| Summary: | Neurologic music therapy in rehabilitation of stroke patients has been shown to be a promising supplement to the often strenuous conventional rehabilitation strategies. The aim of this study was threefold: (i) replicate results from a previous study with a sample from one clinic (henceforth called Site 1; N = 12) using an already established recording system, and (ii) conceptually replicate previous findings with a less costly hand-tracking system in Site 2 (N = 30), and (iii) compare both sub-studies’ outcomes to estimate the efficiency of neurologic music therapy. Stroke patients in both sites were randomly assigned to treatment or control groups and received daily training of guided sequential upper limb movements additional to their standard stroke rehabilitation protocol. Treatment groups received sonification (i.e., changes in musical pitch) of their movements when they moved their affected hand up and down to reproduce a sequence of the first six notes of a C major scale. Controls received the same movement protocol, however, without auditory feedback. Sensors at the upper arm and the forearm (Xsens) or an optic sensor device (Leapmotion) allowed to measure kinematics of movements and movement smoothness. Behavioral measures pre and post intervention included the Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA) and the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) and movement data. Bayesian regression did not show evidence supporting an additional effect of sonification on clinical mobility assessments. However, combined movement data from both sites showed slight improvements in movement smoothness for the treatment group, and an advantage for one of the two motion capturing systems. Exploratory analyses of EEG-EMG phase coherence during movement of the paretic arm in a subset of patients suggested increases in cortico-muscular phase coherence specifically in the ipsilesional hemisphere after sonification therapy, but not after standard rehabilitation therapy. Our findings show that musical sonification is a viable treatment supplement to current neurorehabilitation methods, with limited clinical benefits. However, given patients’ enthusiasm during training and the low hardware price of one of the systems it may be considered as an add-on home-based neurorehabilitation therapy.
|
|---|
