, functionally-based activities with the paretic UE between baseline, post-intervention and 1-month follow-up assessments. The task rate was calculated as the average # of times that each test item could be completed within 1 minute. Here we report the change in task rate scores between admission and 1 month follow-up assessments to reflect retention of motor function following intervention. A higher number indicates improved task completion.
Change From Baseline on Confidence in Arm and Hand Movement (CAHM) Scale	Baseline and 1-month follow-up	The CAHM is a self-report assessment in which participants are asked to rate their confidence (0-100%) in successfully using their paretic UE for a variety of everyday activities. Change in confidence ratings between baseline, post-intervention and 1-month follow up assessments were examined. A higher score indicates greater confidence. We report change scores between admission and 1 month follow up assessments to reflect retention of scores following intervention.
Change From Baseline in Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) - Upper Extremity Subtest	Baseline and 1-month follow-up	The FMA will examine changes in motor function, pain and sensation in the paretic UE between baseline, post-intervention and 1-month follow-up assessments. The FMA upper extremity subtest contains 33 items, scored as 0= unable, 1=partial ability, 2= faultless with a total possible score of 66 points. Change was calculated as the value at the 1 month follow-up assessment minus the value at baseline to reflect retention of motor function following intervention.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Change From Baseline on Motor Activity Log (MAL) - How Well (HW) Scale	Baseline and 1-month follow-up	The MAL has been widely used in stroke rehabilitation studies to measure self-reported amount and quality of paretic arm use during daily activities. Participant's self-reported amount of use (AOU) and how well the task was performed (HW) are rated on a scale from 0=not used at all to 5=as much or as well as before the stroke. Higher scores indicate greater perceived motor function in the paretic arm \& hand. We report change scores in how well the function was performed between admission and 1 month follow up assessments to reflect retention of motor function following intervention..
Change From Baseline on Motor Activity Log (MAL) - Amount of Use (AOU) Scale	Baseline and 1-month follow-up	The MAL has been widely used in stroke rehabilitation studies to measure self-reported amount and quality of paretic arm use during daily activities. Participant's self-reported amount of use (AOU) and how well the task was performed (HW) are rated on a scale from 0=not used at all to 5=as much or as well as before the stroke. Higher scores indicate greater perceived motor function in the paretic arm \& hand. We report change scores in amount of use (AOU) between admission and 1 month follow up assessments to reflect retention of motor function following intervention..
Change From Baseline in Log Dimensionless Jerk During Reach-to-Target Task	Baseline and immediately after 6-week intervention	Participants were asked to reach forward from a designated starting position toward a panel with 12 numbered targets positioned in a clockwise-fashion 20 cm from from its center. The center of the target was aligned with the acromion of the paretic arm and reflective markers were attached to locations on the trunk and paretic arm to allow recording of kinematic data via 3-D motion capture (Vicon Motion Systems Ltd. UK) for off-line analysis. Data from reaching movements to all targets were combined for analysis. We report the median values for Log Normalized Jerk, a measure of movement smoothness during reach, for the entire sample at the time of a discharge assessment immediately following the 6-week intervention.
Change From Baseline on Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS)	Baseline and 1-month follow-up	The MAS examined changes in muscle tone in the paretic UE . Scores range from 0=no increase in muscle tone to 4=affected part(s) rigid in flexion or extension. Tested muscle groups include shoulder internal rotators, elbow flexors/extensors, supinators, pronators, wrist flexors/extensors, finger flexors/extensors. Lower scores indicate better motor function. We present the change scores between admission and 1 month follow up assessments to reflect retention of motor function following intervention. .
Change From Baseline on Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) - Hand Domain	Baseline and 1-month follow-up	The SIS measured changes in activity and participation due to stroke. The SIS assesses eight domains including strength, hand function, activities of daily living/instrumental activities of daily living, mobility, communication, emotion, memory \& thinking, and participation/role function. A transformed score for each domain is calculated from its raw score and represented by a 100 point scale, with higher scores representing better performance. We report the change in transformed scores for the hand function domain, between admission and 1 month follow up assessments to reflect retention of motor function following intervention.
Change From Baseline on Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) - Percent Recovery	Baseline and 1-month follow-up	The SIS measures changes in activity and participation due to stroke. The SIS assesses eight domains including strength, hand function, activities of daily living/instrumental activities of daily living, mobility, communication, emotion, memory \& thinking, and participation/role function. A transformed score for each domain is calculated from its raw score and represented by a 100 point scale, with higher scores representing better performance. We report the participants' rating of stroke recovery (how much the participant feels that he/she has recovered from stroke with 0=no recovery, 100=full recovery), between admission and 1 month follow up assessments to reflect retention of motor function following intervention.
Change From Baseline in Movement Time During Reach-to-Target Task	Baseline and immediately after 6-week intervention	Participants were asked to reach forward from a designated starting position toward a panel with 12 numbered targets positioned in a clockwise-fashion 20 cm from from its center. The center of the target was aligned with the acromion of the paretic arm and reflective markers were attached to locations on the trunk and paretic arm to allow recording of kinematic data via 3-D motion capture (Vicon Motion Systems Ltd. UK) for off-line analysis. Data from reaching movements to all targets were combined for analysis. We report the median values for Movement Time (sec) for the entire sample at the time of a discharge assessment immediately following the 6-week intervention.