Literature DB >> 19406299

Kinematics of pointing movements made in a virtual versus a physical 3-dimensional environment in healthy and stroke subjects.

Luiz A Knaut1, Sandeep K Subramanian, Bradford J McFadyen, Daniel Bourbonnais, Mindy F Levin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare kinematics of 3-dimensional pointing movements performed in a virtual environment (VE) displayed through a head-mounted display with those made in a physical environment.
DESIGN: Observational study of movement in poststroke and healthy subjects.
SETTING: Motion analysis laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (n=15; 4 women; 59+/-15.4y) with chronic poststroke hemiparesis were recruited. Participants had moderate upper-limb impairment with Chedoke-McMaster Arm Scores ranging from 3 to 6 out of 7. Twelve healthy subjects (6 women; 53.3+/-17.1y) were recruited from the community.
INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Arm and trunk kinematics were recorded in similar virtual and physical environments with an Optotrak System (6 markers; 100Hz; 5s). Subjects pointed as quickly and as accurately as possible to 6 targets (12 trials/target in a randomized sequence) placed in arm workspace areas requiring different arm movement patterns and levels of difficulty. Movements were analyzed in terms of performance outcome measures (endpoint precision, trajectory, peak velocity) and arm and trunk movement patterns (elbow and shoulder ranges of motion, elbow/shoulder coordination, trunk displacement, rotation).
RESULTS: For healthy subjects, precision and trajectory straightness were higher in VE when pointing to contralateral targets, and movements were slower for all targets in VE. Stroke participants made less accurate and more curved movements in VE and used less trunk displacement. Elbow/shoulder coordination differed when pointing to the lower ipsilateral target. There were no group-by-environment interactions.
CONCLUSIONS: Movements in both environments were sufficiently similar to consider VE a valid environment for clinical interventions and motor control studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19406299     DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2008.10.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil        ISSN: 0003-9993            Impact factor:   3.966


  16 in total

1.  Emergence of virtual reality as a tool for upper limb rehabilitation: incorporation of motor control and motor learning principles.

Authors:  Mindy F Levin; Patrice L Weiss; Emily A Keshner
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2014-09-11

2.  Applications of Brain-Machine Interface Systems in Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation.

Authors:  Anusha Venkatakrishnan; Gerard E Francisco; Jose L Contreras-Vidal
Journal:  Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep       Date:  2014-06-01

3.  Choice of Human-Computer Interaction Mode in Stroke Rehabilitation.

Authors:  Hossein Mousavi Hondori; Maryam Khademi; Lucy Dodakian; Alison McKenzie; Cristina V Lopes; Steven C Cramer
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.919

4.  Virtual Reality for Sensorimotor Rehabilitation Post-Stroke: The Promise and Current State of the Field.

Authors:  Gerard G Fluet; Judith E Deutsch
Journal:  Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep       Date:  2013-03

5.  A method for assessing the arm movement performance: probability tube.

Authors:  Miloš Kostić; Mirjana B Popović; Dejan B Popović
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 2.602

6.  Effects of Real-World Versus Virtual Environments on Joint Excursions in Full-Body Reaching Tasks.

Authors:  James S Thomas; Christopher R France; Samuel T Leitkam; Megan E Applegate; Peter E Pidcoe; Stevan Walkowski
Journal:  IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 3.316

7.  Viewing medium affects arm motor performance in 3D virtual environments.

Authors:  Sandeep K Subramanian; Mindy F Levin
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2011-06-30       Impact factor: 4.262

8.  Virtual reality versus conventional treatment of reaching ability in chronic stroke: clinical feasibility study.

Authors:  Mindy F Levin; Osnat Snir; Dario G Liebermann; Harold Weingarden; Patrice L Weiss
Journal:  Neurol Ther       Date:  2012-08-24

9.  Planning and adjustments for the control of reach extent in a virtual environment.

Authors:  Jill Campbell Stewart; James Gordon; Carolee J Winstein
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2013-03-02       Impact factor: 4.262

10.  Does use of a virtual environment change reaching while standing in patients with traumatic brain injury?

Authors:  Amanda Y Schafer; Ksenia I Ustinova
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2013-07-16       Impact factor: 4.262

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.