Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1pm until 3pm (AEDT) on Wednesday the 30th of October for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial registered on ANZCTR
Registration number
ACTRN12621000779875
Ethics application status
Approved
Date submitted
31/03/2021
Date registered
22/06/2021
Date last updated
22/06/2021
Date data sharing statement initially provided
22/06/2021
Type of registration
Retrospectively registered
Titles & IDs
Public title
Can neurofeedback recover hand movement after stroke?
Query!
Scientific title
Can Restorative Brain-Computer interfaces Improve Hand Motor Functions after a Stroke?
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
303836
0
Nil known
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Stroke
321364
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Stroke
319144
319144
0
0
Query!
Haemorrhagic
Query!
Stroke
319145
319145
0
0
Query!
Ischaemic
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Can neurofeedback recover hand movement after stroke?
The rationale for Clinical Investigation: Finding novel and efficacious methods for motor recovery after stroke is a prominent unmet need. RehabSwift’s single-case study provided promising and clinically significant outcomes. Therefore, running a study involving up to 15 chronic stroke patients will determine whether and to what extent the observed results from the single case study can be generalized to the larger patient populations
Investigational Device:
The investigational device includes:
o an Electroencephalogram (EEG) cap and amplifier;
o a machine learning algorithm residing in a PC; and
o a bionic hand that provides haptic feedback.
o Electromyogram (EMG) electrodes attached to finger flexor/ extensor muscles.
The sponsor will provide the devices to the investigation site for the duration of the trial.
Study Procedures
Participants first attend a screening session during which they are screened for compatibility with the inclusion criteria. This includes monitoring patients vs the eligibility criteria elborated in step 5. Participants will also perform a brief run of motor imagery whilst their EEG signals are recorded. The overall screening session is expected to take up to two hours.
Those who pass the inclusion criteria, attend 18 neurofeedback training sessions over six consecutive weeks (three days per week). During training sessions, the performance of motor imagery of finger extension/flexion will be rewarded by the actual finger extension/flexion using bionic hands involved with participants’ affected hands.
Every neurofeedback training session starts with the preparation of the patient to wear an EEG cap and also attachment of up to four EMG electrodes to their arm muscles. Next, a measurement of the reaction time of the patient will be implemented.
Reaction time measurement will occur by involving the participant's hands in the bionic hands and having them following through with an extension or flexion movement of their fingers as fast as possible in response to a timed extension/flexion movement from the bionic hands. The response between the bionic hand movement and participant muscular activity will be monitored.
Then eight runs of neurofeedback training will be implemented, where each run includes conducting 20 motor imagery and relaxation trials in a randomised order. The motor imagery trials consist of asking the participants to imagine extend/flex their fingers. Relaxation trials will involve asking participants to remain still and do nothing such as concentrating on a blank wall. There will be 2-minute breaks between consecutive runs and collectively each neurofeedback training session is expected to take approximately one hour.
Participants' attendance will be recorded as well as lab notes corresponding to each session.
Neurofeedback training sessions will be provided by an experienced and well-trained experimenter with a background in neuroscience and/or psychology. The intervention will be provided face to face and individually. The intervention would take place at the University of Adelaide where all the necessary machinery will be provided by the sponsor for the duration of the trial.
Query!
Intervention code [1]
320140
0
Rehabilitation
Query!
Intervention code [2]
320141
0
Treatment: Devices
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
No control group
Query!
Control group
Uncontrolled
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
327023
0
Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Test (FME-UE)
The Fugl-Meyer is a scale that measures capacity of the arm. There are 33 items that evaluate reflexes, active movement, grasp patterns, speed, and coordination of the arm and hand. Each item is scored from 0-2, with a maximum total score of 66. Higher scores indicate better performance.
Query!
Assessment method [1]
327023
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
327023
0
Completed at three time points;
-Prior to intervention
- At the Conclusion of intervention
-four to six weeks post conclusion of the intervention
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
393485
0
Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)
The ARAT is a scale that measures activity participation of the arm. There are 19 items that several types of grasps, grips, pinches, and gross movements of the arm and hand. Each item is scored from 0-3, with a maximum total score of 57. Higher scores indicate better performance.
Query!
Assessment method [1]
393485
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
393485
0
Completed at three time points;
-Prior to the intervention
- At the conclusion of the intervention
-four to six weeks post conclusion of the intervention
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
393488
0
Goal Attainment Scale (GAS)
Query!
Assessment method [2]
393488
0
Query!
