Authors : Mohana Priya D; Samuel Dinakaran S

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 8 - August

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/56fvuszt

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/ytn3uy7y

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25aug1455

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : Background: Stroke is a leading cause of long-term disability, often resulting in impairments such as limited coordination and restricted Range of motion (ROM). Interactive devices have become a significant area of focus in rehabilitation, has gained significant attention in recent years and also have been increasingly utilized in neurorehabilitation settings. FLASHFIT IWALL is effective in improving coordination and ROM, as they provide real-time feedback designed to enhance motor function through guided movement, offer customized, engaging patients in dynamic exercises that encouraged greater participation in therapy and intensive rehabilitation programs.  Method: A quasi-experimental ( Single group Pre and Post-test ) study design was conducted. Stroke patients aged 35-65 years were screened and then selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria with convenient sampling method. Over the course of 12 weeks, a single group will receive an intervention would be carried out for 20 minutes of each session, twice a week.  Results: Statistical analysis revealed significant improvements in Coordination(p = 0.001) and ROM (p < 0.001) between pre- test and post-test scores. Patients demonstrated enhanced motor function, increased ROM, and improved coordination . These findings highlight the effectiveness of FLASHFIT IWALL when integrated into conventional rehabilitation programs.  Conclusion: The study concludes that FLASHFIT IWALL significantly improves co-ordination and ROM in stroke patients. Integrating such interactive technologies into stroke rehabilitation may serve as an effective adjunct to conventional therapies, accelerating recovery and enhancing the quality of life for stroke survivors.

Keywords : Stroke, ROM, Coordination, Comprehensive Coordination Scale, Goniometer, Interactive Device, FLASHFIT IWALL.

References :

