Closed-Loop Adaptive Neurostimulation Technologies in Cognitive Rehabilitation of High-Tech Specialists

The aim of the study was to experimentally evaluate the applicability and effectiveness of two variants of the technology of adaptive neurostimulation with feedback from a person’s own rhythmic processes to increase the functional reliability and to reach cognitive rehabilitation of high-tech specialists.

Materials and Methods. The study involved specialists who applied to the clinic with complaints of occupational pain syndromes and work stress. For the treatment of pain syndromes, analgesic electrical nerve stimulation was used with the parameters automatically modulated by feedback signals from the subject’s breathing rhythm. To correct stress-induced states, musical stimulation was used, automatically modulated by feedback signals from the narrow-band rhythmic components of the electroencephalogram (EEG) of the subject — alpha EEG oscillators. Treatment procedures without feedback from rhythmic processes were used as а control.

Results. In the control sessions without the feedback from human rhythmic processes, no significant effects of stimulation were noted. With electrical stimulation controlled by the patient’s breathing (experiment 1), the most significant changes were observed in subjective pain scores, which dropped by half. A significant increase was noted in the power of the EEG alpha rhythm, respiration amplitude, and subjective ratings of well-being and mood. With music stimulation automatically modulated by the rhythmic components of the patient’s EEG (experiment 2), there was a significant increase in the power of the EEG alpha rhythm, as well as a decrease in the level of emotional disadaptation and stress.

Conclusion. The data obtained clearly indicate that the developed and tested technologies of adaptive neurostimulation can be used for the timely correction of the functional state and cognitive rehabilitation of high-tech specialists by effectively eliminating the risks of their functional reliability caused by occupational pain and stress.

