Nada Signal

Dr. Nada Signal

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

19Years (2008-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 November 2018 in Sensors
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Usman RashidUsman Rashid
Usman Rashid
Imran Khan NiaziImran Khan Niazi
Imran Khan Niazi
NSNada Signal
Nada Signal
DTDenise Taylor
Denise Taylor
Texas Instruments ADS1299 is an attractive choice for low cost electroencephalography (EEG) devices owing to its low power consumption and low input referred noise. To date, there have been no rigorous evaluations of its performance. In this EEG experimental study we evaluated the performance of the ADS1299 against a high quality laboratory-based system. Two self-paced lower limb motor tasks were performed by 22 healthy participants. Recorded power across delta, theta, alpha, and beta EEG bands, the power ratio across the motor tasks, pre-movement noise, and signal-to-noise ratio were obtained for evaluation. The amplitude and time of the negative peak in the movement-related cortical potentials (MRCPs) extracted from the EEG data were also obtained. Using linear mixed models, no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were found in any of these measures across the two systems. These findings were further supported by evaluation of cosine similarity, waveform differences, and topographic maps. There were statistically significant differences in MRCPs across the motor tasks in both systems. We conclude that the performance of the ADS1299 in combination with wet Ag/AgCl electrodes is analogous to that of a laboratory-based system in a low frequency (<40 Hz) EEG recording.

19 June 2017 in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NBNick Birch
Nick Birch
JGJon Graham
Jon Graham
TPTom Priestley
Tom Priestley
CHChris Heywood
Chris Heywood
Mohamed SakelMohamed Sakel
Mohamed Sakel
NSNada Signal
Nada Signal
The RAPPER II study investigates the feasibility, safety and acceptability of using the REX self-stabilising robotic exoskeleton in people with spinal cord injury (SCI) who are obligatory wheelchair users. Feasibility is assessed by the completion of transfer into the REX device, competency in achieving autonomous control and completion of upper body exercise in an upright position in the REX device. Safety is measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Device acceptability is assessed with a user questionnaire. RAPPER II is a prospective, multi-centre, open label, non-randomised, non-comparative cohort study in people with SCI recruited from neurological rehabilitation centres in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. This is the planned interim report of the first 20 participants. Each completed a transfer into the REX, were trained to achieve machine control and completed Timed Up and Go (TUG) tests as well as upper body exercises in standing in a single first time session. The time to achieve each task as well as the amount of assistance required was recorded. After finishing the trial tasks a User Experience questionnaire, exploring device acceptability, was completed. All participants could transfer into the REX. The mean transfer time was 439 s. Nineteen completed the exercise regime. Eighteen could achieve autonomous control of the REX, 17 of whom needed either no assistance or the help of just one therapist. Eighteen participants completed at least one TUG test in a mean time of 313 s, 15 with the assistance of just one therapist. The questionnaire demonstrated high levels of acceptability amongst users. There were no Serious Adverse Events. This first interim analysis of RAPPER II shows that it is feasible and safe for people with SCI to use the REX powered assisted walking device to ambulate and exercise in. Participants with tetraplegia and paraplegia could walk and perform a functional exercise program when standing needing only modest levels of assistance in most cases. User acceptability was high. ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02417532 . Registered 11 April 2015.

16 July 2025 in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KBKate Boardsworth
Kate Boardsworth
URUsman Rashid
Usman Rashid
SOSharon Olsen
Sharon Olsen
EREdgar Rodriguez-Ramirez
Edgar Rodriguez-Ramirez
WBWill Browne
Will Browne
NSNada Signal
Nada Signal
Following stroke, upper limb impairment is common and frequently limits ability to perform everyday activities. Due to limited resources, current therapy levels are insufficient to optimise functional improvement. Robotic devices have potential to augment upper limb stroke rehabilitation, but knowledge regarding the optimal device features and intervention parameters is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy of upper limb robotic rehabilitation compared with conventional rehabilitation, and to critically explore the device features and programme parameters that influence rehabilitation outcomes. Six electronic databases were searched for RCTs that compared dose-matched robotic versus conventional rehabilitation following stroke, and measured activity level changes in upper limb outcomes. The efficacy of robotic compared with conventional rehabilitation was evaluated using random-effects (I2 ≥ 50%) or fixed-effect (I2 < 50%) models. A systematic categorization of robotic device features and intervention parameters was conducted to facilitate subgroup analyses and meta-regression, enabling exploration of how these factors influence rehabilitation outcomes. The review included 54 studies, involving 2744 participants. Meta-analysis demonstrated that robotic rehabilitation had a small, statistically significant positive effect on upper limb capacity compared with conventional rehabilitation (SMD 0.14, 95% CI [0.02, 0.26]), however these gains were not maintained at follow-up (SMD 0.05, 95% CI [− 0.13, 0.24]). No significant differences were found between robotic and conventional rehabilitation for ADL outcomes either post-treatment (SMD 0.04, 95% CI [– 0.05, 0.13]) or at follow-up (SMD 0.05, 95% CI [− 0.13, 0.24]). Subgroup analyses provided crucial insights into the factors influencing robotic rehabilitation efficacy, revealing significant effects of device assistance (p = 0.0046), joints mobilized (p = 0.0133), degrees of freedom (p = 0.012), device laterality (p = 0.0048), and the number of devices used (p = 0.0001). The results suggest that robotic rehabilitation does not result in clinically meaningful improvement in either upper limb capacity or ADL performance. However, this study’s novel subgroup analyses highlight specific device features and intervention parameters that significantly influence efficacy. These findings provide critical guidance for the design, implementation, and future research of robotic rehabilitation.

