A clinical trial evaluating feasibility and acceptability of a brain-computer interface for telerehabilitation in patients with stroke.
Salem Mansour, Joshua Giles, Krishnan P S Nair and 3 others
PMID 40269846WHAT IT FOUND
Seven people with chronic stroke could use a home brain-computer interface with electrical arm stimulation under remote supervision.
They rated setup and use as easy by the end, and six had higher arm motor scores, but this was a feasibility pilot.
Key findings
01Seven participants completed the study, and six out of seven attended all nine home Tele BCI-FES sessions.
02By the final session, participants rated setup as moderately easy, but three participants said the electrodes were fiddly.
03In the six participants analysed for motor function, the average FMA_UE score improved by 3.83 points, from 19.50 to 23.33, after using the home Tele BCI-FES system under remote supervision.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was small: only seven participants completed, and six were included in the motor analysis. The authors state that the small sample size means the findings cannot be widely applied. The study was designed to test feasibility and acceptability, not effectiveness. The paper did not report a comparison group. The intervention was short, with nine home sessions, compared with 18 to 20 sessions in other BCI studies mentioned by the authors. No follow-up assessments were done after the intervention ended. One participant was excluded from motor analysis because botulinum toxin treatment before the study could affect motor function. Fugl-Meyer scores varied widely between participants, and spasticity scores did not change consistently. Remote communication software had sound problems, and setup issues such as electrodes, gel, and cap fit were reported.
Declared interests
The paper lists UK Medical Research Council as funder. It does not report other conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the 3.83-point Fugl-Meyer improvement as proof that this system works. The study was a small feasibility pilot, and the authors state that larger studies with longer intervention periods are needed to confirm effectiveness.