ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT05229185Updated Mar 31, 2023

Error-enhancement for Arm Rehabilitation Post Stroke

An Early Phase 1 interventional study of DeXtreme training (error-enhancement) in Chronic Stroke, sponsored by Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven. Completed at 1 site in Belgium. Open to participants aged Up to 85 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-03-31.

Sponsored by Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven · Early Phase 1, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Early Phase 1
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
22
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
Up to 85 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Even in a chronic phase after stroke, most patients have difficulty moving the affected arm, resulting in limitations in simple tasks in daily living, most frequently limiting reaching task. In the chronic phase, significant improvements are usually no longer observed. Nevertheless, even these patients can still improve their functional abilities due to exercise-dependent plasticity.

A new device was developed, the deXtreme robot, a rehabilitation device that offers error-enhancement approach during three-dimensional movements. The goal error-enhancement is to elicit better accuracy, stability, fluidity and range of motion during reaching. games are projected on a screen, requiring 3D active reaching movements. The duration of the study for a single participant will be 7 consecutive working days, including 1 day of pre-intervention assessment, 5 days of training and 1 day of post-intervention assessment. The overall aim of this project is to gain knowledge into the potential of error-enhancement robot training in patients with upper limb impairments in the chronic phase after stroke. Hypothesizing that the 5-day training will have a positive effect on both the robotic and clinical outcome measures.

Read the detailed description

The overall aim of this study is to gain knowledge into the potential of error-enhancement robot training in patients with upper limb impairments in the chronic phase after stroke. Error-enhancement is characterized as unexpected external perturbation forces acting upon the upper limb during a reaching movement, causing the upper limb to deflect from the reaching pathway, and this results in errors. If one allows for repetitive reaching performance with the same systematic perturbation forces, then a decrease in errors and improvement in movement performance is expected. The robot used for the training, the DeXtreme, is a CE marked rehabilitation device that offers this error-enhancement approach during three-dimensional movements.

The pilot study has a pre-post intervention design, recruiting 20 patients in the chronic phase after stroke. Error-enhancement treatment will be provided on day 2 to 6, i.e., for 5 consecutive days and will consist of facilitation of accuracy, range of movement, stability, and smoothness. Algorithms provide progression in terms of accuracy, range of movement, stability and smoothness, depending upon the performance of the patient.

The treatment will start with the installation of the patient and a warming up, followed by a first block of DeXtreme training. Then a short break is given followed by a short conventional therapy session. The content of the conventional therapy will involve active relaxation, focusing on stretching and (auto-)mobilisation. Afterwards, a second block of training with the DeXtreme follows, and it finishes with a cooling down. A therapist trained by the company will provide all assessment and training sessions. Training with the DeXtreme is additional to the conventional therapy the patient receives. Therefore, a diary of their conventional therapy sessions will be kept, and the content will be reviewed with the patient.

Advancements in upper limb motor function and activity will be evaluated through a triad of measurements including clinical and patient-reported outcomes, error-enhancement variables, and objective quantification of uni- and bimanual sensorimotor function by making use of the KINARM robotic manipulandum. These tests and questionnaires are administered on day 1 and day 7.

The aim of the study is to investigate whether patients with upper limb impairments in a chronic phase after stroke clinical and meaningful benefits from 5 hours DeXtreme training. In addition, it is examined whether improvements in the upper limb outcome is the result of restitution or compensation in the upper limb function.

In order to evaluate whether a randomized controlled trial is useful, the investigators will analyse the outcomes of our study twofold. (1) At group level, the investigators will calculate mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range (based on whether data is normally distributed or not) and evaluate whether pre- to post-intervention scores for clinical, deXtreme and objective outcomes are significantly improved by means of Wilcoxon signed rank test (nonparametric), at a 0,05 significance level. Each p-value will be interpreted in a descriptive manner.

(2) At patient level, the investigators will evaluate how many patients (%) achieve a clinically significant improvement based on the therapy provided.

To see if the improvement might be explained by restitution or compensation, the association between the scores of the MAL-14 and the visually guided reaching task of the KINARM will be explored by Spearman correlations.

02

Conditions studied

  • Chronic Stroke

Keywords

  • upper limb
  • neurorehabilitation
  • error-enhancement
  • robotic treatment
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven is the lead sponsor of 959 studies on the registry; 263 are open to participants now.

Of its 5 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 0 (0%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Up to 85 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  1. Voluntary written informed consent of the participant or their legally authorized representative has been obtained prior to any screening procedures
  2. First stroke, confirmed by neurologist based on clinical and/or imaging findings
  3. Ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke, at least more than six months ago
  4. Stroke affecting the dominant/non-dominant upper limb (unilateral weakness)
  5. Less than 85 years old
  6. Having a motor impairment yet no severe spasticity in the upper limb: be able to open and close the hand 5 times and be able to flex and extend the elbow 2 times but score less than 66 (maximum) on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Having sensory aphasia (evaluated by item 9 of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale)
  2. Having apraxia (evaluated by the apraxia screen of TULIA)
  3. Having neglect (evaluated by the Star Cancellation Test)
  4. Cognitive deficit with a score under 24 out of 30 on the Mini-mental State Examination
  5. Shoulder pain (yes/no)
  6. Providing no informed consent
05

