The task-oriented training was operationalized with 15 components. The number of components used in an intervention aimed at improving arm-hand performance after stroke was not associated with the posttreatment effect size. Certain components, which optimize storage of learned motor performance in the long-term memory, occurred more in studies with larger treatment effects.

BackgroundClient-centred task-oriented training is important in neurological rehabilitation but is time consuming and costly in clinical practice. The use of technology, especially motion capture systems (MCS) which are low cost and easy to apply in clinical practice, may be used to support this kind of training, but knowledge and evidence of their use for training is scarce. The present review aims to investigate 1) which motion capture systems are used as training devices in neurological rehabilitation, 2) how they are applied, 3) in which target population, 4) what the content of the training and 5) efficacy of training with MCS is.MethodsA computerised systematic literature review was conducted in four databases (PubMed, Cinahl, Cochrane Database and IEEE). The following MeSH terms and key words were used: Motion, Movement, Detection, Capture, Kinect, Rehabilitation, Nervous System Diseases, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke, Spinal Cord, Parkinson Disease, Cerebral Palsy and Traumatic Brain Injury. The Van Tulder’s Quality assessment was used to score the methodological quality of the selected studies. The descriptive analysis is reported by MCS, target population, training parameters and training efficacy.ResultsEighteen studies were selected (mean Van Tulder score = 8.06 ± 3.67). Based on methodological quality, six studies were selected for analysis of training efficacy. Most commonly used MCS was Microsoft Kinect, training was mostly conducted in upper limb stroke rehabilitation. Training programs varied in intensity, frequency and content. None of the studies reported an individualised training program based on client-centred approach.ConclusionMotion capture systems are training devices with potential in neurological rehabilitation to increase the motivation during training and may assist improvement on one or more International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) levels. Although client-centred task-oriented training is important in neurological rehabilitation, the client-centred approach was not included. Future technological developments should take up the challenge to combine MCS with the principles of a client-centred task-oriented approach and prove efficacy using randomised controlled trials with long-term follow-up.Trial registrationProspero registration number 42016035582.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12984-017-0270-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Study design: Prospective multiple case study. Objectives: To test (1) the feasibility of haptic robot technology (Haptic Master (HM)) use to improve arm-hand function (AHF) and arm-hand skill performance (AHSP) in persons with a cervical spinal cord injury (C-SCI), (2) inventory participants' motivation and expectation to work with the robot technology used and (3) to descriptively report the results in individual cases. Setting: Rehabilitation Centre. Methods: Five C-SCI patients were trained for 6 weeks, 3 days per week, 60 min per day. Therapists filled out the Usefulness, Satisfaction and Ease-of-use questionnaire (USE). The Intrinsic Motivational Inventory (IMI) and credibility and expectancy questionnaire (CEQ) were filled out by participants. Performance at activity level was gauged using the Van Lieshout test for AHF in Tetraplegia and the Spinal Cord Independence Measure. Function level was gauged using muscle strength testing and the International Classification for Surgery of the Hand in Tetraplegia. Results: As to the feasibility of the application of haptic robot technology, the mean USE score was 65%. Mean IMI and CEQ results were 67% and 60%, respectively. Participants were motivated to train with the HM. All participants rated credibility higher than expectations regarding the improvement. In the current patients, little progress was demonstrated at the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health function and the activity level. Conclusion: It is feasible to train C-SCI persons with the HM. Therapists report that working with the HM is easy to learn and easy to perform. Usability of the HM may be improved. Further research is needed to assess in which group of C-SCI and at which stage of rehabilitation HM training may be most beneficial.

Motor training programmes may improve arm and hand functioning at function and/or activity level in cervical spinal cord injured patients. However, no general conclusion based on a meta-analysis can be drawn due to the wide variety of approaches.