Abstract
AbstractSensorimotor impairments, resulting from conditions like stroke and amputations, can profoundly impact an individual’s functional abilities and overall quality of life. Assistive and rehabilitation devices such as prostheses, exo-skeletons, and serious gaming in virtual environments can help to restore some degree of function and alleviate pain after sensorimotor impairments. Myoelectric pattern recognition (MPR) has gained popularity in the past decades as it provides superior control over said devices, and therefore efforts to facilitate and improve performance in MPR can result in better rehabilitation outcomes. One possibility to enhance MPR is to employ transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to facilitate motor learning. Twelve healthy able-bodied individuals participated in this crossover study to determine the effect of tDCS on MPR performance. Baseline training was followed by two sessions of either sham or anodal tDCS using the dominant and non-dominant arms. Assignments were randomized, and the MPR task consisted of 11 different hand/wrist movements, including rest or no movement. Surface electrodes were used to record EMG and the MPR open-source platform, BioPatRec, was used for decoding motor volition in real-time. The motion test was used to evaluate performance. We hypothesized that using anodal tDCS to increase the excitability of the primary motor cortex associated with non-dominant side in able-bodied individuals, will improve motor learning and thus MPR performance. Overall, we found that tDCS enhanced MPR performance, particularly in the non-dominant side. We were able to reject the null hypothesis and improvements in the motion test’s completion rate during tDCS (28% change, p-value: 0.023) indicate its potential as an adjunctive tool to enhance MPR and motor learning. tDCS appears promising as a tool to enhance the learning phase of using assistive devices using MPR, such as myoelectric prostheses.
Funder
Stiftelsen Promobilia
IngaBritt och Arne Lundbergs Forskningsstiftelse
Vetenskapsrådet
Chalmers University of Technology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference43 articles.
1. Gittins, M. et al. Stroke impairment categories: A new way to classify the effects of stroke based on stroke-related impairments. Clin. Rehabil. 35, 446–458 (2021).
2. Hatem, S. M. et al. Rehabilitation of motor function after stroke: A multiple systematic review focused on techniques to stimulate upper extremity recovery. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10, 1–22 (2016).
3. Morgan, S. J., Friedly, J. L., Amtmann, D., Salem, R. & Hefner, B. J. A cross-sectional assessment of factors related to pain intensity and pain interference in lower limb prosthesis users. Physiol. Behav. 98, 105–113 (2018).
4. Ehde, D. M. et al. Chronic phantom sensations, phantom pain, residual limb pain, and other regional pain after lower limb amputation. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 81, 1039–1044 (2000).
5. Zbinden, J. et al. Improved control of a prosthetic limb by surgically creating electro-neuromuscular constructs with implanted electrodes. Sci. Transl. Med. 15, eabq3665 (2023).