Laurence Mandon1, Julien Boudarham2, Johanna Robertson1, Djamel Bensmail1, Nicolas Roche1, Agnès Roby-Brami3. 1. Raymond Poincaré Hospital, Garches, France GRCTH, EA4497, CIC-IT 805, CHU Raymond Poincaré, UVSQ, Garches, France. 2. GRCTH, EA4497, CIC-IT 805, CHU Raymond Poincaré, UVSQ, Garches, France. 3. GRCTH, EA4497, CIC-IT 805, CHU Raymond Poincaré, UVSQ, Garches, France CNRS, UMR 7222, ISIR, Paris, France Sorbonne Universités, UPMC University Pierre et Marie Curie, UMR 7222, Paris, France INSERM, U1150, Agathe-ISIR, Paris, France roby-brami@isir.upmc.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The velocity of reaching movements is often reduced in patients with stroke-related hemiparesis; however, they are able to voluntarily increase paretic hand velocity. Previous studies have proposed that faster speed improves movement quality. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the combined effects of reaching distance and speed instruction on trunk and paretic upper-limb coordination. The hypothesis was that increased speed would reduce elbow extension and increase compensatory trunk movement. METHODS: A single session study in which reaching kinematics were recorded in a group of 14 patients with spastic hemiparesis. A 3-dimensional motion analysis system was used to track the trajectories of 5 reflective markers fixed on the finger, wrist, elbow, acromion, and sternum. The reaching movements were performed to 2 targets at 60% and 90% arm length, respectively, at preferred and maximum velocity. The experiment was repeated with the trunk restrained by a strap. RESULTS: All the patients were able to voluntarily increase reaching velocity. In the trunk free, faster speed condition, elbow extension velocity increased but elbow extension amplitude decreased and trunk movement increased. In the trunk restraint condition, elbow extension amplitude did not decrease with faster speed. Seven patients scaled elbow extension and elbow extension velocity as a function of reach distance, the other 7 mainly increased trunk compensation with increased task constraints. There were no clear clinical characteristics that could explain this difference. CONCLUSIONS: Faster speed may encourage some patients to use compensation. Individual indications for therapy could be based on a quantitative analysis of reaching coordination.
BACKGROUND: The velocity of reaching movements is often reduced in patients with stroke-related hemiparesis; however, they are able to voluntarily increase paretic hand velocity. Previous studies have proposed that faster speed improves movement quality. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the combined effects of reaching distance and speed instruction on trunk and paretic upper-limb coordination. The hypothesis was that increased speed would reduce elbow extension and increase compensatory trunk movement. METHODS: A single session study in which reaching kinematics were recorded in a group of 14 patients with spastic hemiparesis. A 3-dimensional motion analysis system was used to track the trajectories of 5 reflective markers fixed on the finger, wrist, elbow, acromion, and sternum. The reaching movements were performed to 2 targets at 60% and 90% arm length, respectively, at preferred and maximum velocity. The experiment was repeated with the trunk restrained by a strap. RESULTS: All the patients were able to voluntarily increase reaching velocity. In the trunk free, faster speed condition, elbow extension velocity increased but elbow extension amplitude decreased and trunk movement increased. In the trunk restraint condition, elbow extension amplitude did not decrease with faster speed. Seven patients scaled elbow extension and elbow extension velocity as a function of reach distance, the other 7 mainly increased trunk compensation with increased task constraints. There were no clear clinical characteristics that could explain this difference. CONCLUSIONS: Faster speed may encourage some patients to use compensation. Individual indications for therapy could be based on a quantitative analysis of reaching coordination.
Authors: Leire Santisteban; Maxime Térémetz; Jean-Pierre Bleton; Jean-Claude Baron; Marc A Maier; Påvel G Lindberg Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Frieder Wittmann; Jeremia P Held; Olivier Lambercy; Michelle L Starkey; Armin Curt; Raphael Höver; Roger Gassert; Andreas R Luft; Roman R Gonzenbach Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: George Mochizuki; Andrew Centen; Myles Resnick; Catherine Lowrey; Sean P Dukelow; Stephen H Scott Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 4.262