This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hemmen, B. Articles by Seelen, H.A.M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hemmen, B. Articles by Seelen, H.A.M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Effects of movement imagery and electromyography-triggered feedback on arm—hand function in stroke patients in the subacute phase

Rehabilitation Foundation Limburg (SRL), Hoensbroek, The Netherlands, b.hemmen{at}srl.nl

H.A.M. Seelen

Rehabilitation Foundation Limburg (SRL), Hoensbroek, The Netherlands

Objective: To investigate the effects of movement imagery-assisted electromyography (EMG)-triggered feedback (focused on paretic wrist dorsiflexors) on the arm—hand function of stroke patients.

Design: Single-blinded, longitudinal, multicentre randomized controlled trial. Measurements were performed (on average) 54 days post stroke (baseline), three months later (post training) and at 12 months post baseline.

Setting: Two rehabilitation centres.

Subjects: Twenty-seven patients with a first-ever, ischaemic, subacute stroke.

Interventions: A reference group received conventional electrostimulation, while the experimental group received arm—hand function training based on EMG-triggered feedback combined with movement imagery. Both groups were trained for three months, 5 days/week, 30 minutes/day, in addition to their therapy as usual.

Main measures: Arm—hand function was evaluated using the upper extremity-related part of the Brunnstrom Fugl-Meyer test and the Action Research Arm test.

Results: During training, Brunnstrom Fugl-Meyer scores improved 8.7 points and Action Research Arm scores by 19.4 points (P < 0.0001) in both groups relative to baseline results, rising to 13.3 and 28.4 points respectively at one year follow-up (P < 0.0001). No between-group differences were found at any time.

Conclusions: EMG-triggered feedback stimulation did not lead to more arm—hand function improvement relative to conventional electrostimulation. However, in contrast to many clinical reports, a significant improvement was still observed in both groups nine months after treatment ceased.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 21, No. 7, 587-594 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0269215507075502


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. R de Kroon and M. J IJzerman Electrical stimulation of the upper extremity in stroke: cyclic versus EMG-triggered stimulation Clinical Rehabilitation, August 1, 2008; 22(8): 690 - 697. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Meilink, B. Hemmen, H. Seelen, and G. Kwakkel Impact of EMG-triggered neuromuscular stimulation of the wrist and finger extensors of the paretic hand after stroke: a systematic review of the literature Clinical Rehabilitation, April 1, 2008; 22(4): 291 - 305. [Abstract] [PDF]