1. 1. (WHO) WHO. International Classification of Diseases (ICD): World Health Organization (WHO).
   2. Hendricks HT,vLJ,GAC,&ZMJ. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2002.
   3. (NINDS) NIoNDaS. Stroke: Hope Through Research. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Publication. 2017.
   4. Brainin HW. Middle cerebral artery syndrome: Handbook of Clinical Neurology; 2010.
   5. Cramer SC,NG,SJD,KJD,FSP,&RBR. A functional MRI study of subjects recovered from hemiparetic stroke. Stroke. 1997;: 2518-2527.
   6. Yekutiel M. Sensory reeducation of the hand after stroke. Journal of Hand Therapy. 2002;: 120-126.
   7. Krakauer JW. Motor learning: Its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Current Opinion in Neurology. 2006;: 84-90.
   8. Bole Stein F. Motor recovery after stroke: Translation of basic science principles to clinical rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development. 2004;: 361-366.
   9. Pedretti LW. Pedretti's Occupational Therapy: Practice Skills for Physical Dysfunction: Elsevier; 2017.
   10. Therapy JoOaSP. A Normative Database of Joint Range of Motion in Adults. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy. 2018;: 381-393.
   11. Murtaqib A. Rehabilitation of Hemiplegic Patients After Stroke. International Journal of Health Sciences and Research. 2013;:  53-59.
   12. Valery L. Feigin BNGAM. Global Burden of Stroke: Circulation Research Compendium on Stroke; 2016.
   13. Nandhini Varsha A PBDURKaDM. A study on the effectiveness of interactive flashfit devices on improving sports performance in badminton players: International Journal of Physical Education, Sports and Health 2023; 2023.
   14. Broek JG,ea. Arm hand rehabilitation: Effects of task-oriented training on arm and hand function in patients with cerebral palsy. Clinical Rehabilitation. 1999;: 431-438.
   15. Pollock A,ea. Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014;: CD010820.
   16. Bleyenheuft Y,&GAM. Precision grip and manipulation in children and adults with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2014;: 1054-1064.
   17. Bonita R,&BR. Modification of Rankin Scale: Recovery of motor function after stroke. Stroke. 1988;: 1497-1500.
   18. Lai SM,ea. Prediction of functional outcomes after stroke: Comparison of the Orpington Prognostic Scale and the NIH Stroke Scale. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2002;: 836-842.
   19. Maitra KK. Occupational Therapy in Stroke Rehabilitation. 2003.
   20. Tebben LA,&TD. Occupational Therapy and Stroke. Occupational Therapy International. 2004;: 141-155.
   21. Gresham GE,FTF,WPA,MPM,KWB,&DTR. Residual disability in survivors of stroke: The Framingham Study. New England Journal of Medicine. 1995;: 626-628.
   22. Krebs HI,HN,AML,&VBT. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering. 1998;: 75-87.
   23. Langhorne P. Stroke Rehabilitation. Lancet Neurology. 2011;: 742-754.
   24. Mehrholz J,ea. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2012;: CD006876.
   25. Mehrholz J,ea. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014;: CD006185.
   26. Stein J,ea. Robot-assisted exercise for improving walking and balance in stroke survivors: A systematic review. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 2012;: 62.
   27. Cook E,ea. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation: A systematic review. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 2010;: 27.
   28. Government S. Scotland's Digital Future: Health and Social Care. Scottish Government. 2014;: 1-20.
   29. Scotland N. Quality Strategy. NHS Scotland. 2010;: 1-32.
   30. Pollock A,ea. Technology for stroke rehabilitation: A systematic review. International Journal of Stroke. 2012;: 258-266.
   31. Johnson MJ,ea. Recent trends in robot-assisted therapy for stroke rehabilitation. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 2005;: 11.
   32. a Me. Occupational Therapy in Stroke Rehabilitation. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal. 2003;: 137-144.
   33. Thomas T&. Occupational Therapy and Stroke. Occupational Therapy International. 2004;: 141-155.
   34. Pollock A,BG,CP,CPL,FA,MJ,PVM,&LP. Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke. John Wiley & Sons. 2014;: CD001920.
   35. Kuhn S. Rehabilitation after stroke: Applying principles of experience-dependent neuroplasticity. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development. 2011;: 531-544.
   36. Jang SH,YSH,KYH,HM,&KYH. Cortical reorganization induced by virtual reality therapy in a patient with hemiparetic stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2005;: 1815-1817.
   37. Quinn TJ,PS,SKS,SJ,WMF,&TD. Evidence-based stroke rehabilitation: An updated review of rehabilitation interventions, from the European Stroke Organisation. European Stroke Journal (formerly European Journal of Neurology). 2009;: 67-77.
   38. Dobkin BH. Principles and Practices of Neuroplasticity-Based Rehabilitation. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics. 2004;: 131-141.
   39. al. JCe. Effects of Electromyography-Triggered Neuromuscular Stimulation on Upper Limb Function in Patients With Stroke: A Systematic Review. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2017;: 173-183.
   40. Aditya Pillai 1 ,MSHS2,MTS2,NB2. Gamification of Upper Limb Rehabilitation in MIXED REALITY ENVIRONMENT: MDPI JOURNAL. COM; 2022.
   41. Boone DC,ASP,LCM,SC,BC,&LL. Reliability of goniometric measurements. Physical Therapy. 1978;: 1355-1360.
   42. Roni Molad MSRAP,MDP. Development of a Comprehensive coordination scale: journals.sagepub.com/home/nnr; 2021.
   43. Lohse KR,ea. The effectiveness of virtual reality-based interventions for upper limb rehabilitation in people with stroke. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation. 2014;: 156.
   44. Cramer SC,&RJD. Neuroplasticity and brain repair after stroke. Current Opinion in Neurology. 2008;: 76-82.
   45. Sharma N,ea. A multisensory approach to upper limb rehabilitation in subacute stroke: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Neurophysiology. 2016;: 1417-1425.
   46. kwakkel G.e. 2. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: A systematic review. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 2008;: 111-121.
   47. Mehrholz J,ea. Electromechanical-assisted training for improving arm function and mobility after stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018;: CD00876.