Literature DB >> 25000904

Control of reach extent with the paretic and nonparetic arms after unilateral sensorimotor stroke II: planning and adjustments to control movement distance.

Jill Campbell Stewart1, James Gordon, Carolee J Winstein.   

Abstract

Nondisabled adults utilize both planning and feedback-based compensatory adjustments to control actual distance moved for skilled reach actions. The purpose of this study was to determine whether individuals post-stroke utilize planning and compensatory adjustments to control movement distance for reaches to targets that vary in distance. Individuals with mild to moderate motor impairment after stroke and nondisabled adults reached with both arms to targets presented at three distances (8, 16, 24 cm). The control of movement distance was compared between arms (control, nonparetic, and paretic) as to the use of planning (correlation of peak acceleration with movement distance), compensatory adjustments prior to peak velocity (correlation of time to peak velocity with movement distance), and compensatory adjustments after peak velocity (variance in movement distance accounted for by deterministic statistical model). The correlation of peak acceleration with movement distance for reaches with the paretic arm was significantly less than controls suggesting a decreased reliance on planning. Feedback-based compensatory adjustments, however, were present prior to and after peak velocity that assisted in achievement of movement distance in a similar manner as controls. Overall reach performance with the paretic arm was impaired, however, as evidenced by greater endpoint error and longer movement times than controls. The decreased use of planning to control movement distance after stroke suggests that the selected motor command was suboptimal in producing the desired movement outcome and may be related to an inability to generate muscle force quickly, lack of knowledge of arm dynamics due to decreased arm use, or lesion characteristics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25000904     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-014-4025-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  53 in total

Review 1.  Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning.

Authors:  M Kawato
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 6.627

2.  Development of the Hand Active Sensation Test: reliability and validity.

Authors:  Petra S Williams; D Michele Basso; Jane Case-Smith; Deborah S Nichols-Larsen
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.966

3.  Control of velocity and position in single joint movements.

Authors:  Pratik K Mutha; Robert L Sainburg
Journal:  Hum Mov Sci       Date:  2007-10-10       Impact factor: 2.161

4.  Validity of the Behavioral Inattention Test (BIT): relationships with functional tasks.

Authors:  A Hartman-Maeir; N Katz
Journal:  Am J Occup Ther       Date:  1995-06

5.  Assessing longitudinal change in coordination of the paretic upper limb using on-site 3-dimensional kinematic measurements.

Authors:  Joost van Kordelaar; Erwin E H van Wegen; Rinske H M Nijland; Jurriaan H de Groot; Carel G M Meskers; Jaap Harlaar; Gert Kwakkel
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2011-09-23

6.  Trajectory control in targeted force impulses. II. Pulse height control.

Authors:  J Gordon; C Ghez
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Consequences of increased neuromotor noise for reaching movements in persons with stroke.

Authors:  Patrick H McCrea; Janice J Eng
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-11-05       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Abnormal muscle activation characteristics associated with loss of dexterity after stroke.

Authors:  C G Canning; L Ada; N J O'Dwyer
Journal:  J Neurol Sci       Date:  2000-05-01       Impact factor: 3.181

9.  The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change.

Authors:  P W Duncan; D Wallace; S M Lai; D Johnson; S Embretson; L J Laster
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 7.914

Review 10.  Beyond grasping: representation of action in human anterior intraparietal sulcus.

Authors:  E Tunik; N J Rice; A Hamilton; S T Grafton
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 6.556

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Motor compensation and its effects on neural reorganization after stroke.

Authors:  Theresa A Jones
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 34.870

2.  Self-efficacy and Reach Performance in Individuals With Mild Motor Impairment Due to Stroke.

Authors:  Jill Campbell Stewart; Rebecca Lewthwaite; Janelle Rocktashel; Carolee J Winstein
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 3.919

3.  Lateralized motor control processes determine asymmetry of interlimb transfer.

Authors:  Robert L Sainburg; Sydney Y Schaefer; Vivek Yadav
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 3.590

4.  Dissociating two sources of variability using a safety-margin model.

Authors:  Amit K Shah; James L Patton
Journal:  IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot       Date:  2017-07

5.  Proprioceptive Augmentation With Illusory Kinaesthetic Sensation in Stroke Patients Improves Movement Quality in an Active Upper Limb Reach-and-Point Task.

Authors:  Francesca Ferrari; Courtney E Shell; Zachary C Thumser; Francesco Clemente; Ela B Plow; Christian Cipriani; Paul D Marasco
Journal:  Front Neurorobot       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 2.650

6.  Trajectory formation principles are the same after mild or moderate stroke.

Authors:  Denis Mottet; Liesjet Elisabeth Henriette van Dokkum; Jérôme Froger; Abdelkader Gouaïch; Isabelle Laffont
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Perceptuo-motor planning during functional reaching after stroke.

Authors:  Margit Alt Murphy; Melanie C Baniña; Mindy F Levin
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2017-08-12       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Kinematic Components of the Reach-to-Target Movement After Stroke for Focused Rehabilitation Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Kathryn C Collins; Niamh C Kennedy; Allan Clark; Valerie M Pomeroy
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 4.003

9.  Corticospinal Tract Microstructure Predicts Distal Arm Motor Improvements in Chronic Stroke.

Authors:  Bokkyu Kim; Nicolas Schweighofer; Justin P Haldar; Richard M Leahy; Carolee J Winstein
Journal:  J Neurol Phys Ther       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 4.655

Review 10.  The ENIGMA Stroke Recovery Working Group: Big data neuroimaging to study brain-behavior relationships after stroke.

Authors:  Sook-Lei Liew; Artemis Zavaliangos-Petropulu; Neda Jahanshad; Catherine E Lang; Kathryn S Hayward; Keith R Lohse; Julia M Juliano; Francesca Assogna; Lee A Baugh; Anup K Bhattacharya; Bavrina Bigjahan; Michael R Borich; Lara A Boyd; Amy Brodtmann; Cathrin M Buetefisch; Winston D Byblow; Jessica M Cassidy; Adriana B Conforto; R Cameron Craddock; Michael A Dimyan; Adrienne N Dula; Elsa Ermer; Mark R Etherton; Kelene A Fercho; Chris M Gregory; Shahram Hadidchi; Jess A Holguin; Darryl H Hwang; Simon Jung; Steven A Kautz; Mohamed Salah Khlif; Nima Khoshab; Bokkyu Kim; Hosung Kim; Amy Kuceyeski; Martin Lotze; Bradley J MacIntosh; John L Margetis; Feroze B Mohamed; Fabrizio Piras; Ander Ramos-Murguialday; Geneviève Richard; Pamela Roberts; Andrew D Robertson; Jane M Rondina; Natalia S Rost; Nerses Sanossian; Nicolas Schweighofer; Na Jin Seo; Mark S Shiroishi; Surjo R Soekadar; Gianfranco Spalletta; Cathy M Stinear; Anisha Suri; Wai Kwong W Tang; Gregory T Thielman; Daniela Vecchio; Arno Villringer; Nick S Ward; Emilio Werden; Lars T Westlye; Carolee Winstein; George F Wittenberg; Kristin A Wong; Chunshui Yu; Steven C Cramer; Paul M Thompson
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2020-04-20       Impact factor: 5.399

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.