M A Urbin1, Kimberly J Waddell2, Catherine E Lang3. 1. Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. Electronic address: urbinm@wusm.wustl.edu. 2. Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 3. Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Program in Occupational Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To (1) determine whether acceleration metrics derived from monitoring outside of treatment are responsive to change in upper extremity (UE) function; and secondarily to (2) compare metric values during task-specific training and while in the free-living environment, and (3) establish metric associations with an in-clinic measure of movement capabilities. DESIGN: Before-after observational study. SETTING: Inpatient hospital (primary purpose); outpatient hospital (secondary purpose). PARTICIPANTS: Individuals (n=8) with UE hemiparesis <30 days poststroke (primary purpose); individuals (n=27) with UE hemiparesis ≥6 months poststroke (secondary purpose). INTERVENTION: The inpatient sample was evaluated for UE movement capabilities and monitored with wrist-worn accelerometers for 22 hours outside of treatment before and after multiple sessions of task-specific training. The outpatient sample was evaluated for UE movement capabilities and monitored during a single session of task-specific training and the subsequent 22 hours outside clinical settings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and acceleration metrics quantified from accelerometer recordings. RESULTS: Five metrics improved in the inpatient sample, along with UE function as measured on the ARAT: use ratio, magnitude ratio, variation ratio, median paretic UE acceleration magnitude, and paretic UE acceleration variability. Metric values were greater during task-specific training than in the free-living environment, and each metric was strongly associated with ARAT score. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple metrics that characterize different aspects of UE movement are responsive to change in function. Metric values are different during training than in the free-living environment, providing further evidence that what the paretic UE does in the clinic may not generalize to what it does in everyday life.
OBJECTIVES: To (1) determine whether acceleration metrics derived from monitoring outside of treatment are responsive to change in upper extremity (UE) function; and secondarily to (2) compare metric values during task-specific training and while in the free-living environment, and (3) establish metric associations with an in-clinic measure of movement capabilities. DESIGN: Before-after observational study. SETTING: Inpatient hospital (primary purpose); outpatient hospital (secondary purpose). PARTICIPANTS: Individuals (n=8) with UE hemiparesis <30 days poststroke (primary purpose); individuals (n=27) with UE hemiparesis ≥6 months poststroke (secondary purpose). INTERVENTION: The inpatient sample was evaluated for UE movement capabilities and monitored with wrist-worn accelerometers for 22 hours outside of treatment before and after multiple sessions of task-specific training. The outpatient sample was evaluated for UE movement capabilities and monitored during a single session of task-specific training and the subsequent 22 hours outside clinical settings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and acceleration metrics quantified from accelerometer recordings. RESULTS: Five metrics improved in the inpatient sample, along with UE function as measured on the ARAT: use ratio, magnitude ratio, variation ratio, median paretic UE acceleration magnitude, and paretic UE acceleration variability. Metric values were greater during task-specific training than in the free-living environment, and each metric was strongly associated with ARAT score. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple metrics that characterize different aspects of UE movement are responsive to change in function. Metric values are different during training than in the free-living environment, providing further evidence that what the paretic UE does in the clinic may not generalize to what it does in everyday life.
Authors: Marian E Michielsen; Ruud W Selles; Henk J Stam; Gerard M Ribbers; Johannes B Bussmann Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Edward Taub; Gitendra Uswatte; Mary H Bowman; Victor W Mark; Adriana Delgado; Camille Bryson; David Morris; Staci Bishop-McKay Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-08-21 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Catherine E Lang; Marghuretta D Bland; Ryan R Bailey; Sydney Y Schaefer; Rebecca L Birkenmeier Journal: J Hand Ther Date: 2012-09-10 Impact factor: 1.908
Authors: Sunghoon I Lee; Catherine P Adans-Dester; Matteo Grimaldi; Ariel V Dowling; Peter C Horak; Randie M Black-Schaffer; Paolo Bonato; Joseph T Gwin Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 3.316
Authors: Kimberly J Waddell; Michael J Strube; Ryan R Bailey; Joseph W Klaesner; Rebecca L Birkenmeier; Alexander W Dromerick; Catherine E Lang Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 4.895
Authors: Brianna M Goodwin; Emily K Sabelhaus; Ying-Chun Pan; Kristie F Bjornson; Kelly L D Pham; William O Walker; Katherine M Steele Journal: Am J Occup Ther Date: 2020 Sep/Oct