Study design

Phase
Early Phase 1
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
22 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    DeXtreme (Error-enhacement)

    Training (error-enhancement): 5 consecutive days, 1 hour per day

    Device: DeXtreme training (error-enhancement)

Interventions

  • DeviceDeXtreme training (error-enhancement)

    15-20 min DeXtreme - 15 min conventional therapy - 15-20 min DeXtreme

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Action research arm test

    Evaluating UL functional ability, providing information whether improvement in impairment (FMA-UE) results in increased activity level. Internationally accepted outcome measure for stroke studies, and extensive experience available in the research group. min-max: 0-57 (higher = better)

    Time frame: day 1(pre) - day 7 (post)

  2. Fugl-Meyer motor assessment upper extremity

    Evaluating UL motor impairment (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand and fingers), ability to measure restoration of function due to improved quality of movement. Internationally accepted outcome measure for stroke studies, and extensive experience available in the research group. min-max: 0-66 (higher = better)

    Time frame: day 1(pre) - day 7 (post)

  3. Kinarm: visually guided reaching task

    Assessment of motor function using a 4-target centre-out reaching task on the Kinarm End-Point Lab.

    Time frame: day 1(pre) - day 7 (post)

  4. DeXtreme: reaching task - Market stand

    Assessment of motor function using reaching tasks on the DeXtreme robot (range of motion and accuracy).

    Time frame: day 1(pre) - day 7 (post)

  5. DeXtreme: reaching task - Alchemist

    Assessment of motor function using reaching tasks on the DeXtreme robot (stability and smoothness).

    Time frame: day 1(pre) - day 7 (post)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Visual analogue scale (VAS) - Pain

    A measurement instrument that tries to measure a characteristic that is believed to range across a continuum of values and cannot easily be directly measured. In this case, it is used to determine the pain in the shoulder region. min-max: 0-100 (higher = worse)

    Time frame: day 1(pre) - day 7 (post); after treatment (day 2-5)

  2. Motor assessment scale - tonus

    A single item of the MAS, general tonus, intended to provide an estimate of muscle tone of the arm/hand on the affected side. Min-max: 0-6 (4 = normal tone, \> 4 = hyper tone; \< 4 = hypo tone)

    Time frame: day 1(pre) - day 7 (post); after treatment (day 2-5)

  3. Kinarm: sensory processing task

    Newly-developed task on the Kinarm End-Point Lab used to assess passive and active sensory processing.

    Time frame: day 1(pre) - day 7 (post)

  4. Motor assessment scale - upper limb

    A performance-based scale to assess everyday upper limb motor functions, based on a task-oriented approach to evaluation that assesses performance of functional tasks. min-max: 0 - 18 (higher = better)

    Time frame: day 1(pre) - day 7 (post)

  5. Stroke impact scale - Hand

    Evaluating perceived function and quality of life with stroke: perceived hand function, scoring difficulty of five manual activities using the most affected hand. Experience present in the research group. min-max: 0-100 (higher = better)

    Time frame: day 1(pre) - day 7 (post)

  6. Motor Activity Log - 14 items

    Evaluating the amount of use and the quality of the movement of the more-affected arm during functional activities, through a structured interview (patient reported outcome). min-max: 0-5 (higher = better)

    Time frame: day 1(pre) - day 7 (post)

  7. Kinarm: arm position matching task

    Assessment of limb position sense using a 9-target mirror-matching task on the Kinarm Exoskeleton Lab.

    Time frame: day 1(pre) - day 7 (post)

07

Study locations

1 site
  • UZ Leuven
    Leuven, Vlaams-Brabant 3000, Belgium
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Kim RK, Kang N. Bimanual Coordination Functions between Paretic and Nonparetic Arms: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020 Feb;29(2):104544. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2019.104544. Epub 2019 Dec 6. PubMed 31818684 ↗
  • Ward NS, Brander F, Kelly K. Intensive upper limb neurorehabilitation in chronic stroke: outcomes from the Queen Square programme. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019 May;90(5):498-506. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2018-319954. Epub 2019 Feb 15. PubMed 30770457 ↗
  • Israely S, Leisman G, Carmeli E. Improvement in Hand Trajectory of Reaching Movements by Error-Augmentation. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018;1070:71-84. doi: 10.1007/5584_2018_151. PubMed 29564773 ↗
  • Huang VS, Haith A, Mazzoni P, Krakauer JW. Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models. Neuron. 2011 May 26;70(4):787-801. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.04.012. PubMed 21609832 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Ran from Jan 2022 to primary completion in Nov 2022, 9 months.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Dec 24, 2021
First posted
Feb 8, 2022
StartActual
Jan 25, 2022
Primary completionActual
Nov 23, 2022
CompletionActual
Nov 23, 2022
Last update
Mar 31, 2023
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Mar 31, 2023, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05229185
Collaborators
KU Leuven, BioXtreme
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Feb 8, 2022
Start date
Jan 25, 2022
Primary completion
Nov 23, 2022
Completion
Nov 23, 2022
Last update
Mar 31, 2023

Study contacts

Geert Verheyden
principal investigator · KU Leuven

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion