Search

After stroke, upper limb motor impairment is one of the most common consequences that compromises the level of the autonomy of patients. In a neurorehabilitation setting, the implementation of wearable sensors provides new possibilities for enhancing hand motor recovery. In our study, we tested an innovative wearable (REMO ® ) that detected the residual surface-electromyography of forearm muscles to control a rehabilitative PC interface. The aim of this study was to define the clinical features of stroke survivors able to perform ten, five, or no hand movements for rehabilitation training. 117 stroke patients were tested: 65% of patients were able to control ten movements, 19% of patients could control nine to one movement, and 16% could control no movements. Results indicated that mild upper limb motor impairment (Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity ≥ 18 points) predicted the control of ten movements and no flexor carpi muscle spasticity predicted the control of five movements. Finally, severe impairment of upper limb motor function (Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity > 10 points) combined with no pain and no restrictions of upper limb joints predicted the control of at least one movement. In conclusion, the residual motor function, pain and joints restriction, and spasticity at the upper limb are the most important clinical features to use for a wearable REMO ® for hand rehabilitation training.

It remains unknown whether variation of scores on the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale for muscle strength is associated with operator-independent techniques: dynamometry and surface electromyography (sEMG). This study aimed to evaluate whether the scores of the MRC strength scale are associated with instrumented measures of torque and muscle activity in post-stroke survivors with severe hemiparesis both before and after an intervention. Patients affected by a first ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke within 6 months before enrollment and with complete paresis were included in the study. The pre- and post-treatment assessments included the MRC strength scale, sEMG, and dynamometry assessment of the triceps brachii (TB) and biceps brachii (BB) as measures of maximal elbow extension and flexion torque, respectively. Proprioceptive-based training was used as a treatment model, which consisted of multidirectional exercises with verbal feedback. Each treatment session lasted 1 h/day, 5 days a week for a total 15 sessions. Nineteen individuals with stroke participated in the study. A significant correlation between outcome measures for the BB (MRC and sEMG p = 0.0177, ρ = 0.601; MRC and torque p = 0.0001, ρ = 0.867) and TB (MRC and sEMG p = 0.0026, ρ = 0.717; MRC and torque p = 0.0001, ρ = 0.873) were observed post intervention. Regression models revealed a relationship between the MRC score and sEMG and torque measures for both the TB and BB. The results confirmed that variation on the MRC strength scale is associated with variation in sEMG and torque measures, especially post intervention. The regression model showed a causal relationship between MRC scale scores, sEMG, and torque assessments.

Recent studies have investigated muscle synergies as biomarkers for stroke, but it remains controversial if muscle synergies and clinical observation convey the same information on motor impairment. We aim to identify whether muscle synergies and clinical scales convey the same information or not. Post-stroke patients were administered an upper limb treatment. Before (T0) and after (T1) treatment, we assessed motor performance with clinical scales and motor output with EMG-derived muscle synergies. We implemented an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to identify the underlying relationships among all variables, at T0 and T1, and a general linear regression model to infer any relationships between the similarity between the affected and unaffected synergies (Median-sp) and clinical outcomes at T0. Clinical variables improved with rehabilitation whereas muscle-synergy parameters did not show any significant change. EFA and CFA showed that clinical variables and muscle-synergy parameters (except Median-sp) were grouped into different factors. Regression model showed that Median-sp could be well predicted by clinical scales. The information underlying clinical scales and muscle synergies are therefore different. However, clinical scales well predicted the similarity between the affected and unaffected synergies. Our results may have implications on personalizing rehabilitation protocols.