ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2015
A Single-Session Preliminary Evaluation of an Affordable BCI-Controlled Arm Exoskeleton and Motor-Proprioception Platform.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- EEG-Based Control for Upper and Lower Limb Exoskeletons and Prostheses: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Pooled it
- Review of Soft Robotic Gloves and Functional Electrical Stimulation Affecting Hand Function Rehabilitation for Stroke Patients.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Repetitive Grasping After Stroke Assisted by Functional Electrical Stimulation.Artificial organs · 2025Observational
- The assistive potential of functional electrical stimulation to support object manipulation in functional upper extremity movements after stroke: A randomized cross-over study.Journal of central nervous system disease · 2024Article
- A Differentiable Dynamic Model for Musculoskeletal Simulation and Exoskeleton Control.Biosensors · 2022Article
- Sensors and Actuation Technologies in Exoskeletons: A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- What is it like to use a BCI? - insights from an interview study with brain-computer interface users.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Perceptions of Existing Wearable Robotic Devices for Upper Extremity and Suggestions for Their Development: Findings From Therapists and People With Stroke.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2018Article
- Combining Mental Training and Physical Training With Goal-Oriented Protocols in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Feasibility Case Study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2018Article
- Article
- Classification Scheme for Arm Motor Imagery.Journal of medical and biological engineeringArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional, hospital-based stroke rehabilitation can be labor-intensive and expensive. Furthermore, outcomes from rehabilitation are inconsistent across individuals and recovery is hard to predict. Given these uncertainties, numerous technological approaches have been tested in an effort to improve rehabilitation outcomes and reduce the cost of stroke rehabilitation. These techniques include brain-computer interface (BCI), robotic exoskeletons, functional electrical stimulation (FES), and proprioceptive feedback. However, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have combined all these approaches into a rehabilitation platform that facilitates goal-directed motor movements. Therefore, in this paper, we combined all these technologies to test the feasibility of using a BCI-driven exoskeleton with FES (robotic training device) to facilitate motor task completion among individuals with stroke. The robotic training device operated to assist a pre-defined goal-directed motor task. Because it is hard to predict who can utilize this type of technology, we considered whether the ability to adapt skilled movements with proprioceptive feedback would predict who could learn to control a BCI-driven robotic device. To accomplish this aim, we developed a motor task that requires proprioception for completion to assess motor-proprioception ability. Next, we tested the feasibility of robotic training system in individuals with chronic stroke (n = 9) and found that the training device was well tolerated by all the participants. Ability on the motor-proprioception task did not predict the time to completion of the BCI-driven task. Both participants who could accurately target (n = 6) and those who could not (n = 3), were able to learn to control the BCI device, with each BCI trial lasting on average 2.47 min. Our results showed that the participants' ability to use proprioception to control motor output did not affect their ability to use the BCI-driven exoskeleton with FES. Based on our preliminary results, we show that our robotic training device has potential for use as therapy for a broad range of individuals with stroke.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.