11 December 2017 in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
MJMads Jochumsen
Mads Jochumsen
CRCecilie Rovsing
Cecilie Rovsing
HRHelene Rovsing
Helene Rovsing
SCSylvain Cremoux
Sylvain Cremoux
NSNada Signal
Nada Signal
Imran Khan NiaziImran Khan Niazi
Imran Khan Niazi
The ability to learn motor tasks is important in both healthy and pathological conditions. Measurement tools commonly used to quantify the neurophysiological changes associated with motor training such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and functional magnetic resonance imaging pose some challenges, including safety concerns, utility, and cost. EEG offers an attractive alternative as a quantification tool. Different EEG phenomena, movement-related cortical potentials (MRCPs) and sensorimotor rhythms (event-related desynchronization—ERD, and event-related synchronization—ERS), have been shown to change with motor training, but conflicting results have been reported. The aim of this study was to investigate how the EEG correlates (MRCP and ERD/ERS) from the motor cortex are modulated by short (single session in 14 subjects) and long (six sessions in 18 subjects) motor training. Ninety palmar grasps were performed before and after 1 × 45 (or 6 × 45) min of motor training with the non-dominant hand (laparoscopic surgery simulation). Four channels of EEG were recorded continuously during the experiments. The MRCP and ERD/ERS from the alpha/mu and beta bands were calculated and compared before and after the training. An increase in the MRCP amplitude was observed after a single session of training, and a decrease was observed after six sessions. For the ERD/ERS analysis, a significant change was observed only after the single training session in the beta ERD. In conclusion, the MRCP and ERD change as a result of motor training, but they are subject to a marked intra- and inter-subject variability.


27 November 2024 in BMJ Open
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NSNada Signal
Nada Signal
EGEmeline Gomes
Emeline Gomes
Sharon OlsenSharon Olsen
Sharon Olsen
GAGemma Alder
Gemma Alder
Background: Rehabilitation is a complex biopsychosocial process in which multidisciplinary professionals work in collaboration with a person and their family, with the shared objective of enhancing the person’s participation in valued life roles. Hence, rehabilitation is integral to the management of numerous health conditions. However, poor descriptions of rehabilitation interventions, including their essential elements and dosage parameters, pose a significant barrier to their replication in clinical practice. This further limits the synthesis of rehabilitation research and the consequent advancement of the field. The original Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide provides a valuable foundation for reporting but is not specific to rehabilitation. The TIDieR-Rehab checklist, an extension of the original TIDieR, was developed to enhance the reporting of rehabilitation interventions. Objective: This paper presents the TIDieR-Rehab checklist and supplementary manual. Methods: In accordance with the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network and other relevant guidelines, the TIDieR-Rehab checklist and supplementary manual were developed through a modified Delphi process with individuals with rehabilitation expertise and was guided by an interdisciplinary Steering Committee. Results: The TIDieR-Rehab checklist and supplementary manual present seven original, three adapted and 12 new items to enhance the reporting of rehabilitation interventions. New items promote full descriptions of critical aspects of rehabilitation interventions, including the intended study population (Who) and timing of the intervention (When) , the planned intervention dosage (How much, How challenging and Regression/Progression) , person-centred care (Personalisation) and negative undesired effects (Harms) . Explanations and examples of good reporting, provided within the TIDieR-Rehab supplementary manual, provide comprehensive guidance to support users of the checklist. Conclusions: The TIDieR-Rehab checklist and supplementary manual present a systematic approach to the comprehensive reporting of rehabilitation interventions. The checklist is intended to support replication, evaluation and optimisation of rehabilitation interventions through improved reporting quality.