Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Feasibility of a New Application of Noninvasive Brain Computer Interface (BCI): A Case Study of Training for Recovery of Volitional Motor Control After Stroke

Daly, Janis J., Cheng, Roger, Rogers, Jean, Litinas, Krisanne, Hrovat, Kenneth, Dohring, Mark·2009·Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy

Abstract

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: A large proportion of individuals with stroke have persistent deficits for which current interventions have not restored normal motor behavior. Noninvasive brain computer interfaces (BCIs) have potential advantages for restoration of function. There are also potential advantages for combining BCI with functional electrical stimulation (FES). We tested the feasibility of combined BCI + FES for motor learning after stroke. CASE DESCRIPTION: The participant was a 43-year-old woman who was 10 months post-stroke. She was unable to produce isolated movement of any of the digits of her involved hand. With effort she exhibited simultaneous mass hyperextension of metacarpal phalangeal joints of all four fingers and thumb with simultaneous flexion of proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints of all fingers. INTERVENTION: Brain signals from the lesioned hemisphere were used to trigger FES for movement practice. The BCI + FES intervention consisted of trials of either attempted finger movement and relax conditions or imagined finger movement and relax conditions. The training was performed three times per week for three weeks (nine sessions total). OUTCOME: : The participant exhibited highly accurate control of brain signal in the first session for attempted movement (97%), imagined movement (83%), and some difficulties with attempted relaxation (65%). By session 6, control of relaxation (deactivation of brain signal) improved to >80%. After nine sessions (three per week) of BCI + FES intervention, the participant demonstrated recovery of volitional isolated index finger extension. DISCUSSION: BCI + FES training for motor learning after stroke was feasible. A highly accurate brain signal control was achieved, and this signal could be reliably used to trigger the FES device for isolated index finger extension. With training, volitional control of isolated finger extension was attained in a small number of sessions. The source of motor recovery could be attributable to BCI, FES, combined BCI + FES, or whole arm or hand motor task practice.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/npt.0b013e3181c1fc0b

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Daly, J. J., Cheng, R., Rogers, J., Litinas, K., Hrovat, K., & Dohring, M.
Venue
Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy
Published
2009-12
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
203-211
ISSN
  • 1085-049X (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-0576
OpenAlex
W2022220244
Cited by
274
References
0
FWCI
8.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.