Cerebral Stroke
Conditions
Keywords
Rhythmic versus discrete movements, Rehabilitation
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to determine whether rhythmic upper-limb movement training in post-stroke patients allows to improve only this particular type of movements or if it also improves some parameters of discrete movements. Based on our results we hope to be able to answer a fundamental question: are rhythmic and discrete movements two independent primitives?
Detailed description
Patients are assessed four times during this longitudinal study. One month separates the first two assessment, next patients are trained 12 times during one month with rhythmic movement training on an end-effector robot. After this month, patients are assessed a third time and three months later a fourth time in order to study long-time benefits of the therapy.
Interventions
PROCEDURERhythmic rehabilitation
Stroke patients have 12 rehabilitation sessions on a planar rehabilitation robot, Reaplan, focussed on rhythmic arm movements.
Sponsors
Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc- Université Catholique de Louvain
Study design
Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* more than 6 months post-stroke patients * Fugl-Meyer between 7 and 55 * Maintain the same intensity of rehabilitation during the study
Exclusion criteria
* cerebellar stroke * severe aphasia or cognitive disorder * any other neurological disorder
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in movement smoothness in rhythmic straight movements after one month of rhythmic therapy | 1 week to 1 day before therapy and 1 day to 1 week after therapy | Patients are asked to fulfill rhythmic movements on the end-effector robot Reaplan. The smoothness is assessed with following metrics: * number of peaks in velocity profile * TENT value * logarithmic dimensionless square jerk |
| Change in movement smoothness in discrete straight movements after one month of rhythmic therapy | 1 week to 1 day before therapy and 1 day to 1 week after therapy | Patients are asked to fulfill discrete movements on the end-effector robot Reaplan. The smoothness is assessed with following metrics: * number of peaks in velocity profile * TENT value * logarithmic dimensionless square jerk |
| Change in accuracy of discrete straight movements after one month of rhythmic therapy | 1 week to 1 day before therapy and 1 day to 1 week after therapy | Patients are asked to fulfill discrete movements on the end-effector robot Reaplan. The accuracy is assessed. |
| Change in smoothness of rhythmic circular movement after rhythmic therapy | 1 day to 1 week before therapy and 1day to 1 week after therapy | Patients are asked to fulfill 10 circular movements on the end-effector robot Reaplan. The movement smoothness are assessed |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Therapy after effects | 1 day to one week after therapy and 3 months after therapy | Evolution of the movement smoothness in rhythmic and discrete movements, the movement accuracy in discrete movements and the general motricity |
| Assessment of the natural evolution of the patient | 4 to 5 weeks before therapy and 1 week to 1 day before therapy | Natural evolution of the movement smoothness in rhythmic and discrete movements, of the accuracy in discrete movements and of the general motricity of the patient |
| Change of the general motricity of the patient due to one month rhythmic therapy | 1 week to 1 day before therapy and 1 day to 1 week after therapy | 1. Upper limb Fugl-Meyer Assessment 2. Box and block test 3. Ashworth test |
Countries
Belgium
Outcome results
None listed