| Literature DB >> 25542201 |
Kelly O Thielbar, Thomas J Lord, Heidi C Fischer, Emily C Lazzaro, Kristin C Barth, Mary E Stoykov, Kristen M Triandafilou1, Derek G Kamper.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dexterous manipulation of the hand, one of the features of human motor control, is often compromised after stroke, to the detriment of basic functions. Despite the importance of independent movement of the digits to activities of daily living, relatively few studies have assessed the impact of specifically targeting individuated movements of the digits on hand rehabilitation. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of such finger individuation training, by means of a novel mechatronic-virtual reality system, on fine motor control after stroke.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25542201 PMCID: PMC4292811 DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-171
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil ISSN: 1743-0003 Impact factor: 4.262
Figure 1Actuated virtual keypad (AVK) system. User wears the PneuGlove which both measures joint angles through bend sensors and provides assistance to finger extension or resistance to finger flexion through pneumatic actuation. The user controls the virtual hand through the PneuGlove, and thus depression of the keys.
Figure 2Graphical User Interface (GUI) for the AVK system. Therapist adjusts parameters to grade task difficulty according to subjects’ ability level throughout the session, such as the amount of assistance/resistance pressure provided, the angular thresholds for key stroke, and the digits to be monitored.
Figure 3The AVK system. A) Key Combination mode—The user must depress the instructed keys within a specified period of time and then release the keys. If unsuccessful, the digits in error are highlighted with red rings at the end of each trial. A score for each trial and a running score are shown on the screen to the user as feedback (not pictured). B) Song Mode—The user is given a series of key combinations in order to play the chosen song. The pictured sequence was for the ring finger (first image) followed by the index finger (middle image) and middle finger (last image) independently. A score for each key press was awarded and tallied for an overall song score (not pictured). Bonus points could be earned for perfect sequential key presses (e.g. Mega Combo).
Subject characteristics
| Subject | Chedoke | Sex | Age | Months Post Stroke | Affected Arm |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
| 6 | F | 53 | 36.2 | R |
|
| 5 | M | 57 | 96.3 | R |
|
| 5 | F | 51 | 6.6 | L |
|
| 5 | M | 46 | 61.2 | L |
|
| 5 | M | 56 | 12.6 | R |
|
| 5 | M | 49 | 39.4 | L |
|
| 5 | F | 69 | 74 | R |
|
| 5.1 (0.4) | 57.1% Male | 54 (7) | 46.6 (32.5) | 42.9% left affected |
|
| |||||
|
| 5 | F | 58 | 89 | R |
|
| 5 | M | 58 | 10.2 | L |
|
| 5 | M | 70 | 14.2 | L |
|
| 5 | F | 53 | 136.4 | L |
|
| 5 | M | 56 | 15.4 | R |
|
| 5 | M | 66 | 35.3 | L |
|
| 5 | M | 55 | 35 | L |
|
| 5.0 (0) | 71.4% Male | 59 (6) | 47.9 (47.4) | 71.4% left affected |
Values of outcome measures and within-group analyses
| Outcome measure | OT | AVK | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Post | Follow-up | p-value | Pre | Post | Follow-up | p-value | |
| FMUE | 41.9 (1.9) | 43.6 (8.1) | 44.9 (7.2) | 0.717 | 48.7 (9.6) | 50.4 (10.4) | 50.0 (8.7) | 0.048* |
| FMH | 12.9 (3.0) | 13.4 (5.7) | 14.6 (3.1) | 0.580 | 15.4 (5.0) | 16.9 (5.5) | 17.3 (4.9) | 0.340 |
| ARAT | 48.1 (7.7) | 44.6 (12.7) | 45.3 (11.2) | 0.895 | 46.6 (8.9) | 49.7 (8.8) | 51.4 (7.0) | 0.142 |
| JTHFT | 128.3 (67.4) | 127.7 (67.8) | 145.9 (92.0) | 0.651 | 108.3 (74.5) | 103.7 (88.8) | 75.3 (50.1) | 0.021* |
| GS (N) | 191 (72) | 200 (59) | 214 (67) | 0.051 | 250 (84) | 275 (100) | 255 (93) | 0.368 |
| LPS (N) | 75.6 (33.4) | 66.7 (9.5) | 69.3 (16.0) | 0.607 | 83.2 (34.9) | 81.0 (27.1) | 83.5 (32.9) | 0.867 |
| PPS (N) | 53.6 (26.4) | 51.5 (9.1) | 53.2 (8.5) | 0.513 | 61.4 (28.4) | 58.9 (28.0) | 58.6 (29.1) | 0.772 |
Values are Mean (SD) and *indicates significance for an α-level of 0.05. P-values are results from the Friedman Tests. No significant difference was observed between the baseline measures for any of the outcome measures (Kruskal Wallis Test p > 0.142).
Figure 4Change in finger individuation. Values averaged across subjects for each digit for A) AVK B) OT. Error bars represent SE. *Paired t-test: p-value = 0.050 across all digits.
Figure 5Noninferiority testing of treatment difference (AVK-OT) at one-month follow-up relative to baseline. A) ARAT and B) JTHFT both showing AVK superiority and C) LPS showing noninferiority.
Figure 6Performance across training sessions on exercises with the AVK system. Success in Key Combination Mode as quantified by the A) Win Ratio and B) Difficulty. Markers indicate mean across subjects for each session. C) Change in performance of Song Mode for a single subject. Comparison of mean song score during the first (dark gray bar) and last session (light gray bar) for a single subject using the same difficulty settings. Error bars indicate SD. *p-value < 0.005.