Timepoint [2]
393488
0
Completed at three time points;
-Prior to the intervention
- At the conclusion of the intervention
-four to six weeks post conclusion of the intervention
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
393489
0
Modified Ashworth Scale
The Modified Ashworth scale measures the resistance to passive movement about a joint with varying degrees of velocity. Scores range from 0-4 with a 1+ scoring category to indicate resistance through less than half the movement, with 6 choices.
A score of 0 indicates no increase in muscle tone and a score of 4 indicates the affected part is rigid in flexion or extension.
For this study, only fingers and wrist extension, and flexion were monitored.
Query!
Assessment method [3]
393489
0
Query!
Timepoint [3]
393489
0
Completed at three time points;
-Prior to the intervention
- At the conclusion of the intervention
-four to six weeks post conclusion of the intervention
Query!
Secondary outcome [4]
393490
0
Pinch and Grip test
Query!
Assessment method [4]
393490
0
Query!
Timepoint [4]
393490
0
Completed at three time points;
-Prior to the intervention
- At the conclusion of the intervention
-four to six weeks post conclusion of the intervention
Query!
Secondary outcome [5]
393491
0
Reaction Time
The reaction time is measured by involving participants' hands in the bionic hands and having them following through with an extension or flexion of their fingers as fast as possible in response to extension/flexion movement from the bionic hands. During this test, the electromyogram (EMG) signal of the finger flexor or extensor of the arm muscle are also recorded. The response time is measured by a built-in algorithm that continuously monitors changes of the recorded EMG signals.
Query!
Assessment method [5]
393491
0
Query!
Timepoint [5]
393491
0
Completed prior to each training session.
Query!
Secondary outcome [6]
393492
0
Neglect test
Behavioural assessment of unilateral neglect (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12589620/)
The test involves asking the participants 10 questions, where each question gets a mark between 0-3. The higher the number, the more behavioural neglect is experienced by the participant.
Query!
Assessment method [6]
393492
0
Query!
Timepoint [6]
393492
0
Completed at three time points;
-Prior to the intervention
- At the conclusion of the intervention
-four to six weeks post conclusion of the intervention
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
The prospective participants have to fulfill the following inclusion criteria:
1- being at least six months post-stroke and in a stable condition;
2- having impaired motor capabilities in their affected arm determined by an ARAT score less than 45 out of 57;
3- having intact cognitive functions determined by the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score to be more than 26 out of 30;
4- being independently mobile—with or without a walking aid;
5- not having excessive tone in their arm and hand muscles determined by the modified Ashworth test score to be less than 3 out of 4;
6- having the ability to perform vivid MI—by screening their ability in generating discriminable MI vs relaxation EEG signals;
7- having an (almost) intact sense of proprioception—by screening their blind judgment of comparing the size of seven polystyrene balls with more than 50% accuracy;
8- the ability to fully understand and comprehend auditory instructions presented in English to perform motor imagery.
Query!
Minimum age
18
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
80
Years
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
No
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
1- individuals with comorbidities such as arthritis in the hands/fingers of their affected side will be excluded.
2- individuals who do not think they can fulfil the visit attendance requirements will be excluded.
3- Visual or hearing impairment.
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Treatment
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Non-randomised trial
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Query!
Masking / blinding
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Query!
Other design features
Query!
Phase
Not Applicable
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Safety/efficacy
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Description of Statistical Methods
There is a consensus (https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/92/6/791/2735128) that for chronic stroke survivors, a minimum increase of 5.25 in their Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score is required for the therapy to be considered as clinically important. Therefore, the primary clinically meaningful effect of the therapy was determined to be an increase of 5.25 points in Fugl-Meyer upper extremity scores; the standard deviation was assumed to be 4 points based on evidence from the available literature. In the absence of information concerning the magnitude of the correlation between pre- and post-treatment scores, a worst-case scenario was adopted whereby the correlation was set to zero. Under these assumptions, a sample of 12 patients would be required for the study.
The Number of Participants
The recruitment process and the main study will run in parallel. In case of drop outs recruitment is continued till the target sample size of 12 is reached.
The Level of Statistical Significance
Power calculations were based on the requirement that effects be assessed at the 5% alpha-level with 80% statistical power.
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Recruiting
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
11/11/2020
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
15/09/2021
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
24/12/2021
Query!
Actual
Query!
Sample size
Target
12
Query!
Accrual to date
8
Query!
Final
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
SA
Query!
Recruitment hospital [1]
19043
0
The Queen Elizabeth Hospital - Woodville
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [1]
33590
0
5011 - Woodville
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Funding source category [1]
308231
0
Commercial sector/Industry
Query!
