TY - JOUR
T1 - Accelerometry Measuring the Outcome of Robot-Supported Upper Limb Training in Chronic Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial
AU - Lemmens, R.J.M.
AU - Timmermans, A.A.A.
AU - Janssen-Potten, Y.J.M.
AU - Pulles, S.A.N.T.D.
AU - Geers, R.P.J.
AU - Bakx, W.G.M.
AU - Smeets, R.J.E.M.
AU - Seelen, H.A.M.
PY - 2014/1/1
Y1 - 2014/1/1
N2 - Purpose: This study aims to assess the extent to which accelerometers can be used to determine the effect of robot-supported task-oriented arm-hand training, relative to task-oriented arm-hand training alone, on the actual amount of arm-hand use of chronic stroke patients in their home situation. Methods: This single-blind randomized controlled trial included 16 chronic stroke patients, randomly allocated using blocked randomization (n = 2) to receive task-oriented robot-supported arm-hand training or task-oriented (unsupported) arm-hand training. Training lasted 8 weeks, 4 times/ week, 2 Chi 30 min/ day using the (T-) TOAT ((Technology-supported)-Task-Oriented-Arm-Training) method. The actual amount of arm-hand use, was assessed at baseline, after 8 weeks training and 6 months after training cessation. Duration of use and intensity of use of the affected arm-hand during unimanual and bimanual activities were calculated. Results: Duration and intensity of use of the affected arm-hand did not change significantly during and after training, with or without robot-support (i.e. duration of use of unimanual use of the affected arm-hand: median difference of -0.17% in the robot-group and -0.08% in the control group between baseline and after training cessation; intensity of the affected arm-hand: median difference of 3.95% in the robot-group and 3.32% in the control group between baseline and after training cessation). No significant between-group differences were found. Conclusions: Accelerometer data did not show significant changes in actual amount of arm-hand use after task-oriented training, with or without robot-support. Next to the amount of use, discrimination between activities performed and information about quality of use of the affected arm-hand are essential to determine actual arm-hand performance.
AB - Purpose: This study aims to assess the extent to which accelerometers can be used to determine the effect of robot-supported task-oriented arm-hand training, relative to task-oriented arm-hand training alone, on the actual amount of arm-hand use of chronic stroke patients in their home situation. Methods: This single-blind randomized controlled trial included 16 chronic stroke patients, randomly allocated using blocked randomization (n = 2) to receive task-oriented robot-supported arm-hand training or task-oriented (unsupported) arm-hand training. Training lasted 8 weeks, 4 times/ week, 2 Chi 30 min/ day using the (T-) TOAT ((Technology-supported)-Task-Oriented-Arm-Training) method. The actual amount of arm-hand use, was assessed at baseline, after 8 weeks training and 6 months after training cessation. Duration of use and intensity of use of the affected arm-hand during unimanual and bimanual activities were calculated. Results: Duration and intensity of use of the affected arm-hand did not change significantly during and after training, with or without robot-support (i.e. duration of use of unimanual use of the affected arm-hand: median difference of -0.17% in the robot-group and -0.08% in the control group between baseline and after training cessation; intensity of the affected arm-hand: median difference of 3.95% in the robot-group and 3.32% in the control group between baseline and after training cessation). No significant between-group differences were found. Conclusions: Accelerometer data did not show significant changes in actual amount of arm-hand use after task-oriented training, with or without robot-support. Next to the amount of use, discrimination between activities performed and information about quality of use of the affected arm-hand are essential to determine actual arm-hand performance.
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0096414
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0096414
M3 - Article
C2 - 24823925
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 9
JO - PLOS ONE
JF - PLOS ONE
IS - 5
M1 - e96414
ER -