Background: Markerless motion capture (MMC) technology has been developed to avoid the need for body marker placement during motion tracking and analysis of human movement. Although researchers have long proposed the use of MMC technology in clinical measurement—identification and measurement of movement kinematics in a clinical population, its actual application is still in its preliminary stages. The benefits of MMC technology are also inconclusive with regard to its use in assessing patients’ conditions. In this review we put a minor focus on the method’s engineering components and sought primarily to determine the current application of MMC as a clinical measurement tool in rehabilitation. Methods: A systematic computerized literature search was conducted in PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and IEEE. The search keywords used in each database were “Markerless Motion Capture OR Motion Capture OR Motion Capture Technology OR Markerless Motion Capture Technology OR Computer Vision OR Video-based OR Pose Estimation AND Assessment OR Clinical Assessment OR Clinical Measurement OR Assess.” Only peer-reviewed articles that applied MMC technology for clinical measurement were included. The last search took place on March 6, 2023. Details regarding the application of MMC technology for different types of patients and body parts, as well as the assessment results, were summarized. Results: A total of 65 studies were included. The MMC systems used for measurement were most frequently used to identify symptoms or to detect differences in movement patterns between disease populations and their healthy counterparts. Patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) who demonstrated obvious and well-defined physical signs were the largest patient group to which MMC assessment had been applied. Microsoft Kinect was the most frequently used MMC system, although there was a recent trend of motion analysis using video captured with a smartphone camera. Conclusions: This review explored the current uses of MMC technology for clinical measurement. MMC technology has the potential to be used as an assessment tool as well as to assist in the detection and identification of symptoms, which might further contribute to the use of an artificial intelligence method for early screening for diseases. Further studies are warranted to develop and integrate MMC system in a platform that can be user-friendly and accurately analyzed by clinicians to extend the use of MMC technology in the disease populations.

Background: A substantial number of clinical studies have demonstrated the functional recovery induced by the use of brain-computer interface (BCI) technology in patients after stroke. The objective of this review is to evaluate the effect sizes of clinical studies investigating the use of BCIs in restoring upper extremity function after stroke and the potentiating effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on BCI training for motor recovery. Methods: The databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and PEDro) were systematically searched for eligible single-group or clinical controlled studies regarding the effects of BCIs in hemiparetic upper extremity recovery after stroke. Single-group studies were qualitatively described, but only controlled-trial studies were included in the meta-analysis. The PEDro scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the controlled studies. A meta-analysis of upper extremity function was performed by pooling the standardized mean difference (SMD). Subgroup meta-analyses regarding the use of external devices in combination with the application of BCIs were also carried out. We summarized the neural mechanism of the use of BCIs on stroke. Results: A total of 1015 records were screened. Eighteen single-group studies and 15 controlled studies were included. The studies showed that BCIs seem to be safe for patients with stroke. The single-group studies consistently showed a trend that suggested BCIs were effective in improving upper extremity function. The meta-analysis (of 12 studies) showed a medium effect size favoring BCIs for improving upper extremity function after intervention (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.18–0.66; I² = 48%; P < 0.001; fixed-effects model), while the long-term effect (five studies) was not significant (SMD = 0.12; 95% CI = − 0.28 – 0.52; I² = 0%; P = 0.540; fixed-effects model). A subgroup meta-analysis indicated that using functional electrical stimulation as the external device in BCI training was more effective than using other devices (P = 0.010). Using movement attempts as the trigger task in BCI training appears to be more effective than using motor imagery (P = 0.070). The use of tDCS (two studies) could not further facilitate the effects of BCI training to restore upper extremity motor function (SMD = − 0.30; 95% CI = − 0.96 – 0.36; I² = 0%; P = 0.370; fixed-effects model). Conclusion: The use of BCIs has significant immediate effects on the improvement of hemiparetic upper extremity function in patients after stroke, but the limited number of studies does not support its long-term effects. BCIs combined with functional electrical stimulation may be a better combination for functional recovery than other kinds of neural feedback. The mechanism for functional recovery may be attributed to the activation of the ipsilesional premotor and sensorimotor cortical network.

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has made a huge impact on people's physical and mental health, and it remains a cause of death for many all over the world. To prevent the spread of coronavirus infection, different types of public health measures (social isolation, quarantine, lockdowns, and curfews) have been imposed by governments. However, mental health experts warn that the prolonged lockdown, quarantine, or isolation will create a “second pandemic” with severe mental health issues and suicides. The quarantined or isolated people may suffer from various issues such as physical inactivity, mental health, economic and social problems. As with the SARS outbreak in 2003, many suicide cases have been reported in connection with this current COVID-19 pandemic lockdown due to various factors such as social stigma, alcohol withdrawal syndrome, fear of COVID infection, loneliness, and other mental health issues. This paper provides an overview of risk factors that can cause suicide and outlines possible solutions to prevent suicide in this current COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has attracted plenty of attention as it has been proved to be effective in facilitating motor recovery in patients with stroke. The aim of this study was to systematically review the effects of repetitive TMS (rTMS) and theta burst stimulation (TBS) protocols in modulating cortical excitability after stroke.Methods: A literature search was carried out using PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro, to identify studies that investigated the effects of four rTMS protocols—low and high frequency rTMS, intermittent and continuous TBS, on TMS measures of cortical excitability in stroke. A random-effects model was used for all meta-analyses.Results: Sixty-one studies were included in the current review. Low frequency rTMS was effective in decreasing individuals’ resting motor threshold and increasing the motor-evoked potential of the non-stimulated M1 (affected M1), while opposite effects occurred in the stimulated M1 (unaffected M1). High frequency rTMS enhanced the cortical excitability of the affected M1 alone. Intermittent TBS also showed superior effects in rebalancing bilateral excitability through increasing and decreasing excitability within the affected and unaffected M1, respectively. Due to the limited number of studies found, the effects of continuous TBS remained inconclusive. Motor impairment was significantly correlated with various forms of TMS measures.Conclusions: Except for continuous TBS, it is evident that these protocols are effective in modulating cortical excitability in stroke. Current evidence does support the effects of inhibitory stimulation in enhancing the cortical excitability of the affected M1.

Objective. To evaluate the concurrent and training effects of action observation (AO) and action execution with mirror visual feedback (MVF) on the activation of the mirror neuron system (MNS) and its relationship with the activation of the motor cortex in stroke individuals. Methods. A literature search using CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, Medline, Web of Science, and SCOPUS to find relevant studies was performed. Results. A total of 19 articles were included. Two functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies reported that MVF could activate the ipsilesional primary motor cortex as well as the MNS in stroke individuals, whereas two other fMRI studies found that the MNS was not activated by MVF in stroke individuals. Two clinical trials reported that long-term action execution with MVF induced a shift of activation toward the ipsilesional hemisphere. Five fMRI studies showed that AO activated the MNS, of which, three found the activation of movement-related areas. Five electroencephalography (EEG) studies demonstrated that AO or MVF enhanced mu suppression over the sensorimotor cortex. Conclusions. MVF may contribute to stroke recovery by revising the interhemispheric imbalance caused by stroke due to the activation of the MNS. AO may also promote motor relearning in stroke individuals by activating the MNS and motor cortex.