Key result
Functional near-infrared spectroscopy demonstrated good within-session spatial reliability (R2 up to 0.69) and temporal reliability (ICC 0.60-0.86) during robot-assisted upper-limb training.
Why the study?
It was unknown whether functional near-infrared spectroscopy responses remain reliable within a training session during gross-motor tasks and across different training parameters.
Observational (n=10)
No
Effect estimate: R2 up to 0.69, Roverlap up to 0.68, ICC 0.60-0.86
fNIRS demonstrates good within-session spatial and temporal reliability during gross-motor tasks, supporting its potential use as neurofeedback in closed-loop robot-assisted rehabilitation systems.
Supports fNIRS neurofeedback in robot-assisted upper-limb training; leaves open patient validation and outcome trials.
Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) seems opportune for neurofeedback in robot-assisted rehabilitation training due to its noninvasive, less physical restriction, and no electromagnetic disturbance. Previous research has proved the cross-session reliability of fNIRS responses to non-motor tasks (e.g., visual stimuli) and fine-motor tasks (e.g., finger tapping). However, it is still unknown whether fNIRS responses remain reliable 1) in gross-motor tasks, 2) within a training session, and 3) for different training parameters. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the within-session reliability of fNIRS responses to gross-motor tasks for different training parameters. Ten healthy participants were recruited to conduct right elbow extension-flexion in three robot-assisted modes. The Passive mode was fully motor-actuated, whileActive1andActive2modes involved active engagement with different resistance levels. FNIRS data of three identical runs were used to assess the within-session reliability in terms of the map- (R2) and cluster-wise (Roverlap) spatial reproducibility and the intraclass correlation (ICC) of temporal features. The results revealed good spatial reliability (R2up to 0.69,Roverlapup to 0.68) at the subject level. Besides, the within-session temporal reliabilities of Slope, Max/Min, and Mean were between good and excellent (0.60Active2mode. Overall, our results demonstrated good within-session reliability of fNIRS responses, suggesting fNIRS as reliable neurofeedback for constructing closed-loop robot-assisted rehabilitation systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiang et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Healthy (n=10). Robot-assisted upper-limb training vs. Different training modes (Passive, Active1, Active2) and runs was evaluated on Within-session spatial and temporal reliability of fNIRS responses (R2 up to 0.69, Roverlap up to 0.68, ICC 0.60-0.86). Functional near-infrared spectroscopy demonstrated good within-session spatial reliability (R2 up to 0.69) and temporal reliability (ICC 0.60-0.86) during robot-assisted upper-limb training.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: