Two mechatronics prototypes, useful for robotic neurotreatments and new clinical trainings, are here presented. P.I.G.R.O. (pneumatic interactive gait rehabilitation orthosis) is an active exoskeleton with an electropneumatic control. It imposes movements on lower limbs in order to produce in the patient’s brain proper motor cortex activation. Bra.Di.P.O. (brain discovery pneumatic orthosis) is an MR-compatible device, designed to improve fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) analysis. The two devices are presented together because both are involved in the study of new robotic treatments of patients affected by ictus or brain stroke or in some motor learning experimental investigations carried out on healthy subjects. 1. Introduction According to the theory of neuroplasticity, which neurologists have accepted for only a few decades, the brain is capable of “learning” even in adult age and following injuries, if appropriately stimulated [1, 2]. In recent years, a number of devices have been developed [3, 4] that can stimulate certain functions or simulate physiological movements so locomotor and cognitive functions in brain-damaged patients can be investigated using fMRI, or functional magnetic resonance imaging [5, 6]. Functional magnetic resonance imaging has made it possible to look into the human brain “in vivo” for the first time, literally “watching it at work.” In addition, fMRI is used on healthy subjects to gain an understanding of our brain’s complex capabilities in studies of motor learning. The paper presents two optimised electropneumatic prototypes, whose previous design can be read in [7–12]. The first one, called Bra.Di.P.O. (brain discovery pneumatic orthosis), is used to move the subject’s feet during the fMRI analysis in order to impose a controlled movement and stimulate the motor cortex during the test. The other one, called P.I.G.R.O. (pneumatic interactive gait rehabilitation orthosis), is an active electropneumatic exoskeleton for lower limbs motor exercises. Designed at the Politecnico di Torino, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, the two devices have to be used together in the study of motor imagery with healthy subjects or not, to evaluate changes in brain plasticity at the level of motor circuits and motor imagination. Their common and main advantages are physiotherapist’s work improvement; movement imposed with repeatability; electronic data acquisition; continuous measurement of the whole test parameters; different clinical protocols possibility. In comparison with their previous design [7], these
References
[1]
F. C. Wang, C. H. Yu, and T. Y. Chou, “Design and implementation of robust controllers for a gait trainer,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers H, Journal of Engineering in Medicine, vol. 223, no. 6, pp. 687–696, 2009.
[2]
D. P. Ferris, G. S. Sawicki, and M. A. Daley, “A physiologist's perspective on robotic exoskeletons for human locomotion,” International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 507–528, 2007.
[3]
R. Gassert, E. Burdet, and K. Chinzei, “Opportunities and challenges in MR-compatible robotics,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 15–22, 2008.
[4]
N. V. Tsekos, A. Khanicheh, E. Christoforou, and C. Mavroidis, “Magnetic resonance - Compatible robotic and mechatronics systems for image-guided interventions and rehabilitation: a review study,” Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 9, pp. 351–387, 2007.
[5]
R. Moser, R. Gassert, E. Burdet et al., “An MR compatible robot technology,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 670–675, 2003.
[6]
E. Burdet, R. Gassert, G. Gowrishankar, D. Chapuis, and H. Bleuler, “fMRI compatible haptic interfaces to investigate human motor control,” Experimental Robotics IX, vol. 21, pp. 25–34, 2006.
[7]
G. Belforte, G. Eula, S. Sirolli, and S. Appendino, “Design and testing of two mechatronics systems for robotized neurorehabilitation,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Mechatronics and Precision Engineering, Bucarest, Romania, May 2011.
[8]
K. Sacco, S. Appendino, E. Geda et al., “Designing a locomotor and cognitive training with robotic devices,” in Proceedings of the EFRR 11th Congress of European Federation for Research in Rehabilitation, Riva del Garda, Italy, May 2011.
[9]
G. Belforte, G. Eula, G. Quaglia, S. Appendino, F. Cauda, and K. Sacco, “MR compatible device for active and passive foot movements,” in Proceedings of the 18th International Workshop on Robotics in Alpe-Adria-Danube Region (RAAD '09), Brasov, Romania, May 2009.
[10]
G. Belforte and G. Eula, “Optimisation of a MR-Compatible mechatronic device useful for fMRI analysis,” in Proceedings of the 21st International Workshop on Robotics in Alpe-Adria-Danube Region (RAAD '12), pp. 10–13, Naples, Italy, September 2012.
[11]
G. Belforte and G. Eula, “Design of an active-passive device for human ankle movement during fMRI analysis,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine January, vol. 226, 2011.
[12]
G. Belforte, G. Eula, S. Appendino, and S. Sirolli, “Pneumatic interactive gait rehabilitation orthosis: design and preliminary testing,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, vol. 225, no. 2, pp. 158–169, 2011.
[13]
K. Chinzei, R. Kikinis, and F. A. Jolesz, “MR compatibility of mechatronic devices: design criteria,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention (MICCAI '99), vol. 1679 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 1020–1031, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1999.
[14]
R. Gassert, A. Yamamoto, D. Chapuis, L. Dovat, H. Bleuler, and E. Burdet, “Actuation methods for applications in MR environments,” Concepts in Magnetic Resonance B: Magnetic Resonance Engineering, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 191–209, 2006.
[15]
H. Elhawary, Z. T. H. Tse, A. Hamed, M. Rea, B. L. Davies, and M. U. Lamperth, “The case for MR-compatible robotics: a review of the state of the art,” International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 105–113, 2008.