Name [1]
308231
0
RehabSwift Pty ltd.
Query!
Address [1]
308231
0
10 Pulteney St, Adelaide, SA, 5000
Query!
Country [1]
308231
0
Australia
Query!
Primary sponsor type
Commercial sector/Industry
Query!
Name
RehabSwift
Query!
Address
10 Pulteney St, Adelaide, SA, 5000
Query!
Country
Australia
Query!
Secondary sponsor category [1]
309027
0
None
Query!
Name [1]
309027
0
Query!
Address [1]
309027
0
Query!
Country [1]
309027
0
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Approved
Query!
Ethics committee name [1]
308213
0
The Univeristy of Adelaide
Query!
Ethics committee address [1]
308213
0
The University of Adelaide Adelaide, South Australia 5005 Australia
Query!
Ethics committee country [1]
308213
0
Australia
Query!
Date submitted for ethics approval [1]
308213
0
30/06/2020
Query!
Approval date [1]
308213
0
05/08/2020
Query!
Ethics approval number [1]
308213
0
H-2020-147
Query!
Ethics committee name [2]
308216
0
Central Adelaide Local Health Network (CALHN)
Query!
Ethics committee address [2]
308216
0
Central Adelaide Local Health Network Human Research Ethics Committee North Terrace Adelaide, SA, 5000
Query!
Ethics committee country [2]
308216
0
Australia
Query!
Date submitted for ethics approval [2]
308216
0
24/08/2020
Query!
Approval date [2]
308216
0
27/01/2021
Query!
Ethics approval number [2]
308216
0
2020/HRE00315 (formally 13831)
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
Stroke survivors suffer from impaired movements that affect their activities of daily living. Conventional physio and occupational therapies are provided to regain some of these lost motor abilities. However, even with intensive conventional therapy, a large portion of patients do not receive sufficient recovery to function independently. This deficit leads to significant social and economic burdens. Therefore, there is a clear need for the development of novel and effective intervention strategies. To address the gap, alternative therapies, including brain-computer interfaces, have been proposed to recover impaired hand functions following stroke. A brain-computer interface (BCI) can translate the imagination of hand movement to the movement of an object on a screen or even the actual hand movement provided by a robotic hand. In a BCI system, a specific cap records the electrical activity of the brain on the surface of the scalp during the imagination of the hand movement. A machine learning algorithm processes the recorded brain signals and determines if the imagination of movement has been performed. When the algorithm detects the movement imagination, it sends commands to the outside world and provides feedback to the user. A specific type of feedback may be supplied via a robotic hand to move a paralysed hand passively, during the imagination of the hand movement. There is a growing body of research, demonstrating the promising primary results of the application of BCIs for movement recovery after stroke. However, to supply BCI as standard therapy in clinics, its consistency and efficacy need to be improved. One of our prior studies suggests the outperformance of proprioceptive feedback over traditional visual feedback in the provision of a better substrate for the occurrence of operant learning. Further, we have demonstrated that provision of the correct delay between the brain activation and the passive hand movement is critical and must be customised according to individual’s attributes. Putting together the findings of the two prior studies, we improved the hand movement of a stroke patient, who had had a stroke 3.5 years before the study, by 36% after ten sessions of therapy. Observing the promising results of the aforementioned studies, we are investigating how our novel BCI therapy recovers the hand movement for a group of stroke survivors.
Query!
Trial website
https://www.rehabswift.com/clinical-trials
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
109954
0
Prof Derek Abbott
Query!
Address
109954
0
Room 3.47 , Ingkarni Wardli , North Terrace, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide SA 5000
Query!
Country
109954
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
109954
0
+61883135748
Query!
Fax
109954
0
Query!
Email
109954
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
109955
0
Dr Sam Darvishi
Query!
Address
109955
0
RehabSwift
10 Pulteney Street Adelaide SA 5000
Query!
Country
109955
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
109955
0
+61450214545
Query!
Fax
109955
0
Query!
Email
109955
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
Name
109956
0
Derek Abbott
Query!
Address
109956
0
Room 3.47 , Ingkarni Wardli , North Terrace, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide SA 5000
Query!
Country
109956
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
109956
0
+61883135748
Query!
Fax
109956
0
Query!
Email
109956
0
[email protected]
Query!
Data sharing statement
Will individual participant data (IPD) for this trial be available (including data dictionaries)?
No
Query!
No/undecided IPD sharing reason/comment
Query!
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Results publications and other study-related documents
Documents added manually
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Documents added automatically
No additional documents have been identified.
Download to PDF