ABSTRACT
Objective To study spatial attention processing characteristics in patients with unilateral spatial neglect (USN)by comparing the patients with right USN and behavioral findings of event-related potential (ERP)in normal subjects and the amplitude and latency of P1,N1 and P300. Methods Ten consecutive patients with USN (USN group)after right-hemisphere stroke admitted to the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine,Xuanwu Hospital,Capital Medical University from April 2012 to April 2013 were enrolled retrospectively. Age-and sex-matched 10 normal subjects with the USN group were selected. ERP was used to document the electroencephalogram changes of two groups of subjects when performing visual Oddball pattern tasks. The response time and accuracy of target stimuli in both groups appearing on the left (left target)and right (right target)were analyzed and compared. The amplitude and latency of all ERP components (P1,N1,P300)on the left and right target stimuli were analyzed by repeated measurement of multivariate analysis of variance. The pathogenesis of USN after stroke was investigated. Results In the USN group,the accuracy of target stimuli on left side and right side was lower than that in the normal group (left target:17. 7 ± 7. 5% vs. 98. 5 ± 7. 5%,P＜0. 01;right target:88. 5 ± 2. 0% vs. 99. 0 ± 2. 0 %,P＝0. 002). There was no significant difference in P1 amplitude between the two groups (F ＝1. 104,P ＝0. 307). When the target stimulus appeared on the left side,the N1 amplitude on the right hemisphere of the USN group was lower than that of the normal group (-0. 3 ± 1. 1 μV vs. -5. 8 ± 1. 1 μV;P＝0. 001), when the target stimulus appeared on the right side,the N1 amplitude of USN group was lower than that of the normal group (-1. 8 ± 1. 0 μV vs. -6. 0 ± 1. 0 μV;F＝9. 799,P＝0. 006). The P300 amplitude of left target of the USN group was lower than that of the normal group (1. 0 ± 1. 1 μV vs. 7. 2 ± 1. 1 μV;P＝0. 001). Compared with the normal group,the latency of each wave of P1 (right hemisphere)(136. 7 ± 3. 8 ms vs. 122. 1 ± 3. 8 ms;P ＝0. 013),N1 (179. 7 ± 2. 0 ms vs. 172. 8 ± 2. 0 ms;F ＝5. 775,P ＝0. 027),and P300 (490 ± 12 ms vs. 402 ± 12 ms;F＝27. 310,P＜0. 01]in the USN group was prolonged. Conclusion During the spatial attention processing in patients with USN,regardless of the stimuli from the left and right,its information processing had been damaged to a certain degree.
ABSTRACT
Objective Toinvestigatetheeffectofrehabilitationrobothandontheupperlimbmotor functioninpatientswithstrokeandhemiplegia.Methods Theeffectsoftraditionalrehabilitation therapy or robot rehabilitation treatment of 15 stroke patients with hemiplegia were analyzed retrospectively. There were 4 females and 11 males. According to the group order,they were divided into either a robot rehabilitation group (n=8 )or a general rehabilitation group (n =7 ). The patients of the general rehabilitation group received general rehabilitation training at the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine for 4 weeks,3 times a week,and 30 min for each time. At the same time,they also conducted family rehabilitation training,5 times a week,once for 1 h;the patients of the robot rehabilitation group received the general rehabilitation training for the same length of time as the general rehabilitation group,and they also performed robot rehabilitation training,5 times a week,once for 1 h. The patients of both groups were evaluated with the modified Ashworth scale (MAS )scores,Fugl-Meyer motor assessment of the upper extremity(FMA-UE),andWolfmotorfunctiontest(WMFT)beforeandaftertreatment.Results Compared with before training,the MAS score of the robot rehabilitation group was decreased significantly after four weeks of training. The time in WMFT was shortened significantly and the function score was improved obviously. The scores of upper extremity,hand score,and total FMA score in FMA-UE were improved significantly,and there were significant differences (all P 0. 05). Comparing the effects after four weeks of rehabilitation in both groups,the robot rehabilitation group was superior to the general rehabilitationgroupforthehandscoreinFMA-UE(allP<0.05).Conclusion Therehabilitation robot hand effectively lowered the upper limb spasticity. It has significant effect for recovery motor function of hand;however,it did not have a significant effect for motor rehabilitation on wrist.