Christopher J Newman1, Roselyn Bruchez2, Sylvie Roches2, Marine Jequier Gygax2, Cyntia Duc3, Farzin Dadashi3, Fabien Massé3, Kamiar Aminian3. 1. Paediatric Neurology and Neurorehabilitation Unit, Lausanne University Hospital, Hôpital Nestlé-CHUV, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. Christopher.Newman@chuv.ch. 2. Paediatric Neurology and Neurorehabilitation Unit, Lausanne University Hospital, Hôpital Nestlé-CHUV, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. Laboratory of Movement Analysis and Measurement, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Upper limb assessments in children with hemiparesis rely on clinical measurements, which despite standardization are prone to error. Recently, 3D movement analysis using optoelectronic setups has been used to measure upper limb movement, but generalization is hindered by time and cost. Body worn inertial sensors may provide a simple, cost-effective alternative. METHODS: We instrumented a subset of 30 participants in a mirror therapy clinical trial at baseline, post-treatment, and follow-up clinical assessments, with wireless inertial sensors positioned on the arms and trunk to monitor motion during reaching tasks. RESULTS: Inertial sensor measurements distinguished paretic and non-paretic limbs with significant differences (P < 0.01) in movement duration, power, range of angular velocity, elevation, and smoothness (normalized jerk index and spectral arc length). Inertial sensor measurements correlated with functional clinical tests (Melbourne Assessment 2); movement duration and complexity (Higuchi fractal dimension) showed moderate to strong negative correlations with clinical measures of amplitude, accuracy, and fluency. CONCLUSION: Inertial sensor measurements reliably identify paresis and correlate with clinical measurements; they can therefore provide a complementary dimension of assessment in clinical practice and during clinical trials aimed at improving upper limb function.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Upper limb assessments in children with hemiparesis rely on clinical measurements, which despite standardization are prone to error. Recently, 3D movement analysis using optoelectronic setups has been used to measure upper limb movement, but generalization is hindered by time and cost. Body worn inertial sensors may provide a simple, cost-effective alternative. METHODS: We instrumented a subset of 30 participants in a mirror therapy clinical trial at baseline, post-treatment, and follow-up clinical assessments, with wireless inertial sensors positioned on the arms and trunk to monitor motion during reaching tasks. RESULTS: Inertial sensor measurements distinguished paretic and non-paretic limbs with significant differences (P < 0.01) in movement duration, power, range of angular velocity, elevation, and smoothness (normalized jerk index and spectral arc length). Inertial sensor measurements correlated with functional clinical tests (Melbourne Assessment 2); movement duration and complexity (Higuchi fractal dimension) showed moderate to strong negative correlations with clinical measures of amplitude, accuracy, and fluency. CONCLUSION: Inertial sensor measurements reliably identify paresis and correlate with clinical measurements; they can therefore provide a complementary dimension of assessment in clinical practice and during clinical trials aimed at improving upper limb function.
Authors: Jolanda C van der Heide; Johanna M Fock; Bert Otten; Elisabeth Stremmelaar; Mijna Hadders-Algra Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2005-03-17 Impact factor: 3.756
Authors: Lu Bai; Matthew G Pepper; Yong Yan; Sarah K Spurgeon; Mohamed Sakel; Malcolm Phillips Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: R Araneda; S V Sizonenko; C J Newman; M Dinomais; G Le Gal; E Nowak; A Guzzetta; I Riquelme; S Brochard; Y Bleyenheuft Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 2.474