Posts Tagged measurement

[Abstract + References] Complex network changes during a virtual reality rehabilitation protocol following stroke: a case study

Posted by Kostas Pantremenos in Virtual reality rehabilitation on May 25, 2019

Abstract

Stroke is one of the main causes of disabilities caused by injuries to the human central nervous system, yielding a wide range of mild to severe impairments that can compromise sensorimotor and cognitive functions. Although rehabilitation protocols may improve function of stroke survivors, patients often reach plateaus while undergoing therapy. Recently, virtual reality (VR) technologies have been paired with traditional rehabilitation aiming to improve function recovery after stroke. Aiming to better understand structural brain changes due to VR rehabilitation protocols, we modeled the brain as a graph and extracted three measures representing the network’s topology: degree, clustering coefficient and betweenness centrality (BC). In this single case study, our results indicate that all metrics increased on the ipsilesional hemisphere, while remaining about the same at the contrale-sional site. Particularly, the number of functional connections increased in the lesion area overtime. In addition, the BC displayed the highest variations, and in brain regions related to the patient’s cognitive and motor impairments; hence, we argue that this measure could be regarded as an indicative for brain plasticity mechanisms.
1. J-H. Shin , H. Ryu & S. H. Jang . A task-specific interactive game-based virtual reality rehabilitation system for patients with stroke: a usability test and two clinical experiments. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 2014: 11-32

 Show Context Google Scholar 
2. M. S. Cameirão , S. B. i Badia , E. D. Oller & P. F. M. J. Verschure . Neurorehabilitation using the virtual reality based Rehabilitation Gaming System: methodology, design, psychometrics, usability and validation. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 2010: 7-48

 Show Context Google Scholar 
3. R. M. Yerkes & J. D. Dodson . The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology. 1908. 18: 459-482

 Show Context Google Scholar 
4. E. J. Calabrese . Converging concepts: Adaptive response, preconditioning, and the YerkesDodson Law are manifestations of hormesis. Ageing Research Reviews. 2008: 7(1), 820.

 Show Context Google Scholar 
5. Page S. J. , Fulk G. D. , Boyne P. Clinically Important Differences for the Upper-Extremity Fugl-Meyer Scale in People With Minimal to Moderate Impairment Due to Chronic Stroke. Physical Therapy 92(6): 791798, 2012. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20110009

 Show Context Google Scholar 
6. Ogawa S , Lee TM , Kay AR , Tank DW . Brain magnetic resonance imaging with contrast dependent on blood oxygenation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990; 87(24):9868-72. doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.24.9868

 Show Context Google Scholar 
7. NK. Logothetis , J. Pauls , M. Augath , T. Trinath , A. Oeltermann . Neurophysiological investigation of the basis of the fMRI signal. Nature. 2001. 412(6843):150-7

 Show Context Google Scholar 
8. M.D. Fox , M. E. Raichle . Spontaneous fluctuations in brain activity observed with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2007. 8(9):700-11.

 Show Context Google Scholar 
9. de Campos, B. M. , Coan, A. C. , Lin Yasuda, C. , Casseb, R. F. and Cendes, F. (2016), Large-scale brain networks are distinctly affected in right and left mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. Hum. Brain Mapp. doi: 10.1002/hbm.23231

 Show Context Google Scholar 
10. J. D. Power , A. L. Cohen , S. M. Nelson , G. S. Wig , K. A. Barnes , J. A. Church , A. C. Vogel , T. O. Laumann , F. M. Miezin , B. L. Schlagger , S. E. Petersen . Functional network organization of the human brain. Neuron. 2011: 72(4): 665 – 678.

 Show Context Google Scholar 
11. Rubinov M. and Sporns O. Complex network measures of brain connectivity: Uses and interpretations. NeuroImage 2010, 52(3): 1059-1069. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.003

 Show Context Google Scholar 
12. M. E. J. Newman . A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Soc. Netw. 2005. 27: 39 – 57.

 Show Context Google Scholar 

 

via Complex network changes during a virtual reality rehabilitation protocol following stroke: a case study – IEEE Conference Publication

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Outcome Measures for Persons With Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Recommendations From the American Physical Therapy Association Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy TBI EDGE Task Force – Full Text

Posted by Kostas Pantremenos in Uncategorized on December 5, 2018

Background and Purpose: The use of standardized outcome measures (OMs) is essential in assessing the effectiveness of physical therapy (PT) interventions. The purposes of this article are (1) to describe the process used by the TBI EDGE task force to assess the psychometrics and clinical utility of OMs used with individuals with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI); (2) to describe the consensus recommendations for OM use in clinical practice, research, and professional (entry-level) PT education; and (3) to make recommendations for future work.

Methods: An 8-member task force used a modified Delphi process to develop recommendations on the selection of OMs for individuals with TBI. A 4-point rating scale was used to make recommendations based on practice setting and level of ambulation. Recommendations for appropriateness for research use and inclusion in entry-level education were also provided.

Results: The TBI EDGE task force reviewed 88 OMs across the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) domains: 15 measured body functions/structure only, 21 measured activity only, 23 measured participation only, and 29 OMs covered more than 1 ICF domain.

Discussion and Conclusions: Recommendations made by the TBI EDGE task force provide clinicians, researchers, and educators with guidance for the selection of OMs. The use of these recommendations may facilitate identification of appropriate OMs in the population with moderate to severe TBI. TBI EDGE task force recommendations can be used by clinicians, researchers, and educators when selecting OMs for their respective needs. Future efforts to update the recommendations are warranted in order to ensure that recommendations remain current and applicable.

Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A140).

INTRODUCTION

The use of standardized outcome measures (OMs) in physical therapy (PT) practice is growing and becoming the standard of practice. Evidence of intervention effectiveness depends on, among other things, common use of valid and reliable tests and measures, which reflect clinically important outcomes and are responsive to change. An important initial step toward best practice is the identification and selection of the most appropriate OMs for patients whom therapists treat. However, clinicians may be uncertain in how to select the best OM based on an individual’s specific limitations.1,2 Common barriers to using OMs include the time required to learn or use them, perceptions that OMs are too difficult for patients to understand, and the time burden for clinicians to score and analyze test results.3 The ability to track patient progress during recovery from a neurologic condition improves with the use of standardized OMs that are employed across settings. In addition, the use of common OMs may facilitate ongoing clinical research.

To address some of these issues, the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) began a process to develop recommendations for the identification of core sets of OMs in 2009. A Research Section of APTA task force, the Evaluation Database to Guide Effectiveness (EDGE), was developed to make recommendations for OM utilization in PT practice. Building on recommendations from that group, members of the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy initiated what was described as an “EDGE group” focusing on the stroke population. This group established a yearlong process for rating and evaluating OMs, which culminated in the StrokEDGE report.4 The following year, the process was followed by a group focused on OMs for patients with Multiple Sclerosis.5 In the fall of 2011, the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy initiated task forces to evaluate OM use in traumatic brain injury (TBI) and spinal cord injury. Task forces looking at vestibular dysfunction and Parkinson disease measures were conducted the following year.

The choice of appropriate OMs for use with TBI can be a challenge. Traumatic brain injury is a chronic health condition that affects physical, cognitive, and behavioral function, often in heterogenous ways. Outcome measures must accommodate a large range of physical and cognitive strengths and limitations. Clinicians must be aware of the complexity of this diagnosis to determine which OMs are most appropriate.6 After TBI, individuals are treated in a wide variety of settings, including intensive care units, acute care, in- and outpatient rehabilitation settings, long-term care facilities, and in the home. The environment, available space and equipment, as well as the individual’s cognitive and physical limitations, all influence which OMs are feasible and appropriate.

The objectives of the TBI EDGE task force were:

  1. to develop recommendations for clinicians, educators, and researchers for the use of standardized OMs to utilize throughout the continuum of care of the TBI population and span the domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) and,
  2. following the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy Board of Directors approval, to disseminate recommendations through available avenues such as the section Web site, conference presentations, and publications.

The work of each EDGE task force had traditionally been completed in a year period, requiring a scope sufficiently focused to be feasible with a limited volunteer workforce. It is the goal of this article to describe the yearlong processes that were used to create recommendations for OM utilization in the TBI patient population in clinical practice, as well as additional recommendations for inclusion into entry-level PT curricula and for use in research.[…]

 

Continue —> Outcome Measures for Persons With Moderate to Severe Traumat… : Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[BOOK] Epilepsy Across the Spectrum – NCBI Bookshelf

Posted by Kostas Pantremenos in Books, Caregivers, Epilepsy on March 9, 2018

Cover of Epilepsy Across the Spectrum

Epilepsy Across the Spectrum

Promoting Health and Understanding

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Public Health Dimensions of the Epilepsies; Editors: Mary Jane England, Catharyn T Liverman, Andrea M Schultz, and Larisa M Strawbridge.

Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2012.

ISBN-13: 978-0-309-25506-6

Excerpt

Throughout this report, the committee emphasizes the ways in which epilepsy is a spectrum disorder. Epilepsy comprises more than 25 syndromes and many types of seizures that vary in severity. Additionally, people who have epilepsy span a spectrum that includes men and women of all ages and of all socioeconomic backgrounds and races/ethnicities, who live in all areas of the United States and across the globe. The impacts on physical health and quality of life encompass a spectrum as well, with individuals experiencing different health outcomes and having a range of activities of daily living that may be affected, including driving, academic achievement, social interactions, and employment. For some people, epilepsy is a childhood disorder that goes into remission (although the seizures may have lifelong consequences), while for others it is a lifelong burden or a condition that develops later in life or in response to an injury or other health condition. These many complexities of epilepsy make it a challenging health condition to convey to the general public to promote understanding and alleviate stigma. This report aims to provide evidence and impetus for actions that will improve the lives of people with epilepsy and their families.

Contents

via Epilepsy Across the Spectrum – NCBI Bookshelf

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract+References] Upper Limb Coordination in Individuals With Stroke: Poorly Defined and Poorly Quantified.

Posted by Kostas Pantremenos in Paretic Hand, Uncategorized on December 2, 2017

Abstract

Background. The identification of deficits in interjoint coordination is important in order to better focus upper limb rehabilitative treatment after stroke. The majority of standardized clinical measures characterize endpoint performance, such as accuracy, speed, and smoothness, based on the assumption that endpoint performance reflects interjoint coordination, without measuring the underlying temporal and spatial sequences of joint recruitment directly. However, this assumption is questioned since improvements of endpoint performance can be achieved through different degrees of restitution or compensation of upper limb motor impairments based on the available kinematic redundancy of the system. Confusion about adequate measurement may stem from a lack a definition of interjoint coordination during reaching. Methods and Results. We suggest an operational definition of interjoint coordination during reaching as a goal-oriented process in which joint degrees of freedom are organized in both spatial and temporal domains such that the endpoint reaches a desired location in a context-dependent manner. Conclusions. In this point-of-view article, we consider how current approaches to laboratory and clinical measures of coordination comply with our definition. We propose future study directions and specific research strategies to develop clinical measures of interjoint coordination with better construct and content validity than those currently in use.

References

1. Chen, SY, Winstein, CJ. A systematic review of voluntary arm recovery in hemiparetic stroke: critical predictors for meaningful outcomes using the international classification of functioning, disability, and health. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2009;33:2–13. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
2. Stinear, CM, Byblow, WD. Predicting and accelerating motor recovery after stroke. Curr Opin Neurol. 2014;27:624–630. Google Scholar, Medline
3. Jolkkonen, J, Kwakkel, G. Translational hurdles in stroke recovery studies. Transl Stroke Res. 2016;7:331–342. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
4. Levin, MF, Kleim, JA, Wolf, SL. What do motor “recovery” and “compensation” mean in patients following stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:313–319. Google Scholar, Link
5. Schmidt, R, Lee, T. Motor Control and Learning— A Behavioral Emphasis. 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2011. Google Scholar
6. Brunnstrom, S. Movement Therapy in Hemiplegia: A Neurophysiological Approach. New York, NY: Harper & Row; 1970. Google Scholar
7. Fugl-Meyer, AR, Jääskö, L, Leyman, I, Olsson, S, Steglind, S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7:13–31. Google Scholar, Medline
8. Gowland, C, Stratford, P, Ward, M. Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment. Stroke. 1993;24:58–63. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
9. Latash, ML. Fundamentals of Motor Control. Oxford, England: Academic Press; 2012. Google Scholar
10. Bernstein, NA. The Coordination and Regulation of Movements. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press; 1967. Google Scholar
11. Levin, MF, Michaelsen, SM, Cirstea, CM, Roby-Brami, A. Use of the trunk for reaching targets placed within and beyond the reach in adult hemiparesis. Exp Brain Res. 2002;143:171–180. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
12. Shaikh, T, Goussev, V, Feldman, AG, Levin, MF. Arm-trunk coordination for beyond-the-reach movements in adults with stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014;28:355–366. Google Scholar, Link
13. Levin, MF. Interjoint coordination during pointing movements is disrupted in spastic hemiparesis. Brain. 1996;119:281–293. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
14. van Kordelaar, J, van Wegen, EE, Nijland, RH, Daffertshofer, A, Kwakkel, G. Understanding adaptive motor control of the paretic upper limb early poststroke: the EXPLICIT-stroke program. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27:854–863. Google Scholar, Link
15. Levin, MF, Liebermann, DG, Parmet, Y, Berman, S. Compensatory versus noncompensatory shoulder movements used for reaching in stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016;30:635–646. Google Scholar, Link
16. Reisman, DS, Scholz, JP. Aspects of joint coordination are preserved during pointing in persons with post-stroke hemiparesis. Brain. 2003;126(pt 11):2510–2527. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
17. Cirstea, CM, Ptito, A, Levin, MF. Feedback and cognition in arm motor skill reacquisition after stroke. Stroke. 2006;37:1237–1242. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
18. Chen, HL, Lin, KC, Liing, RJ, Wu, CY, Chen, CL. Kinematic measures of arm-trunk movements during unilateral and bilateral reaching predict clinically important change in perceived arm use in daily activities after intensive stroke rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015;12:84. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
19. Wee, SK, Hughes, AM, Warner, M, Burridge, JH. Trunk restraint to promote upper extremity recovery in stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014;28:660–677. Google Scholar, Link
20. Higgins, J, Mayo, NE, Desrosiers, J, Salbach, NM, Ahmed, S. Upper-limb function and recovery in the acute phase poststroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42:65–76. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
21. Desrosiers, J, Bravo, G, Hébert, R, Dutil, E, Mercier, L. Validation of the Box and Block Test as a measure of dexterity of elderly people: reliability, validity, and norms studies. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75:751–755. Google Scholar, Medline
22. Rodrigues, MRM, Slimovitch, M, Blanchette, AK, Levin, MF. Temporal and spatial upper-limb interjoint coordination in chronic stroke subjects versus healthy individuals when reaching, American Society for Neurorehabilitation Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016;30:NP1–NP44. doi:10.1177/1545968315625245. Google Scholar, Crossref
23. Johansson, GM, Grip, H, Levin, MF, Häger, CK. The added value of kinematic evaluation of the timed finger-to-nose test in persons post-stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017;14:11. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
24. Krasovsky, T, Levin, MF. Review: toward a better understanding of coordination in healthy and poststroke gait. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24:213–224. Google Scholar, Link
25. Rau, G, Disselhorst-Klug, C, Schmidt, R. Movement biomechanics goes upwards: from the leg to the arm. J Biomech. 2000;33:1207–1216. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
26. Abend, W, Bizzi, E, Morasso, P. Human arm trajectory formation. Brain. 1982;105(pt 2):331–348. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
27. Von Hofsten, C. Development of visually directed reaching: the approach phase. J Hum Mov Stud. 1979;5:160–178. Google Scholar
28. Fagg, AH, Varto, AG, Houk, JC. Learning to reach via corrective movements. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the Tenth Yale Workshop on Adaptive and Learning Systems; June 10-12, 1988; New Haven, CT. http://www.gbv.de/dms/tib-ub-hannover/251755754.pdf. Accessed October 13, 2017. Google Scholar
29. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001. Google Scholar
30. Krakauer, JW, Carmichael, ST, Corbett, D, Wittenberg, GF. Getting neurorehabilitation right: what can be learned from animal models? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26:923–931. Google Scholar, Link
31. Michaelsen, SM, Luta, A, Roby-Brami, A, Levin, MF. Effect of trunk restraint on the recovery of reaching movements in hemiparetic patients. Stroke. 2001;32:1875–1883. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
32. Swaine, BR, Sullivan, SJ. Reliability of the scores for the finger-to-nose test in adults with traumatic brain injury. Phys Ther. 1993;73:71–78. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
33. Gagnon, C, Mathieu, J, Desrosiers, J. Standardized finger-nose test validity for coordination assessment in an ataxic disorder. Can J Neurol Sci. 2004;31:484–489. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
34. Nijland, R, van Wegen, E, Verbunt, J, van Wijk, R, van Kordelaar, J, Kwakkel, G. A comparison of two validated tests for upper limb function after stroke: the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Action Research Arm Test. J Rehabil Med. 2010;42:694–696. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
35. Hsueh, IP, Hsu, MJ, Sheu, CF, Lee, S, Hsieh, CL, Lin, JH. Psychometric comparisons of 2 versions of the Fugl-Meyer Motor Scale and 2 versions of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22:737–744. Google Scholar, Link
36. Daley, K, Mayo, N, Wood-Dauphinée, S. Reliability of scores on the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM) measure. Phys Ther. 1999;79:8–19. Google Scholar, Medline
37. Hsueh, IP, Wang, CH, Sheu, CF, Hsieh, CL. Comparison of psychometric properties of three mobility measures for patients with stroke. Stroke. 2003;34:1741–1745. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
38. van der Lee, JH, De Groot, V, Beckerman, H, Wagenaar, RC, Lankhorst, GJ, Bouter, LM. The intra- and interrater reliability of the action research arm test: a practical test of upper extremity function in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:14–19. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
39. Platz, T, Pinkowski, C, van Wijck, F, Kim, IH, di Bella, P, Johnson, G. Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multicentre study. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19:404–411. Google Scholar, Link
40. Van de Winckel, A, Feys, H, van der Knaap, S. Can quality of movement be measured? Rasch analysis and inter-rater reliability of the Motor Evaluation Scale for upper extremity in stroke patients (MESUPES). Clin Rehabil. 2006;20:871–884. Google Scholar, Link
41. Johansson, GM, Häger, CK. Measurement properties of the Motor Evaluation Scale for upper extremity in stroke patients (MESUPES). Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:288–294. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
42. Mathiowetz, V, Volland, G, Kashman, N, Weber, K. Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther. 1985;39:386–391. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
43. Heller, A, Wade, DT, Wood, VA, Sunderland, A, Hewer, RL, Ward, E. Arm function after stroke: measurement and recovery over the first three months. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1987;50:714–719. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
44. Parker, VM, Wade, DT, Langton Hewer, R. Loss of arm function after stroke: measurement, frequency, and recovery. Int Rehabil Med. 1986;8:69–73. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
45. Morris, DM, Uswatte, G, Crago, JE, Cook, EW, Taub, E. The reliability of the Wolf Motor Function Test for assessing upper extremity function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:750–755. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
46. Whitall, J, Savin, DN, Harris-Love, M, Waller, SM. Psychometric properties of a modified Wolf Motor Function Test for people with mild and moderate upper-extremity hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:656–660. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
47. Levin, MF, Desrosiers, J, Beauchemin, D, Bergeron, N, Rochette, A. Development and validation of a scale for rating motor compensations used for reaching in patients with hemiparesis: the Reaching Performance Scale. Phys Ther. 2004;84:8–22. Google Scholar, Medline
48. Miyamoto, S, Kondo, T, Suzukamo, Y, Michimata, A, Izumi, S. Reliability and validity of the Manual Function Test in patients with stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;88:247–255. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
49. Kurtaiş, Y, Küçükdeveci, A, Elhan, A. Psychometric properties of the Rivermead Motor Assessment: its utility in stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41:1055–1061. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
50. Collin, C, Wade, D. Assessing motor impairment after stroke: a pilot reliability study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1990;53:576–579. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
51. Kopp, B, Kunkel, A, Flor, H. The Arm Motor Ability Test: reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of an instrument for assessing disabilities in activities of daily living. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:615–620. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
52. O’Dell, MW, Kim, G, Rivera, L. A psychometric evaluation of the Arm Motor Ability Test. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45:519–527. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
53. Chae, J, Labatia, I, Yang, G. Upper limb motor function in hemiparesis: concurrent validity of the Arm Motor Ability Test. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;82:1–8. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
54. Wagner, JM, Rhodes, JA, Patten, C. Reproducibility and minimal detectable change of three-dimensional kinematic analysis of reaching tasks in people with hemiparesis after stroke. Phys Ther. 2008;88:652–663. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
55. Alt Murphy, M, Willén, C, Sunnerhagen, KS. Kinematic variables quantifying upper-extremity performance after stroke during reaching and drinking from a glass. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25:71–80. Google Scholar, Link
56. Silfies, SP, Bhattacharya, A, Biely, S, Smith, SS, Giszter, S. Trunk control during standing reach: a dynamical system analysis of movement strategies in patients with mechanical low back pain. Gait Posture. 2009;29:370–376. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
57. Cirstea, MC, Mitnitski, AB, Feldman, AG, Levin, MF. Interjoint coordination dynamics during reaching in stroke. Exp Brain Res. 2003;151:289–300. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
58. Petrarca, M, Zanelli, G, Patanè, F, Frascarelli, F, Cappa, P, Castelli, E. Reach-to-grasp interjoint coordination for moving object in children with hemiplegia. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41:995–1000. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
59. Merdler, T, Liebermann, DG, Levin, MF, Berman, S. Arm-plane representation of shoulder compensation during pointing movements in patients with stroke. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2013;23:938–947. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
60. Reisman, DS, Scholz, JP. Workspace location influences joint coordination during reaching in post-stroke hemiparesis. Exp Brain Res. 2006;170:265–276. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
61. Park, J, Lewis, MM, Huang, X, Latash, ML. Dopaminergic modulation of motor coordination in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2014;20:64–68. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
62. Steenbergen, B, vanThiel, E, Hulstijn, W, Meulenbroek, RGJ. The coordination of reaching and grasping in spastic hemiparesis. Hum Mov Sci. 2000;19:75–105. Google Scholar, Crossref
63. Kelso, JA. Phase transitions and critical behavior in human bimanual coordination. Am J Physiol. 1984;246(6 pt 2):R1000–R1004. Google Scholar, Medline
64. van de Winckel, A, Feys, H. Effects of walking velocity on relative phase dynamics in the trunk in human walking. J Biomech. 1996;29:1175–1184. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
65. Kaminski, TR, Bock, C, Gentile, AM. The coordination between trunk and arm motion during pointing movements. Exp Brain Res. 1995;106:457–466. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
66. Kukke, SN, Curatalo, LA, de Campos, AC, Hallett, M, Alter, KE, Damiano, DL. Coordination of reach-to-grasp kinematics in individuals with childhood-onset dystonia due to hemiplegic cerebral palsy. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2016;24:582–590. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
67. Jaspers, E, Desloovere, K, Bruyninckx, H. Three-dimensional upper limb movement characteristics in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy and typically developing children. Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32:2283–2294. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
68. Newell, KM, Vaillancourt, DE. Dimensional change in motor learning. Hum Mov Sci. 2001;20:695–715. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
69. Berret, B, Bonnetblanc, F, Papaxanthis, C, Pozzo, T. Modular control of pointing beyond arm’s length. J Neurosci. 2009;29:191–205. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
70. Tagliabue, M, Ferrigno, G, Horak, F. Effects of Parkinson’s disease on proprioceptive control of posture and reaching while standing. Neuroscience. 2009;158:1206–1214. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
71. Daffertshofer, A, Lamoth, CJ, Meijer, OG, Beek, PJ. PCA in studying coordination and variability: a tutorial. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2004;19:415–428. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
72. Ivanenko, YP, Cappellini, G, Dominici, N, Poppele, RE, Lacquaniti, F. Modular control of limb movements during human locomotion. J Neurosci. 2007;27:11149–1161. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
73. Cheron, G, Bengoetxea, A, Bouillot, E, Lacquaniti, F, Dan, B. Early emergence of temporal co-ordination of lower limb segments elevation angles in human locomotion. Neurosci Lett. 2001;308:123–127. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
74. Degelean, M, De Borre, L, Salvia, P. Effect of ankle-foot orthoses on trunk sway and lower limb intersegmental coordination in children with bilateral cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Rehabil Med. 2012;5:171–179. Google Scholar, Medline
75. Ivanenko, YP, d’Avella, A, Poppele, RE, Lacquaniti, F. On the origin of planar covariation of elevation angles during human locomotion. J Neurophysiol. 2008;99:1890–1898. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
76. Wang, X. Three-dimensional kinematic analysis of influence of hand orientation and joint limits on the control of arm postures and movements. Biol Cybern. 1999;80:449–463. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
77. Scholz, JP, Schöner, G. The uncontrolled manifold concept: identifying control variables for a functional task. Exp Brain Res. 1999;126:289–306. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
78. Latash, ML, Scholz, JP, Schöner, G. Toward a new theory of motor synergies. Motor Control. 2007;11:276–308. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
79. Knorr, B, Hughes, R, Sherrill, D, Stein, J, Akay, M, Bonato, P. Quantitative measures of functional upper limb movement in persons after stroke. Paper presented at: Conference Proceedings. 2nd International IEEE EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering, 2005; March 16-19, 2005; Arlington, VA. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1419604. Accessed October 13, 2017. Google Scholar
80. Archambault, P, Pigeon, P, Feldman, AG, Levin, MF. Recruitment and sequencing of different degrees of freedom during pointing movements involving the trunk in healthy and hemiparetic subjects. Exp Brain Res. 1999;126:55–67. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
81. Sveistrup, H. Motor rehabilitation using virtual reality. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2004;1:10. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
82. Tao, G, Archambault, PS, Levin, MF. Evaluation of Kinect skeletal tracking in a virtual reality rehabilitation system for upper limb hemiparesis. Presented at: The 2013 International Conference on Virtual Rehabilitation (ICVR); August 26-19, 2013; Philadelphia, PA. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6662084/. Accessed October 13, 2017. Google Scholar
83. Liebermann, DG, Berman, S, Weiss, PL, Levin, MF. Kinematics of reaching movements in a 2-D virtual environment in adults with and without stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2012;20:778–787. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline

via Upper Limb Coordination in Individuals With Stroke: Poorly Defined and Poorly QuantifiedNeurorehabilitation and Neural Repair – Yosuke Tomita, Marcos R. M. Rodrigues, Mindy F. Levin, 2017

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: