Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of the single-group studies

From: Immediate and long-term effects of BCI-based rehabilitation of the upper extremity after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study, year n Age (years)a Time since strokea Brain signal for BCI BCI intervention Dosage of BCI Outcome measures Main results
Buch et al. (2008) [56] 8 58.2 ± 7.0 25.2 ± 11.6 (mo) MEG, mu BCI-orthosis 1–2 h/d, 3–5 d/wk., 3–8 wk MRC Increased mu rhythm modulation, but no clinical change in MRC.
Prasad et al. (2010) [26] 5 58.6 ± 8.98 28 ± 15.4 (mo) EEG, mu, beta BCI-visual feedback 30 min/d, 2 d/wk., 6 wk ARAT, MRC, 9-HPT Positive improvement in at least one outcome in all subjects.
Tung et al. (2013) [57] 6 Unknown Unknown EEG BCI-robot 1 h/d, 5 d/wk., 2 wk FMA-UE Significant improvement in FMA-UE after BCI.
Ono et al. (2014) [37] 12 57.6 ± 11.8 30.8 ± 41.3 (mo) EEG, mu, beta BCI-visual feedback/somatosensory feedback 1 h/d, 12–20 d SIAS, EMG BCI training with somatosensory feedback was more effective than that with visual feedback.
Morone et al. (2015) [58] 8 60 ± 10.9 24.4 ± 21.2 (wk) EEG, beta Con-rehab + BCI-visual feedback 30 min/d, 3 d/wk., 4 wk FMA-UE, NIHSS, BI Positive improvement in all subjects and half of them had improvements higher than the MCID.
Kawakami et al. (2016) [59] 29 50.6 ± 10.9 48 ± 41.4 (mo) EEG, mu 40 min standard training + BCI-orthosis 45 min/d, 5 d/wk., 2 wk FMA-UE, MAL, MAS Significant improvement in FMA-UE and MAL scores after BCI training.
Kotov et al. (2016) [60] 5 47.0 ± 7.7 2 mo-4 yr EEG BCI-exoskeleton 8–10 d NIHSS, MAS, BI, mRS All patients showed decreases in neurological deficit after BCI training.
Bundy et al. (2017) [61] 10 58.6 ± 10.3 73.6 ± 104.2 (mo) EEG, mu, beta BCI-exoskeleton 10–120 min/d, 5 d/wk., 12 wk ARAT, MAS, Significant improvement in ARAT after BCI training.
Ibáñez et al. (2017) [62] 4 54.3 ± 11.8 4 ± 0.8 (yr) EEG, 7–30 Hz, Bereitschafts potential BCI-FES 10 days in one month FMA-UE Improved scores in FMA-UE after BCI training.
Sullivan et al. (2017) [63] 6 57.5 ± 7.9 51.5 ± 41.9 (mo) EEG, MRCP BCI-exoskeleton 12 d in 5 wk FMA-UE Significant improvement in FMA-UE after BCI training.
Nishimoto et al. (2018) [64] 26 50.2 ± 11.1 47.4 ± 43.9 (mo) EEG, mu BCI-exoskeleton + FES 40 min/d, 10 d FMA-UE, MAL Significant improvement in FMA-UE and MAL after BCI training.
Chowdhury et al. (2018) [65] 4 44.75 ± 15.69 7 ± 1.15 (mo) EEG, mu, low beta BCI-exoskeleton 2–3 d/wk., 6 wk ARAT, GS The group mean changes from baseline in GS and ARAT were + 6.38 kg and + 5.66, respectively.
Norman et al. (2018) [66] 8 59.5 ± 11.8 At least 6 (mo) EEG, mu, beta BCI- visual feedback 3 d/wk., 4 wk BBT Hand function, measured by BBT improved by 7.3 ± 7.5 versus 3.5 ± 3.1 in those with and without SMR control.
Remsik et al. (2018) [67] 21 61.6 ± 15 1127 ± 1327 (d) EEG BCI- visual feedback, FES 2 h/d, 15 d ARAT, 9-HPT, SIS Significant improvement in ARAT after BCI training.
Tabernig et al. (2018) [68] 8 61.2 ± 19.0 36.8 ± 24.2 (mo) EEG, beta BCI-FES 1 h/d, 4 d/wk., 5 wk Modified FMA-UE Significant improvement in modified FMA-UE after BCI training.
Carino-Escobar et al. (2019) [69] 9 58.1 ± 12.1 158 ± 74 (d) EEG, mu, beta BCI-orthosis 3 d/wk., 4 wk FMA-UE Six out of nine subjects had higher scores in FMA-UE after BCI training.
Foong et al. (2019) [70] 11 55.2 ± 11.0 333.7 ± 179.6 (d) EEG Standard arm therapy + BCI-visual feedback 1 h/d, 2 d/wk., 6 wk FMA-UE, ARAT Significant improvement in FMA-UE after BCI training.
Rathee et al. (2019) [71] 4 62.5 ± 5.7 23 ± 4.2 (mo) EEG, EMG BCI-exoskeleton 6 wk ARAT, GS Significant improvement in ARAT and GS after BCI training.
  1. aData is reported as means (SD)
  2. mo month(s), yr year(s), wk. weak(s), h hour(s), d day(s), BCI Brain-computer interface, MEG Magnetoencephalography, MRC Medical Research Council scale, SIAS Stroke Impairment Assessment Set, EEG Electroencephalography, ARAT Action Research Arm Test, 9-HPT Nine-Hole Peg Test, NIHSS National Institute of Health Stroke Scale, BI Barthel Index, EMG Electromyography, SMR Sensorimotor rhythm, FES Functional electrical stimulation, SIS Stroke Impact Scale, con-rehab conventional rehabilitation, FMA-UE Fugle-Meyer assessment-upper extremity, MCID Minimal clinically important difference, MAL Motor activity log, GS Grip strength, MAS Modified Ashworth scale, mRS modified Rankin scale, MRCP Movement-related cortical potentials, BBT Box and Block Test