Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26157378›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2015

Dose-response relationships using brain-computer interface technology impact stroke rehabilitation.

Brittany M Young, Zack Nigogosyan, Léo M Walton, Alexander Remsik, Jie Song, Veena A Nair, Mitchell E Tyler, Dorothy F Edwards, Kristin Caldera, Justin A Sattin and 2 more

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

NCT02098265 narecruitingnot on this map

A Closed Loop Neural Activity Triggered Stroke Rehabilitation Device

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonRan2010 to 2027Enrolled288ConditionsStrokeArmsFunctional Electric Stimulation (FES), Behavioral Assessments, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, EEG, RecoveriX
NCT04141774 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Stroke Rehabilitation Using BCI Technology

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonRan2018 to 2024Enrolled84ConditionsStrokeArmsFunctional Electric Stimulation (FES), Behavioral Assessments, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, EEG
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. [Research progress on brain mechanism of brain-computer interface technology in the upper limb motor function rehabilitation in stroke patients].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2025
    Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Brittany M YoungDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin Hospital & Clinics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA ; Medical Scientist Training Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA ; Neuroscience Training Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA.
Zack NigogosyanDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin Hospital & Clinics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA.
Léo M WaltonNeuroscience Training Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA ; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA.
Alexander RemsikDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin Hospital & Clinics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA.
Jie SongDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin Hospital & Clinics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA ; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA.
Veena A NairDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin Hospital & Clinics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA.
Mitchell E TylerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA.
Dorothy F EdwardsDepartment of Kinesiology and Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA ; Department of Neurology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA.
Kristin CalderaDepartment of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA.
Justin A SattinDepartment of Neurology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA.
Justin C WilliamsNeuroscience Training Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA ; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA ; Department of Neurosurgery, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA.
Vivek PrabhakaranDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin Hospital & Clinics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA ; Medical Scientist Training Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA ; Neuroscience Training Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA ; Department of Neurology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA ; Department of Psychology and Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA.
University of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

Institutional Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000427 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI DREZNER, MARC KENNETH · 2012 to 2016
$32.2M
INTEGRATED TRAINING FOR PHYSICIAN-SCIENTISTST32GM008692 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI BURKARD, MARK E · 1998 to 2020
$10.3M
Institutional Clinical and Translational Science AwardTL1TR000429 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI DREZNER, MARC KENNETH · 2012 to 2016
$1.5M
Validating Resting State fMRI Derived Brain ConnectivityRC1MH090912 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI MEYERAND, MARY E. · 2009 to 2010
$999k
Stroke PlasticityK23NS086852 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI PRABHAKARAN, VIVEK · 2014 to 2017
$749k
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR000429NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000427NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008692NIMH NIH HHS RC1 MH090912NINDS NIH HHS K23 NS086852
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are an emerging novel technology for stroke rehabilitation. Little is known about how dose-response relationships for BCI therapies affect brain and behavior changes. We report preliminary results on stroke patients (n = 16, 11 M) with persistent upper extremity motor impairment who received therapy using a BCI system with functional electrical stimulation of the hand and tongue stimulation. We collected MRI scans and behavioral data using the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), 9-Hole Peg Test (9-HPT), and Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) before, during, and after the therapy period. Using anatomical and functional MRI, we computed Laterality Index (LI) for brain activity in the motor network during impaired hand finger tapping. Changes from baseline LI and behavioral scores were assessed for relationships with dose, intensity, and frequency of BCI therapy. We found that gains in SIS Strength were directly responsive to BCI therapy: therapy dose and intensity correlated positively with increased SIS Strength (p ≤ 0.05), although no direct relationships were identified with ARAT or 9-HPT scores. We found behavioral measures that were not directly sensitive to differences in BCI therapy administration but were associated with concurrent brain changes correlated with BCI therapy administration parameters: therapy dose and intensity showed significant (p ≤ 0.05) or trending (0.05 < p < 0.1) negative correlations with LI changes, while therapy frequency did not affect LI. Reductions in LI were then correlated (p ≤ 0.05) with increased SIS Activities of Daily Living scores and improved 9-HPT performance. Therefore, some behavioral changes may be reflected by brain changes sensitive to differences in BCI therapy administration, while others such as SIS Strength may be directly responsive to BCI therapy administration. Data preliminarily suggest that when using BCI in stroke rehabilitation, therapy frequency may be less important than dose and intensity.

Indexed as

BCI therapybrain–computer interfacedose-responsefMRIstroke rehabilitationUE motor recovery

Identifiers

PMID26157378
PMCPMC4477141
OpenAlexW1509444281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.