Literature DB >> 26749181

Rhythmic arm movements are less affected than discrete ones after a stroke.

Patricia Leconte1,2, Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry3,4,5, Gaëtan Stoquart6,7,2, Thierry Lejeune6,7,2, Renaud Ronsse8,9,10.   

Abstract

Recent reports indicate that rhythmic and discrete upper-limb movements are two different motor primitives which recruit, at least partially, distinct neural circuitries. In particular, rhythmic movements recruit a smaller cortical network than discrete movements. The goal of this paper is to compare the levels of disability in performing rhythmic and discrete movements after a stroke. More precisely, we tested the hypothesis that rhythmic movements should be less affected than discrete ones, because they recruit neural circuitries that are less likely to be damaged by the stroke. Eleven stroke patients and eleven age-matched control subjects performed discrete and rhythmic movements using an end-effector robot (REAplan). The rhythmic movement condition was performed with and without visual targets to further decrease cortical recruitment. Movement kinematics was analyzed through specific metrics, capturing the degree of smoothness and harmonicity. We reported three main observations: (1) the movement smoothness of the paretic arm was more severely degraded for discrete movements than rhythmic movements; (2) most of the patients performed rhythmic movements with a lower harmonicity than controls; and (3) visually guided rhythmic movements were more altered than non-visually guided rhythmic movements. These results suggest a hierarchy in the levels of impairment: Discrete movements are more affected than rhythmic ones, which are more affected if they are visually guided. These results are a new illustration that discrete and rhythmic movements are two fundamental primitives in upper-limb movements. Moreover, this hierarchy of impairment opens new post-stroke rehabilitation perspectives.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Discrete movements; Rehabilitation; Rhythmic movements; Stroke; Upper limb

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26749181     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-015-4543-y

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


  64 in total

1.  Functional anatomy of nonvisual feedback loops during reaching: a positron emission tomography study.

Authors:  M Desmurget; H Gréa; J S Grethe; C Prablanc; G E Alexander; S T Grafton
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2001-04-15       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Agonist and antagonist activity during voluntary upper-limb movement in patients with stroke.

Authors:  C Gowland; H deBruin; J V Basmajian; N Plews; I Burcea
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  1992-09

3.  Rhythmic arm movement is not discrete.

Authors:  Stefan Schaal; Dagmar Sternad; Rieko Osu; Mitsuo Kawato
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2004-09-26       Impact factor: 24.884

4.  On the nature of the fundamental activity of the nervous centres; together with an analysis of the conditioning of rhythmic activity in progression, and a theory of the evolution of function in the nervous system.

Authors:  T G Brown
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1914-03-31       Impact factor: 5.182

5.  Submovement changes characterize generalization of motor recovery after stroke.

Authors:  Laura Dipietro; Hermano I Krebs; Susan E Fasoli; Bruce T Volpe; Neville Hogan
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2008-06-14       Impact factor: 4.027

Review 6.  Stroke rehabilitation.

Authors:  Peter Langhorne; Julie Bernhardt; Gert Kwakkel
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2011-05-14       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Overview of clinical trials with MIT-MANUS: a robot-aided neuro-rehabilitation facility.

Authors:  H I Krebs; N Hogan; B T Volpe; M L Aisen; L Edelstein; C Diels
Journal:  Technol Health Care       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 1.285

Review 8.  Motor primitives--new data and future questions.

Authors:  Simon F Giszter
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 6.627

9.  Optimal outcomes obtained with body-weight support combined with treadmill training in stroke subjects.

Authors:  Hugues Barbeau; Martha Visintin
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.966

10.  Dynamic primitives in the control of locomotion.

Authors:  Neville Hogan; Dagmar Sternad
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2013-06-21       Impact factor: 2.380

View more
  6 in total

1.  The primacy of rhythm: how discrete actions merge into a stable rhythmic pattern.

Authors:  Zhaoran Zhang; Dagmar Sternad
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 2.  Sherlock Holmes and the curious case of the human locomotor central pattern generator.

Authors:  Taryn Klarner; E Paul Zehr
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-03-14       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Moving slowly is hard for humans: limitations of dynamic primitives.

Authors:  Se-Woong Park; Hamal Marino; Steven K Charles; Dagmar Sternad; Neville Hogan
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Asymmetric Adaptability to Temporal Constraints Among Coordination Patterns Differentiated at Early Stages of Learning in Juggling.

Authors:  Kota Yamamoto; Masahiro Shinya; Kazutoshi Kudo
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-05-23

Review 5.  Neuromechanical interactions between the limbs during human locomotion: an evolutionary perspective with translation to rehabilitation.

Authors:  E P Zehr; Trevor S Barss; Katie Dragert; Alain Frigon; Erin V Vasudevan; Carlos Haridas; Sandra Hundza; Chelsea Kaupp; Taryn Klarner; Marc Klimstra; Tomoyoshi Komiyama; Pamela M Loadman; Rinaldo A Mezzarane; Tsuyoshi Nakajima; Gregory E P Pearcey; Yao Sun
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-07-15       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Performance-based robotic assistance during rhythmic arm exercises.

Authors:  Patricia Leconte; Renaud Ronsse
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 4.262

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.