Background: It is the purpose of this article to identify and review criteria that rehabilitation technology should meet in order to offer arm-hand training to stroke patients, based on recent principles of motor learning.

BackgroundThe development of interactive rehabilitation technologies which rely on wearable-sensing for upper body rehabilitation is attracting increasing research interest. This paper reviews related research with the aim: 1) To inventory and classify interactive wearable systems for movement and posture monitoring during upper body rehabilitation, regarding the sensing technology, system measurements and feedback conditions; 2) To gauge the wearability of the wearable systems; 3) To inventory the availability of clinical evidence supporting the effectiveness of related technologies.MethodA systematic literature search was conducted in the following search engines: PubMed, ACM, Scopus and IEEE (January 2010–April 2016).ResultsForty-five papers were included and discussed in a new cuboid taxonomy which consists of 3 dimensions: sensing technology, feedback modalities and system measurements. Wearable sensor systems were developed for persons in: 1) Neuro-rehabilitation: stroke (n = 21), spinal cord injury (n = 1), cerebral palsy (n = 2), Alzheimer (n = 1); 2) Musculoskeletal impairment: ligament rehabilitation (n = 1), arthritis (n = 1), frozen shoulder (n = 1), bones trauma (n = 1); 3) Others: chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (n = 1), chronic pain rehabilitation (n = 1) and other general rehabilitation (n = 14). Accelerometers and inertial measurement units (IMU) are the most frequently used technologies (84% of the papers). They are mostly used in multiple sensor configurations to measure upper limb kinematics and/or trunk posture. Sensors are placed mostly on the trunk, upper arm, the forearm, the wrist, and the finger. Typically sensors are attachable rather than embedded in wearable devices and garments; although studies that embed and integrate sensors are increasing in the last 4 years. 16 studies applied knowledge of result (KR) feedback, 14 studies applied knowledge of performance (KP) feedback and 15 studies applied both in various modalities. 16 studies have conducted their evaluation with patients and reported usability tests, while only three of them conducted clinical trials including one randomized clinical trial.ConclusionsThis review has shown that wearable systems are used mostly for the monitoring and provision of feedback on posture and upper extremity movements in stroke rehabilitation. The results indicated that accelerometers and IMUs are the most frequently used sensors, in most cases attached to the body through ad hoc contraptions for the purpose of improving range of motion and movement performance during upper body rehabilitation. Systems featuring sensors embedded in wearable appliances or garments are only beginning to emerge. Similarly, clinical evaluations are scarce and are further needed to provide evidence on effectiveness and pave the path towards implementation in clinical settings.

Background Loss of arm-hand performance due to a hemiparesis as a result of stroke or cerebral palsy (CP), leads to large problems in daily life of these patients. Assessment of arm-hand performance is important in both clinical practice and research. To gain more insight in e.g. effectiveness of common therapies for different patient populations with similar clinical characteristics, consensus regarding the choice and use of outcome measures is paramount. To guide this choice, an overview of available instruments is necessary. The aim of this systematic review is to identify, evaluate and categorize instruments, reported to be valid and reliable, assessing arm-hand performance at the ICF activity level in patients with stroke or cerebral palsy. Methods A systematic literature search was performed to identify articles containing instruments assessing arm-hand skilled performance in patients with stroke or cerebral palsy. Instruments were identified and divided into the categories capacity, perceived performance and actual performance. A second search was performed to obtain information on their content and psychometrics. Results Regarding capacity, perceived performance and actual performance, 18, 9 and 3 instruments were included respectively. Only 3 of all included instruments were used and tested in both patient populations. The content of the instruments differed widely regarding the ICF levels measured, assessment of the amount of use versus the quality of use, the inclusion of unimanual and/or bimanual tasks and the inclusion of basic and/or extended tasks. Conclusions Although many instruments assess capacity and perceived performance, a dearth exists of instruments assessing actual performance. In addition, instruments appropriate for more than one patient population are sparse. For actual performance, new instruments have to be developed, with specific focus on the usability in different patient populations and the assessment of quality of use as well as amount of use. Also, consensus about the choice and use of instruments within and across populations is needed.

No abstract