Robot-Aided Neurorehabilitation: From Evidence-Based to Science-Based Rehabilitation
Abstract
There is no "magic bullet" in rehabilitation. In the absence of direct neural transplants, neurological rehabilitation is an arduous process. We have pioneered the clinical application of robotics in stroke rehabilitation and have shown evidence of the positive impact of targeted exercise on stroke recovery. In this article, we will review results obtained in the initial clinical trials with 96 stroke patients at the Burke Rehabilitation Hospital. We will provide evidence that robot-aided training enhances recovery, that this enhanced recovery is sustained in the long term, and that this recovery is not due to a general physiological improvement--in fact, it appears to be limb and muscle group specific. An evidence-based approach must now segue into a more scientific approach to stroke rehabilitation. Given the length of the required protocols and patients' variability and limited census, the practical limitations of the evidence-based approach are self-evident and extend trials for years. Each patient and lesion is unique in stroke rehabilitation, so there is no reason to believe that a "one-size-fits-all" optimal treatment exists. To optimize therapy for individual patients, we need science-based models. In this article, we will summarize the scientific tools and models that we are investigating and present some of the results to date.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Clinical scales for neurological disorders such as the Fugl-Meyer, Motor Power, NIH Stroke, and Modified Rankin scales require properly trained personnel for evaluation and show results that vary widely from rater to rater.
“Scales such as the Fugl-Meyer (FM),271 Motor Power (MP),272 NIH Stroke (NIH),273 and Modified Rankin (MR),274 require properly trained personnel for evaluation, with results widely varying from rater to rater.275”
From QSAR without borders (2020) · cites this paper as [275]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Nudo, R. J., Wise, B. M., SiFuentes, F., & Milliken, G. W. (1996) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.272.5269.1791 · Cited by 1,911 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Muratov, E. N., Bajorath, J., Sheridan, R. P., Tetko, I. V., Filimonov, D., Poroikov, V., Oprea, T. I., Baskin, I. I., Varnek, A., Roitberg, A., et al. (2020) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/d0cs00098a · Cited by 913 · see citing works
Rehabilitation Robotics: Performance-Based Progressive Robot-Assisted Therapy
Krebs, H. I., Palazzolo, J. J., Dipietro, L., Ferraro, M., Krol, J., Rannekleiv, K., Volpe, B. T., & Hogan, N. (2003) · Autonomous Robots · doi:10.1023/a:1024494031121 · Cited by 714 · see citing works
Self-citationTimmermans, A. A., Seelen, H. A., Willmann, R. D., & Kingma, H. (2009) · Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1186/1743-0003-6-1 · Cited by 483 · see citing works
Robotic Measurement of Arm Movements After Stroke Establishes Biomarkers of Motor Recovery
Krebs, H. I., Krams, M., Agrafiotis, D. K., DiBernardo, A., Chavez, J. C., Littman, G. S., Yang, E., Byttebier, G., Dipietro, L., Rykman, A., et al. (2014) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.113.002296 · Cited by 154 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Krebs, H. I., Volpe, B. T., Ferraro, M., Fasoli, S., Palazzolo, J., Rohrer, B., Edelstein, L., & Hogan, N.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Cornell University (US)
- Burke Rehabilitation Hospital (US)
- Venue
- Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 54-70
- ISSN
- 1074-9357 (ISSN-L)
- 1945-5119
- OpenAlex
- W2057746046
- Cited by
- 149
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 8.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- Medical Research Council
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Keywords
- rehabilitation robotics, stroke rehabilitation, neurorehabilitation, motor recovery, long-term recovery, personalized treatment, rehabilitation model, clinical trials
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