Beyond human or robot administered treadmill training

Hermano Igo Krebs, Konstantinos Michmizos, Tyler Susko, Hyunglae Lee, Anindo Roy, Neville Hogan

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The demand for rehabilitation services is growing apace with the graying of the population. This situation creates both a need and an opportunity to deploy technologies such as rehabilitation robotics, and in the last decade and half, several research groups have deployed variations of this technology. Results so far are mixed with the available evidence demonstrating unequivocally that some forms of robotic therapy can be highly effective, even for patients many years post-stroke, while other forms of robotic therapy have been singularly ineffective. The contrast is starkest when we contrast upper-extremity and lower-extremity therapy. In fact, 2010 Stroke Care Guidelines of the American Heart Association (AHA) and of the Veterans Administration/Department of Defense (VA/DoD) endorsed the use of the rehabilitation robotics for upper-extremity post- stroke care, but concluded that lower-extremity robotic therapy is much less effective as compared to usual care practices in the USA and declared “still in its infancy." We submit that the contrasting effectiveness of upper- and lower-extremity therapies arises from neural factors, not technological factors. Though, no doubt, it might be improved, the technology deployed to date for locomotor therapy is elegant and sophisticated. Unfortunately, it may be misguided, providing highly repeatable control of rhythmic movement but ultimately doing the wrong thing. The technology we have deployed to date for upper-extremity therapy is firmly based on an understanding of how upper-extremity behavior is neurally controlled and derived from decades of neuroscience research. The limitations of lower-extremity robotic therapy lie not in the robotic technology but in its incompatibility with human motor neuroscience. In this chapter we briefly review the evidence supporting such negative views, and based on our experience with upper-extremity robotic therapy, we describe what we are presently investigating to revert and work toward a future endorsement of the AHA and VA/DoD for rehabilitation robotics for lower-extremity post-stroke care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationNeurorehabilitation Technology, Second Edition
PublisherSpringer International Publishing
Pages409-433
Number of pages25
ISBN (Electronic)9783319286037
ISBN (Print)9783319286013
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

Exercise equipment
Robotics
Robots
Upper Extremity
Lower Extremity
Patient rehabilitation
Technology
Rehabilitation
Stroke
United States Department of Veterans Affairs
Therapeutics
Neurosciences
American Heart Association
Research
Guidelines

Keywords

  • Anklebot
  • Cerebral palsy
  • Lower extremity
  • MIT-skywalker
  • Rehabilitation robotics
  • Robot-assisted therapy
  • Robotic therapy
  • Stroke

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Health Professions(all)
  • Engineering(all)

Cite this

Krebs, H. I., Michmizos, K., Susko, T., Lee, H., Roy, A., & Hogan, N. (2016). Beyond human or robot administered treadmill training. In Neurorehabilitation Technology, Second Edition (pp. 409-433). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28603-7_20

Beyond human or robot administered treadmill training. / Krebs, Hermano Igo; Michmizos, Konstantinos; Susko, Tyler; Lee, Hyunglae; Roy, Anindo; Hogan, Neville.

Neurorehabilitation Technology, Second Edition. Springer International Publishing, 2016. p. 409-433.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Krebs, HI, Michmizos, K, Susko, T, Lee, H, Roy, A & Hogan, N 2016, Beyond human or robot administered treadmill training. in Neurorehabilitation Technology, Second Edition. Springer International Publishing, pp. 409-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28603-7_20
Krebs HI, Michmizos K, Susko T, Lee H, Roy A, Hogan N. Beyond human or robot administered treadmill training. In Neurorehabilitation Technology, Second Edition. Springer International Publishing. 2016. p. 409-433 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28603-7_20
Krebs, Hermano Igo ; Michmizos, Konstantinos ; Susko, Tyler ; Lee, Hyunglae ; Roy, Anindo ; Hogan, Neville. / Beyond human or robot administered treadmill training. Neurorehabilitation Technology, Second Edition. Springer International Publishing, 2016. pp. 409-433
@inbook{4efd50e33c9e489ca18e7a120bd7c4c3,
title = "Beyond human or robot administered treadmill training",
abstract = "The demand for rehabilitation services is growing apace with the graying of the population. This situation creates both a need and an opportunity to deploy technologies such as rehabilitation robotics, and in the last decade and half, several research groups have deployed variations of this technology. Results so far are mixed with the available evidence demonstrating unequivocally that some forms of robotic therapy can be highly effective, even for patients many years post-stroke, while other forms of robotic therapy have been singularly ineffective. The contrast is starkest when we contrast upper-extremity and lower-extremity therapy. In fact, 2010 Stroke Care Guidelines of the American Heart Association (AHA) and of the Veterans Administration/Department of Defense (VA/DoD) endorsed the use of the rehabilitation robotics for upper-extremity post- stroke care, but concluded that lower-extremity robotic therapy is much less effective as compared to usual care practices in the USA and declared “still in its infancy.{"} We submit that the contrasting effectiveness of upper- and lower-extremity therapies arises from neural factors, not technological factors. Though, no doubt, it might be improved, the technology deployed to date for locomotor therapy is elegant and sophisticated. Unfortunately, it may be misguided, providing highly repeatable control of rhythmic movement but ultimately doing the wrong thing. The technology we have deployed to date for upper-extremity therapy is firmly based on an understanding of how upper-extremity behavior is neurally controlled and derived from decades of neuroscience research. The limitations of lower-extremity robotic therapy lie not in the robotic technology but in its incompatibility with human motor neuroscience. In this chapter we briefly review the evidence supporting such negative views, and based on our experience with upper-extremity robotic therapy, we describe what we are presently investigating to revert and work toward a future endorsement of the AHA and VA/DoD for rehabilitation robotics for lower-extremity post-stroke care.",
keywords = "Anklebot, Cerebral palsy, Lower extremity, MIT-skywalker, Rehabilitation robotics, Robot-assisted therapy, Robotic therapy, Stroke",
author = "Krebs, {Hermano Igo} and Konstantinos Michmizos and Tyler Susko and Hyunglae Lee and Anindo Roy and Neville Hogan",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-28603-7_20",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9783319286013",
pages = "409--433",
booktitle = "Neurorehabilitation Technology, Second Edition",
publisher = "Springer International Publishing",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Beyond human or robot administered treadmill training

