SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Combining Action Observation Treatment with a Brain-Computer Interface System: Perspectives on Neurorehabilitation.

Sensors (Basel) · 2021-12-20

DOI: 10.3390/s21248504PMID: 34960597

Open accessother; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Action observation treatment (AOT) exploits a neurophysiological mechanism, matching an observed action on the neural substrates where that action is motorically represented. This mechanism is also known as mirror mechanism. In a typical AOT session, one can distinguish an observation phase and an execution phase. During the observation phase, the patient observes a daily action and soon after, during the execution phase, he/she is asked to perform the observed action at the best of his/her ability. Indeed, the execution phase may sometimes be difficult for those patients where motor impairment is severe. Although, in the current practice, the physiotherapist does not intervene on the quality of the execution phase, here, we propose a stimulation system based on neurophysiological parameters. This perspective article focuses on the possibility to combine AOT with a brain-computer interface system (BCI) that stimulates upper limb muscles, thus facilitating the execution of actions during a rehabilitation session. Combining a rehabilitation tool that is well-grounded in neurophysiology with a stimulation system, such as the one proposed, may improve the efficacy of AOT in the treatment of severe neurological patients, including stroke patients, Parkinson's disease patients, and children with cerebral palsy.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.