The motivation of patients during robot-assisted rehabilitation after neurological disorders that lead to impairments of motor functions is of great importance. Due to the increasing number of patients, increasing medical costs and limited therapeutic resources, clinicians in the future may want patients to practice their movements at home or with reduced supervision during their stay in the clinic. Since people only engage in an activity and are motivated to practice if the outcome matches the effort at which they perform, an augmented feedback application for rehabilitation should take the cognitive and physical deficits of patients into account and incorporate a mechanism that is capable of balancing i.e. adjusting the difficulty of an exercise in an augmented feedback application to the patient's capabilities.

The overall goal of this paper was to investigate approaches to controlling active participation in stroke patients during robot-assisted gait therapy. Although active physical participation during gait rehabilitation after stroke was shown to improve therapy outcome, some patients can behave passively during rehabilitation, not maximally benefiting from the gait training. Up to now, there has not been an effective method for forcing patient activity to the desired level that would most benefit stroke patients with a broad variety of cognitive and biomechanical impairments.

Background: Quality of life (QoL) is increasingly used to characterize the impact of disease and the efficacy of interventions. Methods: Prospective cohort study in patients' and proxies' homes with137 patients with dementia (age 52 to 88; Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) 3 to 28) and their proxies (age 43 to 90). MMSE, Behave-AD, Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), and Bayer-ADL scale (B-ADL), and the Euroqol (EQ-5D; patient self-rating, proxy self-rating, and proxy-rating of patient). Results: B-ADL impairment and Behave-AD total score increased with dementia severity (Kruskal-Wallis p < 0.001 and p = 0.023, respectively). Patients' self-rated QoL and proxies' self-rated QoL were unrelated to dementia severity (p = 0.148 and p = 0.414, respectively). The difference between patients' self- and proxies'-rating of the patient's QoL correlated with the patient's MMSE (Spearman's rho = -0.434; p < 0.001), even if analysis was constrained to patients with mild AD (rho = -0.328; p = 0.019). The proxies' rating of the patients QoL was not only correlated with cognitive and behavioral symptoms of the patient but also with mood (GDS-score; rho = 0.317; p < 0.001) and cognitive abilities (verbal fluency; rho = 0.209; p < 0.018) of the proxy. Conclusion: Proxies' assessment of the patients' QoL is related to the proxies' health, and the difference of patient's and proxie's QoL-rating is correlated with dementia severity even in mild dementia stages. QOL measures use ratings of the individual to assess the impact of symptoms and disorders on everyday life. In dementia patients, however, this impact is not captured since patients' and proxies' self-assessment of their own QoL do not reflect severity of disease whatsoever. Patients' and proxies' influencing variables render the score obtained with generic quality of life assessment meaningless in capturing the impact of dementia. Decisions on initiation or discontinuation of treatment or allocation of other resources for patients with dementia therefore need not depend on generic assessment of quality of life.

The evaluation of the level of consciousness in patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) is primarily based on behavioural assessments. Patients with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS) do not show any sign of awareness of their environment, while minimally conscious state (MCS) patients show reproducible but fluctuating signs of awareness. Some patients, although with remaining cognitive abilities, are not able to exhibit overt voluntary responses at the bedside and may be misdiagnosed as UWS. Several studies investigated functional neuroimaging and neurophysiology as an additional tool to evaluate the level of consciousness and to detect covert command following in DOC. Most of these studies are based on auditory stimulation, neglecting patients suffering from decreased or absent hearing abilities. In the present study, we aim to assess the response to a P3-based paradigm in 40 patients with DOC and 12 healthy participants using auditory (AEP) and vibrotactile (VTP) stimulation. To this end, an EEG-based brain-computer interface was used at DOC patient’s bedside. We compared the significance of the P3 performance (i.e., the interpretation of significance of the evoked P3 response) as obtained by ‘direct processing’ (i.e., theoretical-based significance threshold) and ‘offline processing’ (i.e., permutation-based single subject level threshold). We evaluated whether the P3 performances were dependent on clinical variables such as diagnosis (UWS and MCS), aetiology and time since injury. Last we tested the dependency of AEP and VTP performances at the single subject level. Direct processing tends to overestimate P3 performance. We did not find any difference in the presence of a P3 performance according to the level of consciousness (UWS vs. MCS) or the aetiology (traumatic vs. non-traumatic brain injury). The performance achieved at the AEP paradigm was independent from what was achieved at the VTP paradigm, indicating that some patients performed better on the AEP task while others performed better on the VTP task. Our results support the importance of using multimodal approaches in the assessment of DOC patients in order to optimise the evaluation of patient’s abilities.

Background: Robotic therapy and serious gaming support motor learning in neurorehabilitation. Traditional monitor-based gaming outputs cannot adequately represent the third dimension, whereas virtual reality headsets lack the connection to the real world. The use of Augmented Reality (AR) techniques could potentially overcome these issues. The objective of this study was thus to evaluate the usability, feasibility and functionality of a novel arm rehabilitation device for neurorehabilitation (RobExReha system) based on a robotic arm (LBR iiwa, KUKA AG) and serious gaming using the AR headset HoloLens (Microsoft Inc.). Methods: The RobExReha system was tested with eleven adult inpatients (mean age: 64.4 ± 11.2 years; diagnoses: 8 stroke, 2 spinal cord injury, 1 Guillain-Barré-Syndrome) who had paretic impairments in their upper limb. Five therapists administered and evaluated the system. Data was compared with a Reference Group (eleven inpatients; mean age: 64.3 ± 9.1 years; diagnoses: 10 stroke, 1 spinal cord injury) who trained with commercially available robotic therapy devices (ArmeoPower or ArmeoSpring, Hocoma AG). Patients used standardized questionnaires for evaluating usability and comfort (Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive technology [QUEST]), workload (Raw Task Load Index [RTLX]) and a questionnaire for rating visual perception of the gaming scenario. Therapists used the QUEST, the System Usability Scale and the short version of the User Experience Questionnaire. Results: Therapy with the RobExReha system was safe and feasible for patients and therapists, with no serious adverse events being reported. Patients and therapists were generally satisfied with usability. The patients’ usability ratings were significantly higher in the Reference Group for two items of the QUEST: reliability and ease of use. Workload (RTLX) ratings did not differ significantly between the groups. Nearly all patients using the RobExReha system perceived the gaming scenario in AR as functioning adequately despite eight patients having impairments in stereoscopic vision. The therapists valued the system’s approach as interesting and inventive. Conclusions: We demonstrated the clinical feasibility of combining a novel robotic upper limb robot with an AR-serious game in a neurorehabilitation setting. To ensure high usability in future applications, a reliable and easy-to-use system that can be used for task-oriented training should be implemented. Trial registration: Ethical approval was obtained and the trial was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00022136).