Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25870554›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2015

A Single-Session Preliminary Evaluation of an Affordable BCI-Controlled Arm Exoskeleton and Motor-Proprioception Platform.

Ahmed Mohamed Elnady, Xin Zhang, Zhen Gang Xiao, Xinyi Yong, Bubblepreet Kaur Randhawa, Lara Boyd, Carlo Menon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Classification Scheme for Arm Motor Imagery.Journal of medical and biological engineering
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ahmed Mohamed ElnadyMENRVA Research Group, School of Engineering Science, Simon Fraser University , Burnaby, BC , Canada.
Xin ZhangMENRVA Research Group, School of Engineering Science, Simon Fraser University , Burnaby, BC , Canada.
Zhen Gang XiaoMENRVA Research Group, School of Engineering Science, Simon Fraser University , Burnaby, BC , Canada.
Xinyi YongMENRVA Research Group, School of Engineering Science, Simon Fraser University , Burnaby, BC , Canada.
Bubblepreet Kaur RandhawaMENRVA Research Group, School of Engineering Science, Simon Fraser University , Burnaby, BC , Canada.
Lara BoydBrain Behaviour Laboratory, Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia , Vancouver, BC , Canada.
Carlo MenonMENRVA Research Group, School of Engineering Science, Simon Fraser University , Burnaby, BC , Canada.
Simon Fraser University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BCIelectric stimulationexoskeletonproprioceptionstroke

Identifiers

PMID25870554
PMCPMC4378300
OpenAlexW1984351743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.