AU - Krebs, Hermano Igo

AU - Michmizos, Konstantinos

AU - Susko, Tyler

AU - Lee, Hyunglae

AU - Roy, Anindo

AU - Hogan, Neville

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - The demand for rehabilitation services is growing apace with the graying of the population. This situation creates both a need and an opportunity to deploy technologies such as rehabilitation robotics, and in the last decade and half, several research groups have deployed variations of this technology. Results so far are mixed with the available evidence demonstrating unequivocally that some forms of robotic therapy can be highly effective, even for patients many years post-stroke, while other forms of robotic therapy have been singularly ineffective. The contrast is starkest when we contrast upper-extremity and lower-extremity therapy. In fact, 2010 Stroke Care Guidelines of the American Heart Association (AHA) and of the Veterans Administration/Department of Defense (VA/DoD) endorsed the use of the rehabilitation robotics for upper-extremity post- stroke care, but concluded that lower-extremity robotic therapy is much less effective as compared to usual care practices in the USA and declared “still in its infancy." We submit that the contrasting effectiveness of upper- and lower-extremity therapies arises from neural factors, not technological factors. Though, no doubt, it might be improved, the technology deployed to date for locomotor therapy is elegant and sophisticated. Unfortunately, it may be misguided, providing highly repeatable control of rhythmic movement but ultimately doing the wrong thing. The technology we have deployed to date for upper-extremity therapy is firmly based on an understanding of how upper-extremity behavior is neurally controlled and derived from decades of neuroscience research. The limitations of lower-extremity robotic therapy lie not in the robotic technology but in its incompatibility with human motor neuroscience. In this chapter we briefly review the evidence supporting such negative views, and based on our experience with upper-extremity robotic therapy, we describe what we are presently investigating to revert and work toward a future endorsement of the AHA and VA/DoD for rehabilitation robotics for lower-extremity post-stroke care.

AB - The demand for rehabilitation services is growing apace with the graying of the population. This situation creates both a need and an opportunity to deploy technologies such as rehabilitation robotics, and in the last decade and half, several research groups have deployed variations of this technology. Results so far are mixed with the available evidence demonstrating unequivocally that some forms of robotic therapy can be highly effective, even for patients many years post-stroke, while other forms of robotic therapy have been singularly ineffective. The contrast is starkest when we contrast upper-extremity and lower-extremity therapy. In fact, 2010 Stroke Care Guidelines of the American Heart Association (AHA) and of the Veterans Administration/Department of Defense (VA/DoD) endorsed the use of the rehabilitation robotics for upper-extremity post- stroke care, but concluded that lower-extremity robotic therapy is much less effective as compared to usual care practices in the USA and declared “still in its infancy." We submit that the contrasting effectiveness of upper- and lower-extremity therapies arises from neural factors, not technological factors. Though, no doubt, it might be improved, the technology deployed to date for locomotor therapy is elegant and sophisticated. Unfortunately, it may be misguided, providing highly repeatable control of rhythmic movement but ultimately doing the wrong thing. The technology we have deployed to date for upper-extremity therapy is firmly based on an understanding of how upper-extremity behavior is neurally controlled and derived from decades of neuroscience research. The limitations of lower-extremity robotic therapy lie not in the robotic technology but in its incompatibility with human motor neuroscience. In this chapter we briefly review the evidence supporting such negative views, and based on our experience with upper-extremity robotic therapy, we describe what we are presently investigating to revert and work toward a future endorsement of the AHA and VA/DoD for rehabilitation robotics for lower-extremity post-stroke care.

KW - Anklebot

KW - Cerebral palsy

KW - Lower extremity

KW - MIT-skywalker

KW - Rehabilitation robotics

KW - Robot-assisted therapy

KW - Robotic therapy

KW - Stroke

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85017089312&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85017089312&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-28603-7_20

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-28603-7_20

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9783319286013

SP - 409

EP - 433

BT - Neurorehabilitation Technology, Second Edition

PB - Springer International Publishing

ER -