| Literature DB >> 22571177 |
Hsiu-Yun Hsu1, Cheng-Feng Lin, Fong-Chin Su, Huan-Ting Kuo, Haw-Yen Chiu, Li-Chieh Kuo.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hemianaesthesia patients usually exhibit awkward and inefficient finger movements of the affected hands. Conventionally, most interventions emphasize the improvement of motor deficits, but rarely address sensory capability and sensorimotor control following stroke. Thus it is critical for stroke patients with sensory problems to incorporate appropriate strategies for dealing with sensory impairment, into traditional hand function rehabilitation programs. In this study, we used a custom-designed computerized evaluation and re-education biofeedback (CERB) prototype to analyze hand grasp performances, and monitor the training effects on hand coordination for stroke patients with sensory disturbance and without motor deficiency.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22571177 PMCID: PMC3512515 DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-9-26
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil ISSN: 1743-0003 Impact factor: 4.262
Figure 1Schematic display of the computerized evaluation and re-education biofeedback (CERB) prototype.
Sensory status of recruited subjects
| Proprioception of shoulder and elbow | Proprioception of hand | *Classification of 2PD sensibility | **Scale of interpretation of SW test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | impaired | loss | S1 | Loss of protective sensation |
| P2 | intact | intact | S4 | Diminished light touch |
| P3 | intact | intact | S4 | Diminished light touch |
| P4 | intact | intact | S4 | Diminished light touch |
| P5 | loss | loss | S1 | Loss of protective sensation |
| P6 | intact | intact | S4 | Diminished light touch |
| P7 | impaired | impaired | S3+ | Loss of protective sensation |
| P8 | intact | impaired | S3+ | Diminished protective sensation |
| P9 | intact | loss | S1 | Loss of protective sensation |
| P10 | intact | intact | S3+ | Diminished light touch |
| P11 | intact | intact | S4 | Diminished light touch |
| P12 | intact | intact | S4 | Diminished light touch |
| P13 | intact | loss | S3+ | Diminished protective sensation |
| P14 | intact | intact | S3+ | Diminished light touch |
*: S1: recovery of deep pain; S3+: has 2PD 7–15 mm range; S4: includes 2PD 2–6 mm range [35].
**: [36].
The difference of force parameters and hand function between the affected and sound hand of stroke patients (n = 14)
| Parameters | Affected hand Mean (SD) | Sound hand Mean (SD) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Force ratio: FPPeak/FLmax | 3.96 (1.13) | 3.36 (0.77) | 0.033* |
| Peak Pinch force: FPpeak (N) | 18.81(5.2) | 16.12 (3.77) | 0.055 |
| Purdue test | 6.35 (4.51) | 12.31 (2.76) | 0.002* |
| Jebsen-Taylor lifting light object (secs) | 7.89 (3.62) | 4.40 (1.16) | 0.001* |
| Jebsen-Taylor lifting heavy object (secs) | 7.40 (3.17) | 5.16 (1.77) | 0.001* |
Statistics: Wilcoxon signed ranks test; significance level was set at 0.05.
Correlation between force parameters, hand function tests and pressure threshold test in a lifting performance
| Parameters | Force ratio (Max) | Pinch force (Max) | Purdue test | Time (lifting light objects) | Time (lifting heavy objects) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S-W (pressure threshold test) | r | .576 | .562 | −.564 | .709 | .552 |
| 0.031* | 0.036* | 0.036* | 0.005* | 0.041* |
Figure 2The improvements in the grip force modulation after computerized force reeducation, (A) The obtained peak pinch force at different time-point, (B) The pinch-force output with time series before training, after training and at the follow-up assessment of subject 5.
Training effects of computerized force re-education on finger dexterity
| Pre-training Mean (SD) | Post-training Mean (SD) | Follow-up Mean (SD) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inserting pins (Numbers) | 6.4 (5.1) | 7. 6(5.1) | 8.1(5.7) | 0.019* |
| Time of lifting light objects (seconds) | 8.05(4.01) | 6.71(4.24) | 6.65 (4.09) | .005* |
| Time of lifting heavy objects (seconds) | 7.41(3.50) | 6.67(3.18) | 6.45 (3.33) | .142 |