[16]
N. Yu, C. Hollnagel, A. Blickenstorfer, S. S. Kollias, and R. Riener, “Comparison of MRI-compatible mechatronic systems with hydrodynamic and pneumatic actuation,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 268–277, 2008.
[17]
H. Elhawary, A. Zivanovic, M. Rea et al., “A modular approach to MRI-compatible robotics,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 35–41, 2008.
[18]
G. S. Fischer, A. Krieger, I. Iordachita, C. Csoma, L. L. Whitcomb, and G. Fichtinger, “MRI compatibility of robot actuation techniques—a comparative study,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI '08), vol. 5242 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 2, pp. 509–517, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2008.
[19]
C. Wienbruch, V. Candia, J. Svensson, R. Kleiser, and S. S. Kollias, “A portable and low-cost fMRI compatible pneumatic system for the investigation of the somatosensensory system in clinical and research environments,” Neuroscience Letters, vol. 398, no. 3, pp. 183–188, 2006.
[20]
N. Yu, W. Murr, A. Blickenstorfer, S. Kollias, and R. Riener, “An fMRI compatible haptic interface with pneumatic actuation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR '07), pp. 714–720, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, June 2007.
[21]
C. Raoufi, A. A. Goldenberg, and W. Kucharczyk, “A new hydraulically/pneumatically actuated mrcompatible robot for MRI-guided neurosurgery,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering (ICBBE '08), pp. 2232–2235, Shanghai , China, May 2006.
[22]
B. J. MacIntosh, R. Mraz, N. Baker, F. Tam, W. R. Staines, and S. J. Graham, “Optimizing the experimental design for ankle dorsiflexion fMRI,” NeuroImage, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1619–1627, 2004.
[23]
S. Francis, X. Lin, S. Aboushoushah et al., “fMRI analysis of active, passive and electrically stimulated ankle dorsiflexion,” NeuroImage, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 469–479, 2009.
[24]
ISO, 7250-1: Basic human body measurements for technological design. Part 1: Body measurement definitions and landmarks.
[25]
ISO/TR, 7250-2: Basic human body measurements for technological design. Part 2: Statistical summaries of body measurements from individual ISO populations.
[26]
K. Kubo, T. Miyoshi, A. Kanai, and K. Terashima, “Gait rehabilitation device in central nervous system disease: a review,” Journal of Robotics, vol. 2011, Article ID 348207, 14 pages, 2011.
[27]
I. Díaz, G. G. Gil, and E. Sánchez, “Lower-limb robotic rehabilitation: literature review and challenges,” Journal of Robotics, vol. 2011, Article ID 759764, 11 pages, 2011.
[28]
G. S. Sawicki, K. E. Gordon, and D. P. Ferris, “Powered lower limb orthoses: Applications in motor adaptation and rehabilitation,” in 2Proceedings of the IEEE 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR '05), pp. 206–211, Chicago, Ill, USA, July 2005.
[29]
P. Beyl, M. van Damme, R. van Ham, and D. Lefeber, “Design and control concepts of an exoskeleton for gait rehabilitation,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Biennial IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob '08), pp. 103–108, Scottsdale, Ariz, USA, October 2008.
[30]
D. Surdilovic, J. Zhang, and R. Bernhardt, “STRING-MAN: wire-robot technology for safe, flexible and human-friendly gait rehabilitation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR '07), pp. 446–453, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, June 2007.
[31]
X. Zhang, C. Yang, J. Zhang, and Y. Chen, “A novel DGO based on pneumatic exoskeleton leg for locomotor training of paraplegic patients,” in Intelligent Robotics and Applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 528–537, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2008.
[32]
G. Belforte, G. Eula, S. Appendino, G. C. Geminiani, and M. Zettin, “Tutore attivo per neuroriabilitazione motoria degli arti inferiori, sistema comprendente tale tutore e procedimento per il funzionamento di tale sistema,” Patent TO2012A000226, 2012.
[33]
J. Perry, Gait Analysis—Normal and Pathological Function, SLACK Incorporated, 1992.
[34]
S. Ionta, A. Ferretti, A. Merla, A. Tartaro, and G. L. Romani, “Step-by-step: the effects of physical practice on the neural correlates of locomotion imagery revealed by fMRI,” Human Brain Mapping, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 694–702, 2010.
[35]
F. Malouin and C. L. Richards, “Mental practice for relearning locomotor skills,” Physical Therapy, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 240–251, 2010.
[36]
J. Talairach and P. Tournoux, Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain: 3-Dimensional Proportional System: An Approach to Cerebral Imaging, Thieme, Stuttgart, Germany, 1988.
[37]
G. M. Boynton, S. A. Engel, G. H. Glover, and D. J. Heeger, “Linear systems analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging in human V1,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 16, no. 13, pp. 4207–4221, 1996.
[38]
O. Baumann and M. W. Greenlee, “Effects of attention to auditory motion on cortical activations during smooth pursuit eye tracking,” PLoS ONE, vol. 4, no. 9, Article ID e7110, 2009.
[39]
I. Fried, A. Katz, G. McCarthy et al., “Functional organization of human supplementary motor cortex studies by electrical stimulation,” Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 3656–3666, 1991.
[40]
K. Sacco, F. Cauda, S. Duca et al., “A combined robotic and cognitive training for locomotor rehabilitation: evidences of cerebral functional reorganization in two chronic traumatic brain injured patients,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, pp. 1–9, 2011.