1. Sheridan T.B. Human–robot interaction: status and challenges. Hum Factors 2016; 58(4): 525–532, https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816644364.
2. Kaber D., Zahabi M. Enhanced hazard analysis and risk assessment for human-in-the-loop systems. Hum Factors 2017; 59(5): 861–873, https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817693357.
3. Kruk V.M. To the problem of providing employees reliability. Zhivaya psikhologiya 2015; 2(3): 221–234, https://doi.org/10.18334/lp.2.3.35108.
4. Pan X., Wu Z. Performance shaping factors in the human error probability modification of human reliability analysis. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2020; 26(3): 538–550, https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2018.1498655.
5. Bontrup C., Taylor W.R., Fliesser M., Visscher R., Green T., Wippert P.M., Zemp R. Low back pain and its relationship with sitting behavior among sedentary office workers. Appl Ergon 2019; 81: 102894, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102894.
6. Saiklang P., Puntumetakul R., Selfe J., Yeowell G. An evaluation of an innovative exercise to relieve chronic low back pain in sedentary workers. Hum Factors 2020; 28: 18720820966082, https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820966082.
7. Gerr F., Fethke N.B., Anton D., Merlino L., Rosecrance J., Marcus M., Jones M.P. A prospective study of musculoskeletal outcomes among manufacturing workers: II. Effects of psychosocial stress and work organization factors. Hum Factors 2014; 56(1): 178–190, https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813487201.
8. Dick R.B., Lowe B.D., Lu M.L., Krieg E.F. Trends in work-related musculoskeletal disorders from the 2002 to 2014 general social survey, quality of work life supplement. J Occup Environ Med 2020; 62(8): 595–610, https://doi.org/10.1097/jom.0000000000001895.
9. Dillard M.B., Warm J.S., Funke G.J., Nelson W.T., Finomore V.S., McClernon C.K., Eggemeier F.T., Tripp L.D., Funke M.E. Vigilance tasks: unpleasant, mentally demanding, and stressful even when time flies. Hum Factors 2019; 61(2): 225–242, https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818796015.
10. Körner U., Müller-Thur K., Lunau T., Dragano N., Angerer P., Buchner A. Perceived stress in human-machine interaction in modern manufacturing environments — results of a qualitative interview study. Stress Health 2019; 35(2): 187–199, https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2853.
11. Leso V., Fontana L., Iavicoli I. The occupational health and safety dimension of Industry 4.0. Med Lav 2018; 110(5): 327–338, https://doi.org/10.23749/mdl.v110i5.7282.
12. Gramann K., Fairclough S.H., Zander T.O., Ayaz H. Editorial: trends in neuroergonomics. Front Hum Neurosci 2017; 11: 165, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00165.
13. Fedotchev A., Parin S., Polevaya S., Zemlyanaya A. Human endogenous rhythms in the development of non-invasive methods of closed-loop adaptive neurostimulation. J Pers Med 2021; 11(5): 437, https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11050437.
14. Fedotchev A., Parin S., Polevaya S., Zemlyanaya A. EEG-based musical neurointerfaces in the correction of stress-induced states. Brain Comput Interfaces (Abingdon) 2022; 9(1): 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1080/2326263x.2021.1964874.
15. Fedotchev A., Kruk V., Oh S.J., Semikin G. Eliminating pain-induced risks of operator reliability via transcutaneous electroneurostimulation controlled by patient’s breathing. Int J Industr Ergonomics 2018; 68: 256–259, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2018.08.004.
16. Fedotchev A., Radchenko G., Zemlianaia A. Music of the brain approach to health protection. J Integr Neurosci 2018; 17: 291–294, https://doi.org/10.31083/jin-170053.
17. Karri J., Li S., Zhang L., Chen Y.T., Stampas A., Li S. Neuropathic pain modulation after spinal cord injury by breathing-controlled electrical stimulation (BreEStim) is associated with restoration of autonomic dysfunction. J Pain Res 2018; 11: 2331–2341, https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s174475.
18. Doskin V.A., Lavrentiev N.A., Miroshnikov M.N., Sharai V.V. Differentiated self-test of functional status. Voprosy psihologii 1973; 19(6): 141–145.
19. Vance C.G., Dailey D.L., Rakel B.A., Sluka K.A. Using TENS for pain control: the state of the evidence. Pain Manag 2014; 4(3): 197–209, https://doi.org/10.2217/pmt.14.13.
20. Johnson M. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation: review of effectiveness. Nurs Stand 2014; 28(40): 44–53, https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.28.40.44.e8565.
21. Gladwell P.W., Badlan K., Cramp F., Palmer S. Problems, solutions, and strategies reported by users of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for chronic musculoskeletal pain: qualitative exploration using patient interviews. Phys Ther 2016; 96(7): 1039–1048, https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20150272.
22. Jensen M.P., Day M.A., Miró J. Neuromodulatory treatments for chronic pain: efficacy and mechanisms. Nat Rev Neurol 2014; 10(3): 167–178, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2014.12.
23. Varga S., Heck D.H. Rhythms of the body, rhythms of the brain: respiration, neural oscillations, and embodied cognition. Conscious Cogn 2017; 56: 77–90, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.09.008.
24. Heck D.H., McAfee S.S., Liu Y., Babajani-Feremi A., Rezaie R., Freeman W.J., Wheless J.W., Papanicolaou A.C., Ruszinkó M., Sokolov Y., Kozma R. Breathing as a fundamental rhythm of brain function. Front Neural Circuits 2017; 10: 115, https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2016.00115.
25. Herrero J.L., Khuvis S., Yeagle E., Cerf M., Mehta A.D. Breathing above the brain stem: volitional control and attentional modulation in humans. J Neurophysiol 2018; 119(1): 145–159, https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00551.2017.
26. Kataev А.А., Bakhchina А.V., Polevaya S.A., Fedotchev A.I. Connection between subjective and objective estimates of human functional state (approbation of rapid test for measurement of stress level). Vestnik psychophysiologii 2017; 2: 62–67.
27. Fedotchev A.I., Polevaya S.A., Zemlyanaya A.A. Efficiency of musical neuro-interface for removal of risks induced by stress. Meditsina truda i promyshlennaya ekologiya 2018; 3: 19–21.
28. Särkämö T. Cognitive, emotional, and neural benefits of musical leisure activities in aging and neurological rehabilitation: a critical review. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2018; 61(6): 414–418, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2017.03.006.
29. Stewart J., Garrido S., Hense C., McFerran K. Music use for mood regulation: self-awareness and conscious listening choices in young people with tendencies to depression. Front Psychol 2019; 10: 1199, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01199.
30. Brancatisano O., Baird A., Thompson W.F. Why is music therapeutic for neurological disorders? The Therapeutic Music Capacities Model. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2020; 112: 600–615, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.02.008.
31. Ramirez R., Palencia-Lefler M., Giraldo S., Vamvakousis Z. Musical neurofeedback for treating depression in elderly people. Front Neurosci 2015; 9: 354, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00354.
32. Daly I., Williams D., Kirke A., Weaver J., Malik A., Hwang F., Miranda E., Nasuto S.J. Affective brain–computer music interfacing. J Neural Eng 2016; 13(4): 046022, https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/13/4/046022.
33. Ehrlich S.K., Agres K.R., Guan C., Cheng G. A closed-loop, music-based brain-computer interface for emotion mediation. PLoS One 2019; 14(3): e0213516, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213516.
34. Bazanova O.M., Vernon D. Interpreting EEG alpha activity. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2014; 44: 94–110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.05.007.
35. Eidelman-Rothman M., Levy J., Feldman R. Alpha oscillations and their impairment in affective and post-traumatic stress disorders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2016; 68: 794–815, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.07.005.
36. Laffont I., Dalla Bella S. Music, rhythm, rehabilitation and the brain: from pleasure to synchronization of biological rhythms. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2018; 61(6): 363–364, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2018.10.001.
37. Tegeler C.L., Shaltout H.A., Lee S.W., Simpson S.L., Gerdes L., Tegeler C.H. Pilot trial of a noninvasive closed-loop neurotechnology for stress-related symptoms in law enforcement: improvements in self-reported symptoms and autonomic function. Glob Adv Health Med 2020; 9: 2164956120923288, https://doi.org/10.1177/2164956120923288.
38. Fedotchev A.I., Bondar’ A.T., Bakhchina A.V., Parin S.B., Polevaya S.A., Radchenko G.S. Effects of musical acoustic signals controlled by the subject’s EEG oscillators. Neurosci Behav Physiol 2017; 47: 47–51, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11055-016-0365-z.
39. Riganello F., Prada V., Soddu A., di Perri C., Sannita W.G. Circadian rhythms and measures of CNS/autonomic interaction. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16(13): 2336, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132336.
40. Haegens S., Zion Golumbic E. Rhythmic facilitation of sensory processing: a critical review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2018; 86: 150–165, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.12.002.
41. Quadt L., Critchley H.D., Garfinkel S.N. The neurobiology of interoception in health and disease. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2018; 1428(1): 112–128, https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13915.

Fedotchev A.I. Closed-Loop Adaptive Neurostimulation Technologies in Cognitive Rehabilitation of High-Tech Specialists. Sovremennye tehnologii v medicine 2022; 14(4): 34, https://doi.org/10.17691/stm2022.14.4.04