Advertisement

Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Changes in Behavioral Outcomes Using Functional Connectivity and Clinical Measures in Brain-Computer Interface Stroke Rehabilitation

  • Rosaleena Mohanty
  • Anita Sinha
  • Alexander Remsik
  • Janerra Allen
  • Veena Nair
  • Kristin Caldera
  • Justin Sattin
  • Dorothy Edwards
  • Justin C. Williams
  • Vivek PrabhakaranEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10284)

Abstract

The goal of this work is to evaluate if changes in brain connectivity can predict behavioral changes among subjects who have suffered stroke and have completed brain-computer interface (BCI) interventional therapy. A total of 23 stroke subjects, with persistent upper-extremity motor deficits, received the stroke rehabilitation therapy using a closed-loop neurofeedback BCI device. Over the course of the entire interventional therapy, resting-state fMRI were collected at two time points: prior to start and immediately upon completion of therapy. Behavioral assessments were administered at each time point via neuropsychological testing to collect measures on Action Research Arm Test, Nine-Hole Peg Test, Barthel Index and Stroke Impact Scale. Resting-state functional connectivity changes in the motor network were computed from pre- to post-interventional therapy and were combined with clinical data corresponding to each subject to estimate the change in behavioral performance between the two time-points using a machine learning based predictive model. Inter-hemispheric correlations emerged as stronger predictors of changes across multiple behavioral measures in comparison to intra-hemispheric links. Additionally, age predicted behavioral changes better than other clinical variables such as gender, pre-stroke handedness, etc. Machine learning model serves as a valuable tool in predicting BCI therapy-induced behavioral changes on the basis of functional connectivity and clinical data.

Keywords

Brain-computer interface Stroke rehabilitation BCI therapy Upper extremity motor recovery Resting-state fMRI Machine learning Predictive model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the subjects and their families for their participation in the stroke rehabilitation program. Thanks to the study coordinator Theresa Jungae Kang and the MRI technicians Sara John and Jenelle Fuller at the Wisconsin Institutes for Medical Research. This study was supported by NIH grants RC1MH090912-01, K23NS086852, T32GM008692, UL1TR000427, T32EB011434 and TL1TR000429. Additional funding was also provided through a Coulter Translational Research Award, an American Heart Association Postdoctoral Fellow Research Award, AHA Midwest Grant-in-Aid Award, AHA National Innovation Award, UW Milwaukee-Madison Intercampus Grants, UW Graduate School, Grants from Shapiro Foundation and Foundation of ASNR award.

