Looking through the mirror of neuroengineering: Emerging technologies in neurorehabilitation
Main Article Content
Abstract
Neurorehabilitation is an evolving area that seeks to improve life standards with functional restoration in neurological conditions such as stroke, traumatic brain injury (TBI), spinal cord injury (SCI), neurodegenerative, and neuromuscular diseases. In this field, neurorehabilitation devices, which essentially target stimulation of the neural pathways to promote recovery and increase patient engagement, have been getting primary attention.
Emerging technologies in neurorehabilitation, particularly those that incorporate artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, provide a targeted and personalized approach that traditional rehabilitation methods struggle to achieve. Recent advancements in this field, such as but not limited to robotics (Robotic Assisted Therapy [RAT]) and exoskeletons, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) via direct neural control or neurofeedback, virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), non-invasive brain stimulation techniques (transcranial magnetic stimulation [TMS]), transcranial direct current stimulation [tDCS]), and remote monitoring through wearable sensors, are revolutionizing traditional methods. The integration of variable sensors for real-time monitoring enables dynamic therapy adjustments, further enhancing the potential of these technologies.
However, despite the variety and high potential features, challenges remain in adopting emerging technologies in neurorehabilitation. These include the difficulty of access, training requirements for patients and providers, and the crucial need for establishing reliable protocols and regulations before these technologies can be integrated into daily practice.
This review underscores the novelties and advancements in neurorehabilitation technologies, accentuating their potential to not just reshape but inspire the landscape and future of neurological recovery.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Crignis ACd, Ruhnau S-T, Hösl M, et al. Robotic arm training in neurorehabilitation enhanced by augmented reality: a usability and feasibility study. . J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2023;20(1):105.
3. Gunduz ME, Bucak B, Keser Z. Advances in stroke neurorehabilitation. J Clin Med. 2023;12(21):6734.
4. Patil V. Advancements in neurorehabilitation devices: pioneering recovery and independence. Healthcare News. 2023;
5. Baniqued PDE, Stanyer EC, Awais M, et al. Brain–computer interface robotics for hand rehabilitation after stroke: a systematic review. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 2021;18(1):15.
6. Elashmawi WH, Ayman A, Antoun M, et al. A Comprehensive Review on Brain–Computer Interface (BCI)-Based Machine and Deep Learning Algorithms for Stroke Rehabilitation. Appl Sci. 2014;14(14):6347.
7. Maiseli B, Abdalla AT, Massawe LV, et al. Brain–computer interface: trend, challenges, and threats. Brain Inform. 2023;10(1):20.
8. Lazarou I, Nikolopoulos S, Petrantonakis PC, Kompatsiaris I, Tsolaki M. EEG-based brain–computer interfaces for communication and rehabilitation of people with motor impairment: a novel approach of the 21st century. Front Hum Neurosci. 2018;12:14.
9. Vourvopoulos A, Pardo OM, Lefebvre S, et al. Effects of a Brain-Computer Interface With Virtual Reality (VR) Neurofeedback: A Pilot Study in Chronic Stroke Patients. Front Hum Neurosci. 2019;13:460405.
10. Mane R, Wu Z, Wang D. Poststroke motor, cognitive, and speech rehabilitation with brain–computer interface: a perspective review. Stroke Vasc Neurol. 2022;7(6):564-572.
11. Lorach H, Galvez A, Spagnolo V, et al. Walking naturally after spinal cord injury using a brain–spine interface. Nature. 2023;618(7963):126-133.
12. Vaughan TM. Brain-computer interfaces for people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Handb Clin Neurol. 2020;168:33-38.
13. Ren C, Li X, Gao Q, et al. The effect of brain-computer interface controlled functional electrical stimulation training on rehabilitation of upper limb after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Hum Neurosci. 2024;18:143809.
14. Remsik A, Young B, Vermilyea R, et al. A review of the progression and future implications of brain-computer interface therapies for restoration of distal upper extremity motor function after stroke. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2016;13(5):445-454.
15. Mang J, Xu Z, Qi Y, Zhang T. Favoring the cognitive-motor process in the closed-loop of BCI mediated post-stroke motor function recovery: challenges and approaches. Front Neurorobot. 2023;17:1271967.
16. Franc SL, Altamira GH, Guillen M, et al. Toward an adapted neurofeedback for post-stroke motor rehabilitation: state of the art and perspectives. Front Hum Neurosci. 2022;16:917909.
17. Savić AM, Marija Novičić, Miler-Jerković V, Djordjević O, Konstantinović L. Electrotactile BCI for top-down somatosensory training: clinical feasibility trial of online BCI control in subacute stroke patients. Biosensors. 2024;14(8):368.
18. Bocquelet F, Hueber T, Girin L, Savariaux C, Yvert B. Real-time control of an articulatory-based speech synthesizer for brain-computer interfaces. PLoS Comput Biol. 2016;12(11)
19. Peksa J, Mamchur D. State-of-the-art on brain-computer interface technology. Sensors. 2023;23(13):6001.
20. He Y, Xu Y, Hai M, et al. Exoskeleton-Assisted Rehabilitation and Neuroplasticity in Spinal Cord Injury. World Neurosurg. 2024;5
21. Picture: Hocoma, Switzerland. Lokomat Nanos [product image]. Hocoma website. Published July 2020. Accessed October 29, 2024. https://hocoma.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/6_LokomatNanos.jpg
22. Panizzolo FA, Freisinger GM, Karavas N, et al. Metabolic cost adaptations during training with a soft exosuit assisting the hip joint. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):9779
23. Guo Z, Ye J, Zhang S, et al. Effects of individualized gait rehabilitation robotics for gait training on hemiplegic patients: Before-after study in the same person. Front Neurorobot. 2022;15:817446. doi:10.3389/fnbot.2021.817446
24. Louie DR, Eng JJ. Powered robotic exoskeletons in post-stroke rehabilitation of gait: a scoping review. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2016;13:1-0.
25. Mehrholz J, Pohl M, Platz T, Kugler J, Elsner B, Group. CS. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;10:14651858.
26. Rodríguez-Fernández A, Lobo-Prat J, Font-Llagunes JM. Systematic review on wearable lower-limb exoskeletons for gait training in neuromuscular impairments. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2021;18(1):22.
27. Vaughan-Graham J, Brooks D, Rose L, Nejat G, Pons J, Patterson K. Exoskeleton use in post-stroke gait rehabilitation: a qualitative study of the perspectives of persons post-stroke and physiotherapists. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2020;17(1-5)
28. Duvuru R, Hobart-Porter L, Veerapandiyan A. Revolutionizing neuromuscular disorders rehabilitation: The virtual reality edge. Muscle Nerve. 2024;22
29. Liu Q, Liu Y, Zhang Y. Effects of cerebellar non-invasive stimulation on neurorehabilitation in stroke patients: an updated systematic review. Biomedicines. 2024;12(6):1348.
30. Li H, Guan C, Fang D, et al. Research hotspots and global trends in transcranial magnetic stimulation for stroke neurorestoration: A 30-year bibliometric analysis. J Neurorestoratol. 2024;100148
31. Proietti T, Bandini A. Wearable Technologies for Monitoring Upper Extremity Functions During Daily Life in Neurologically Impaired Individuals. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2024;29
32. Porciuncula F, Roto AV, Kumar D, et al. Wearable movement sensors for rehabilitation: a focused review of technological and clinical advances. PM R. 2018;10(9)