Dataset Information

Upper Limb Electromyographic Responses to Motor Imagery and Action Observation in Acquired Brain Injury.

ABSTRACT: Acquired Brain Injuries are one of the leading causes of mortality and disability worldwide. One of the most frequent sequelae is motor impairment of the upper limbs, which affects people's functionality and quality of life. Following the discovery of mirror neurons, new techniques were developed based on the mechanisms of neuronal plasticity, such as motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO). We propose a protocol using electromyographic recordings of forearm muscles in people who have suffered a stroke during an MI task and an AO task. Three different experimental conditions will be studied during the electromyographic recordings: control recording, recording during MI, and recording during AO. Understanding the muscle activation in each technique will allow us to develop future protocols and intervention plans, improving the quality of care for people who have suffered a stroke.

SUBMITTER: Santiago-Martin S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10974024 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Upper Limb Electromyographic Responses to Motor Imagery and Action Observation in Acquired Brain Injury.

Santiago-Martín Sara S Calvo-Vera Ana Belén AB Bermejo-Gil Beatriz María BM Martín-Nogueras Ana María AM

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 20240311 6

Acquired Brain Injuries are one of the leading causes of mortality and disability worldwide. One of the most frequent sequelae is motor impairment of the upper limbs, which affects people's functionality and quality of life. Following the discovery of mirror neurons, new techniques were developed based on the mechanisms of neuronal plasticity, such as motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO). We propose a protocol using electromyographic recordings of forearm muscles in people who have suf ...[more]

PMID: 38544063

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAction observation (AO) is a physical rehabilitation approach that facilitates the occurrence of neural plasticity through the activation of the mirror-neural system, promoting motor recovery in people with stroke.ObjectivesTo assess whether AO enhances upper limb motor function in people with stroke.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 18 May 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (18 May 2021), MEDLINE (1946 to 18 May 2021), Embase (1974 to 18 May 2021), and five additional databases. We also searched trial registries and reference lists.Selection criteriaRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AO alone or associated with physical practice in adults after stroke. The primary outcome was upper limb (arm and hand) motor function. Secondary outcomes included dependence on activities of daily living (ADL), motor performance, cortical activation, quality of life, and adverse effects.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected trials according to the predefined inclusion criteria, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using RoB 1, and applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. The reviews authors contacted trial authors for clarification and missing information.Main resultsWe included 16 trials involving 574 individuals. Most trials provided AO followed by the practice of motor actions. Training varied between 1 day and 8 weeks of therapy, 10 to 90 minutes per session. The time of AO ranged from 1 minute to 10 minutes for each motor action, task or movement observed. The total number of motor actions ranged from 1 to 3. Control comparisons included sham observation, physical therapy, and functional activity practice.Primary outcomesAO improved arm function (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.61; 11 trials, 373 participants; low-certainty evidence); and improved hand function (mean difference (MD) 2.76, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.49; 5 trials, 178 participants; low-certainty evidence).Secondary outcomesAO did not improve ADL performance (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.34 to 1.08; 7 trials, 302 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or quality of life (MD 5.52, 95% CI -30.74 to 41.78; 2 trials, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We were unable to pool the other secondary outcomes (motor performance and cortical activation). Only two trials reported adverse events without significant adverse effects.Authors' conclusionsThe effects of AO are small for arm function compared to any control group; for hand function the effects are large, but not clinically significant. For both, the certainty of evidence is low. There is no evidence of benefit or detriment from AO on ADL and quality of life of people with stroke; however, the certainty of evidence is very low. As such, our confidence in the effect estimate is limited because it will likely change with future research.

Project description:Motor imagery (MI) and action observation have proven to be efficacious adjuncts to traditional physiotherapy for enhancing motor recovery following stroke. Recently, researchers have used a combined approach called imagined imitation (II), where an individual watches a motor task being performed, while simultaneously imagining they are performing the movement. While neurofeedback (NFB) has been used extensively with MI to improve patients' ability to modulate sensorimotor activity and enhance motor recovery, the effectiveness of using NFB with II to modulate brain activity is unknown. This project tested the ability of participants to modulate sensorimotor activity during electroencephalography-based II-NFB of a complex, multi-part unilateral handshake, and whether this ability transferred to a subsequent bout of MI. Moreover, given the goal of translating findings from NFB research into practical applications, such as rehabilitation, the II-NFB system was designed with several user interface and user experience features, in an attempt to both drive user engagement and match the level of challenge to the abilities of the subjects. In particular, at easy difficulty levels the II-NFB system incentivized contralateral sensorimotor up-regulation (via event related desynchronization of the mu rhythm), while at higher difficulty levels the II-NFB system incentivized sensorimotor lateralization (i.e., both contralateral up-regulation and ipsilateral down-regulation). Thirty-two subjects, receiving real or sham NFB attended four sessions where they engaged in II-NFB training and subsequent MI. Results showed the NFB group demonstrated more bilateral sensorimotor activity during sessions 2-4 during II-NFB and subsequent MI, indicating mixed success for the implementation of this particular II-NFB system. Here we discuss our findings in the context of the design features included in the II-NFB system, highlighting limitations that should be considered in future designs.

Dataset Information

Upper Limb Electromyographic Responses to Motor Imagery and Action Observation in Acquired Brain Injury.

Publications

Upper Limb Electromyographic Responses to Motor Imagery and Action Observation in Acquired Brain Injury.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets