| Literature DB >> 19019228 |
Benedetta Cesqui1, Giovanna Macrì, Paolo Dario, Silvestro Micera.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the past, several research groups have shown that when a velocity dependent force field is applied during upper limb movements subjects are able to deal with this external perturbation after some training. This adaptation is achieved by creating a new internal model which is included in the normal unperturbed motor commands to achieve good performance. The efficiency of this motor control mechanism can be compromised by pathological disorders or by muscular-skeletal modifications such as the ones due to the natural aging process. In this respect, the present study aimed at identifying the age-related modifications of upper limb motor control strategies during adaptation and de-adaptation processes in velocity dependent force fields.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 19019228 PMCID: PMC2596161 DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-5-31
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil ISSN: 1743-0003 Impact factor: 4.262
Mean values and standard deviation of elbow and shoulder joints excursions for each movement direction.
| Movement direction | Mean value | |
| N | Elbow | -22,3 ± 4,53 |
| Shoulder | 10,85 ± 3,5 | |
| NE | Elbow | -21,72 ± 4,43 |
| Shoulder | -4,5 ± 1,8 | |
| E | Elbow | -2,33 ± 2,09 |
| Shoulder | -9,22 ± 3,06 | |
| SE | Elbow | 16,87 ± 3,14 |
| Shoulder | -10,14 ± 3,97 | |
| S | Elbow | 24,97 ± 2,23 |
| Shoulder | -1,21 ± 1,37 | |
| SW | Elbow | 14,65 ± 5,93 |
| Shoulder | 9,32 ± 3,11 | |
| W | Elbow | -6,07 ± 2,82 |
| Shoulder | 12,57 ± | |
| NW | Elbow | -19,6 ± 3,11 |
| Shoulder | 8,54 ± 3,58 |
Mean value and SD of the hand effecter for each age group and each direction.
| Ex | N | NE | E | SE | S | SW | W | NW | |
| 2 | 0,28 (± 0,04) | 0,29 (± 0,04) | 0,28 (± 0,04) | 0,27 (± 0,04) | 0,27 (± 0,05) | 0,27 (± 0,04) | 0,27 (± 0,04) | 0,29 (± 0,04) | |
| 3 | 0,28 (± 0,04) | 0,32 (± 0,05) | 0,28 (± 0,05) | 0,25 (± 0,04) | 0,29 (± 0,04) | 0,29 (± 0,03) | 0,28 (± 0,04) | 0,26 (± 0,04) | |
| 4 | 0,32 (± 0,04)+ | 0,34(± 0,04)+ | 0,31 (± 0,04)+ | 0,28 (± 0,04)+ | 0,31 (± 0,03)+ | 0,31(± 0,04)+ | 0,31 (± 0,04)+ | 0,3 (± 0,04)+ | |
| 5 | 0,27 (± 0,04)+ | 0,26(± 0,04)- | 0,31 (± 0,08)- | 0,27 (± 0,03) | 0,27 (± 0,03) | 0,26 (± 0,03) | 0,29 (± 0,03) | 0,3 (± 0,03) | |
| 6 | 0,3 (± 0,05) | 0,3 (± 0,06) | 0,32 (± 0,04)+ | 0,31(± 0,03)+ | 0,3(± 0,05)* | 0,3(± 0,05)* | 0,32 (± 0,04)+ | 0,33(± 0,04)+ | |
| 2 | 0,23 (± 0,04) | 0,22 (± 0,05) | 0,23 (± 0,04) | 0,22 (± 0,04) | 0,22 (± 0,04) | 0,23 (± 0,04) | 0,23 (± 0,04) | 0,23 (± 0,04) | |
| 3 | 0,20(± 0,04)+ | 0,22 (± 0,03) | 0,20(± 0,03)+ | 0,17(± 0,02)+ | 0,19 (± 0,02)+ | 0,20 (± 0,02)+ | 0,19 (± 0,02)+ | 0,17(± 0,02)+ | |
| 4 | 0,21 (± 0,04)+ | 0,25 (± 0,04)+ | 0,22 (± 0,04) | 0,19 (± 0,03)+ | 0,19 (± 0,05)+ | 0,22 (± 0,03) | 0,22 (± 0,04) | 0,2 (± 0,02)+ | |
| 5 | 0,2 (± 0,04)- | 0,19 (± 0,03)+ | 0,21 (± 0,04) | 0,2 (± 0,02)* | 0,19 (± 0,03)+ | 0,2 (± 0,03)- | 0,23 (± 0,04) | 0,22 (± 0,04) | |
| 6 | 0,21 (± 0,04) | 0,2 (± 0,03) | 0,22 (± 0,05) | 0,21 (± 0,04) | 0,2 (± 0,05) | 0,2 (± 0,05) | 0,23 (± 0,03) | 0,22 (± 0,04) | |
A Bonferroni post hoc test was made to see when there was a statistical difference with exercise 2. Results showed that young subjects go faster when the field was applied and except for 2 directions, they maintained this attitude in the final washout. Elderly instead in many cases even reduced the speed of their movements when the field was applied; no statistical differences were found between the second and the sixth exercise.
*p < 0.05/4, -p < 0.01/4,+p < 0.001/4
Figure 1Evolution of the of the smoothness parameters N.Jerk throughout the experiment in one of the eight direction. Blue line = young group; red line = elderly group.
Figure 2Hand path trajectories traced by elderly subjects. a) soon after the field application (exercise 3). b) when the field was turned off (exercise 5).
Figure 3Comparison between the two different experimental protocols. Red line is relative to the first adopted experiment protocol. Blue line shows the behaviour in the second version of the experiment protocol, when subjects prolonged de adaptation phase in exercise 5.
Figure 4Individual torque profiles at the shoulder and at the elbow of relative to motion toward right direction. Positive values correspond to flexion torques and negative values to extension. Upper side: NF condition; Bottom side: VF field condition.
Figure 5Torque sign analysis. Mean percentage of movement duration for the elbow and shoulder during which MUSC or IT coincided in sign with NT. The asterisks indicate when the differences between young and elders are significant.
Figure 6MT . Bottom side: after the removal of the field (exercise 6) young subjects continued to move with a MUSC E torque higher than necessary: differences between exercise 2 and 6 are significant in all direction except W; upper side: elders soon restored the more economic solution in terms of effort.