100
Views
16
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

A Novel Adaptive Mixed Reality System for Stroke Rehabilitation: Principles, Proof of Concept, and Preliminary Application in 2 Patients

, , , , , , & show all
Pages 212-230 | Published online: 05 Jan 2015

REFERENCES

  • Schmidt RA. Motor learning principles for physical therapy. Contemporary Management of Motor Control Problems: Proceedings of the ll STEP Conference. 1991:49–62.
  • Holden MK. Virtual environments for motor rehabilitation: review. CyberPsychol Behav. 2005;8:187–211.
  • Sveistrup H. Motor rehabilitation using virtual reality. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2004;1:10–17.
  • Subramanian S, Knaut LA, Beaudoin C, McFadyen BJ, Feldman AG, Levin MF. Virtual reality environments for post-stroke arm rehabilitation. Neuroengineering Rehabil. 2007;4:20–24.
  • Jung Y, Yeh S, Stewart J. Tailoring virtual reality technology for stroke rehabilitation: a human factors design. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2006;929–934.
  • Piron L, Tonin P, Piccione F, Laia V, Trivello E, Dam M. Virtual environment training therapy for arm motor rehabilitation. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 2005;14:732–740.
  • Cirstea MC, Levin Mr. Improvement of arm movement patterns and endpoint control depends on type of feedback during practice in stroke survivors. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21:398–411.
  • Jack D, Boian R, Merians AS, et al. Virtual reality-enhanced stroke rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2001;9:308–318.
  • Wagner JM, Rhodes JA, Patten C. Reproducibility and minimal detectable change of three-dimensional kinematic analysis of reaching tasks in people with hemiparesis after stroke. Phys Ther. 2008;88:652–663.
  • Pridmore T, Green J, Hilton D, Eastgate R, Cobb S. Mixed reality environments in stroke rehabilitation: interfaces across the real/virtual divide. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality & Associated Technology, Oxford, UK, 2004:1–17.
  • Lehrer N, Attygalle S, Wolf SL, Rikakis T. Exploring the bases for a mixed reality stroke rehabilitation system: part I. a unified approach for representing action, quantitative evaluation, and interactive feedback. Submitted for publication.
  • Cirstea MC, Levin MF. Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain. 2000;123:940–953.
  • Roby-Brami A, Fuchs S, Mokhtari M, Bussel B. Reaching and grasping strategies in hemiparetic patients. Motor Function. 1997;1:72–91.
  • Levin MF, Kleim JA, Wolf SL. What do motor "recovery" and "compensation" mean in patients following stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(4):313–319.
  • Chen Y, Duff M, Lehrer N, et al. A computational framework for quantitative evaluation of movement during rehabilitation. International Symposium on Computational Models for Life Sciences; October 2011; Japan.
  • Lehrer N, Attygalle S, Chen Y, Wolf SL, Rikakis T. Exploring the bases for a mixed reality stroke rehabilitation system: part II. Application of principles for the design of interactive feedback for upper limb rehabilitation. Submitted for publication.
  • Duff M, Chen Y, Attygalle S, et al. An adaptive mixed reality training system for stroke rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2010;18(5) :531–541.
  • McPartland DD, Krebs DE, Wall C. Quantifying ataxia: ideal trajectory analysis — a technical note. I Rehabil Res Dev. 2000;37(4):445–454.
  • Xu W, Sundaram H. Information dense summaries for review of patient performance in biofeedback rehabilitation. Paper presented at: SIG ACM Multimedia; September 2007; Augsburg, Germany.
  • Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D, Light K, Thompson PA. The Motor Activity Log-28: assessing daily use of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. Neurol Rep. 2006;67:1189–1194.
  • Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster U. The Stroke Impact Scale version 2.0: evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity. Stroke. 1999;30:2131-2140.
  • Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Ellis M, Archer AL, Morgan B, Piacentino A. Assessing Wolf Motor Function Test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Stroke. 2001;32:1635–1639.
  • Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The poststroke hemiplegic patient: 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehab Med. 1975;7:13–31.
  • Krakauer JW. Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol. 2006;19:84–90.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.