Visual feedback therapy for restoration of upper limb function of stroke patients

Mei-Hong Zhu; Ming Zeng; Mei-Fang Shi; Xu-Dong Gu; Fang Shen; Ye-Ping Zheng; Ya-Ping Jia

doi:10.1016/j.ijnss.2020.04.004

Visual feedback therapy for restoration of upper limb function of stroke patients

Int J Nurs Sci. 2020 Apr 11;7(2):170-178. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnss.2020.04.004. eCollection 2020 Apr 10.

Authors

Mei-Hong Zhu¹, Ming Zeng¹, Mei-Fang Shi¹, Xu-Dong Gu¹, Fang Shen¹, Ye-Ping Zheng¹, Ya-Ping Jia¹

Affiliation

¹ Rehabilitation Medicine Center of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing, University, Jiaxing, Zhejiang, China.

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the effects of mirror neuron theory-based visual feedback therapy (VFT) on restoration of upper limb function of stroke patients and motor-related cortical function using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

Methods: Hemiplegic stroke patients were randomly divided into two groups: a VFT group and a control (CTL) group. Sixteen patients in the VFT group received conventional rehabilitation (CR) and VFT for 8 weeks, while 15 patients in the CTL group received only CR. The Barthel Index (BI) was used to assess the activities of daily living at baseline and the 8^th week of the recovery training period. The Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA) scale, somatosensory evoked potential (SEP), and fMRI were used to evaluate the recovery effect of the training therapies. The latencies and amplitudes of N9 and N20 were measured. Before recovery training, fMRI was performed for all patients in the VFT and CTL groups. In addition, 17 patients (9 in the VFT group and 8 in the CTL group) underwent fMRI for follow-up 2 months after treatment. Qualitative data were analyzed using the χ ² test. The independent sample t-test was used to compare normally distributed data among different groups, the paired sample t-test was used to compare data between groups, and the non-parametric test was used to comparing data without normal distribution among groups.

Results: There were no significant differences between the VFT and CTL group in all indexes. However, after 8 weeks of recovery training, these indexes were all significantly improved (P < 0.05). As compared with the CTL group, the FMA scores, BI, and N9/N20 latencies and amplitudes of SEP in the VFT group were significantly improved (P < 0.05). Two months after recovery training, fMRI showed that the degree of activation of the bilateral central anterior gyrus, parietal lobe, and auxiliary motor areas was significantly higher in the VFT group than the CTL group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: VFT based on mirror neuron theory is an effective approach to improve upper extremity motor function and daily activity performance of stroke patients. The therapeutic mechanism promotes motor relearning by activating the mirror neuron system and motor cortex. SEP amplitudes increased only for patients who participated in visual feedback. VFT promotes sensory-motor plasticity and behavioral changes in both the motor and sensory domains.

Keywords: Action execution; Activities of daily living; Mirror neurons; Motor cortex; Rehabilitation; Somatosensory evoked potentials; Stroke; Visual feedback.