References

  1. 1.
    Bajaj, S., Butler, A.J., Drake, D., Dhamala, M.: Functional organization and restoration of the brain motor-execution network after stroke and rehabilitation. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 9(173), 1–14 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carter, A.R., Astafiev, S.V., Lang, C.E., Connor, L.T., Rengachary, J., Strube, M.J., Pope, D.L.W., Shulman, G.L., Corbetta, M.: Resting inter-hemispheric fMRI connectivity predicts performance after stroke. Ann. Neurol. 67(3), 365–375 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Felton, E.A., Radwin, R.G., Wilson, J.A., Williams, J.C.: Evaluation of a modified Fitts law brain-computer interface. J. Neural Eng. 6, 1–7 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grefkes, C., Eickhoff, S.B., Nowak, D.A., Dafotakis, M., Fink, G.R.: Dynamic intra- and interhemispheric interactions during unilateral and bilateral hand movements assessed with fMRI and DCM. NeuroImage 41(4), 1382–1394 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee, M.H., Smyser, C.D., Shimony, J.S.: Resting state fMRI: a review of methods and clinical applications. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 34(10), 1866–1872 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kwakkel, G., Kollen, B.J., van der Grond, J., Prevo, A.J.H.: Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke 34(9), 2181–2186 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mozaffarian, D., Benjamin, E.J., Go, A.S., Arnett, D.K., Blaha, M.J., Cushman, M., et al.: Execute summary: heart disease and stroke statistics – 2016 update: a report from the American heart association. Circulation 133(4), 447–454 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nair, V.A., Young, B.M., Nigogosyan, Z., Remsick, A., Weber, S., Diffee, K., Walton, L., Tyler, M., Sattin, J., Edwards, D.F., Williams, J., Prabhakaran, V.: Abstract 6: resting-state functional connectivity changes after stroke rehabilitation using closed loop neurofeedback. Stroke 4, A6 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carroll, D.: A quantitative test of upper extremity function. J. Chronic Dis. 18, 479–491 (1965). doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(65)90030-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Soekadar, S.R., Birbaumer, N., Slutzky, M.W., Cohen, L.G.: Brain-machine interfaces in neurorehabilitation of stroke. Neurobiol. Dis. 83, 172–179 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Varkuti, B., Guan, C., Pan, Y., Phua, K.S., Ang, K.K., Kuah, C.W.K., Chua, K., Ang, B.T., Birbaumer, N., Sitaram, R.: Resting state changes in functional connectivity correlate with movement recovery for BCI and robot-assisted upper-extremity training after stroke. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 27(1), 53–62 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xia, M., Wang, J., He, Y.: BrainNet Viewer: a network visualization tool for human brain connectomics. PLoS ONE 8(7), e68910 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Young, B.M., Nigogosyan, Z., Walton, L.M., Song, J., Nair, V.A., Grogan, S.W., Tyler, M.E., Edwards, D.F., Caldera, K., Sattin, J.A., Williams, J.C., Prabhakaran, V.: Changes in functional brain organization and behavioral correlations after rehabilitative therapy using a brain-computer interface. Front. Neuroeng. 7(26), 1–15 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lang, C.E., Wagner, J.M., Dromerick, A.W., Edwards, D.F.: Measurement of upper-extremity function early after stroke: properties of the action research arm test. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 87, 1605–1610 (2006). doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beebe, J.A., Lang, C.E.: Relationships and responsiveness of six upper extremity function tests during the first six months of recovery after stroke. J. Neurol. Phys. Ther. 33, 96–103 (2009). doi: 10.1097/NPT.0b013e3181a33638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duncan, P.W., Wallace, D., Lai, S.M., Johnson, D., Embretson, S., Laster, L.J.: The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity and sensitivity to change. Stroke 30, 2131–2140 (1999). doi: 10.1161/01.str.30.10.2131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carod-Artal, F.J., Coral, L.F., Trizotto, D.S., Moreira, C.M.: The stroke impact scale 3.0: evaluation of acceptability, reliability and validity of the Brazilian version. Stroke 39, 2477–2484 (2008). doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.513671 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mahoney, F.I., Barthel, D.: Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Maryland State Med J. 14, 56–61 (1965)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scholkopf, B., Smola, A.J.: Learning with Kernels: Support Vector Machines, Regularization, Optimization, and Beyond. MIT Press, Cambridge, (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Vapnik, V.: The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Springer, New York (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schölkopf, B., Smola, A.J.: Learning with Kernels: Support Vector Machines, Regularization, Optimization and Beyond, p. 633. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weston J., Elisseeff A., Bakir G., Sinz F.: The Spider Machine Learning Toolbox. Resource object oriented environment. http://people.kyb.tuebingen.mpg.de/spider/main.html
  25. 25.
    Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J.H.: The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. Springer Publishing Company Inc., New York (2001). pp. 193–224CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosaleena Mohanty
    • 1
  • Anita Sinha
    • 2
  • Alexander Remsik
    • 3
  • Janerra Allen
    • 4
  • Veena Nair
    • 5
  • Kristin Caldera
    • 6
  • Justin Sattin
    • 7
  • Dorothy Edwards
    • 3
    • 7
  • Justin C. Williams
    • 2
  • Vivek Prabhakaran
    • 2
    • 5
    • 7
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Department of KinesiologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Material Science and EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  6. 6.Department of RehabilitationUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public HealthMadisonUSA
  7. 7.Department of NeurologyUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public HealthMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations