| Literature DB >> 32823786 |
Daniela De Bartolo1,2, Valeria Belluscio3, Giuseppe Vannozzi3, Giovanni Morone4, Gabriella Antonucci5, Gianluca Giordani4, Stefania Santucci6, Federica Resta4, Franco Marinozzi6, Fabiano Bini6, Stefano Paolucci4, Marco Iosa2.
Abstract
Dynamic motor imagery (dMI) is a motor imagery task associated with movements partially mimicking those mentally represented. As well as conventional motor imagery, dMI has been typically assessed by mental chronometry tasks. In this paper, an instrumented approach was proposed for quantifying the correspondence between upper and lower limb oscillatory movements performed on the spot during the dMI of walking vs. during actual walking. Magneto-inertial measurement units were used to measure limb swinging in three different groups: young adults, older adults and stroke patients. Participants were tested in four experimental conditions: (i) simple limb swinging; (ii) limb swinging while imagining to walk (dMI-task); (iii) mental chronometry task, without any movement (pure MI); (iv) actual level walking at comfortable speed. Limb swinging was characterized in terms of the angular velocity, frequency of oscillations and sinusoidal waveform. The dMI was effective at reproducing upper limb oscillations more similar to those occurring during walking for all the three groups, but some exceptions occurred for lower limbs. This finding could be related to the sensory feedback, stretch reflexes and ground reaction forces occurring for lower limbs and not for upper limbs during walking. In conclusion, the instrumented approach through wearable motion devices adds significant information to the current dMI approach, further supporting their applications in neurorehabilitation for monitoring imagery training protocols in patients with stroke.Entities:
Keywords: gait; inertial sensors; instrumented movement analysis; motor imagery; neurorehabilitation; stroke; walking
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32823786 PMCID: PMC7472606 DOI: 10.3390/s20164545
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic representation of the study. At the top of the figure, the four experimental conditions are represented: limb swinging (SW), limb swinging during dynamic motor imagery (dMI), chronometry task of imagined walking without any movement (CT) and comfortable walking (CW). In the middle: plots showing a raw signal of the angular velocity recorded, plots showing filtered signals (black lines) and sinusoidal fits (blue lines) for SW, dynamic motor imagery task (dMIt), CW, whereas just time was measured with a stopwatch in CT. Below, the formulas of the Incongruency Performance Index for the first three experimental conditions compared to the actual walking performance of the fourth condition.
Demographic and anthropometric characteristics of the young group (YG), the control group (CG), and patient group (PG). Measures are summarized as the mean ± standard deviation values. Last columns report the p-values for the comparison of CG and PG.
| YG | CG | PG | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nr. of Participant | 27 | 15 | 15 | - |
| Nr. of Males | 13 | 8 | 9 | 0.715 |
| Age (years) | 25.1 ± 3.6 | 54.2 ± 15.3 | 53.9 ± 17.1 | 0.964 |
| Stature (cm) | 171.2 ± 7.8 | 168.3 ± 7.7 | 174.1 ± 8.8 | 0.065 |
| Upper Limb Length (cm) | 58.3 ± 3.5 | 57.3 ± 3.2 | 59.7 ± 4.2 | 0.723 |
| Arm Length (cm) | 32.2 ± 2.6 | 30.3 ± 2 | 31.4 ± 2.2 | 0.175 |
| Forearm Length (cm) | 26.6 ± 1.7 | 26.9 ± 1.4 | 28.3 ± 2.3 | 0.059 |
| Lower Limb Length (cm) | 81.15 ± 3.9 | 81.3 ± 5.1 | 85.14 ± 6.6 | 0.089 |
| Thigh Length (cm) | 40.4 ± 4.8 | 43.6 ± 3.4 | 46.1 ± 4.5 | 0.105 |
| Shank Length (cm) | 40.7 ± 3 | 37.6 ± 3.7 | 39.07 ± 3.1 | 0.281 |
Median and interquartile range (IQR) for the scores obtained at clinical scales and tests.
| Clinical Assessment of Patients | Median | IQR |
|---|---|---|
| Times from stroke | 37 | 70 |
| Tinetti Scale-Walk | 11 | 2 |
| Berg Balance Scale | 54 | 3.5 |
| Barthel Index | 100 | 2.5 |
| Motricity Index—Affected Upper Limb | 83 | 18.5 |
| Box and Blocs—Affected Hand | 30 | 34 |
| Kinesthetic and Visual Imagery Questionnaire | 97 | 22 |
Figure 2Means and standard deviations of the computed parameters (amplitude of movement velocity, computed for upper (a) and lower (b) limbs; frequency of movement, upper (c) and lower (d) limbs; R2, upper (e) and lower (f) limbs), obtained analyzing the angular velocity measured by gyroscopes embedded in magneto-inertial measurement units (MIMUs). Experimental conditions are: SW (swing oscillation), dMIt (dynamic motor imagery task), CW (comfortable actual walking), while upper and lower limbs are indicated as D (dominant or unaffected arm, respectively in healthy and pathological subjects), ND (nondominant or affected arm) A (arm) or L (leg). Post-hoc statistically significance differences were reported with respect to the YG (*) or between the PG and CG (§).
Incongruity Performance Index (IPI) in the young group (YG), control group (CG) and patients for the unaffected and affected side (PG), for the upper and lower limbs, that compares to actual locomotion during the swing task (SW) and the dynamic motor imagery task (SW and dMIt, respectively). The row dMIt vs. SW report the p-values of the Wilcoxon test within subjects for each group, the last row reports the IPI between the time spent during the mental chronometry task (CT) and comfortable walking (CW), the last column reports the between-groups comparison performed by a Kruskal–Wallis analysis. In bold are the statistically significant p-values.
| Parameter | Limbs | IPI | YG | CG | PG Unaffected | PG Affected | Between-Groups | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Speed Amplitude | Upper Limbs | SW | −111 ± 26% | −340 ± 76% | −578 ± 98% | −494 ± 91% | < | |
| dMIt | −16 ± 18% | −68 ± 24% | −298 ± 80% | −278 ± 59% | < | |||
| dMIt vs. SW |
| < | < |
|
| - | ||
| Lower Limbs | SW | 13 ± 12% | −9 ± 6% | −169 ± 75% | −28 ± 12% | < | ||
| dMIt | 52 ± 6% | 30 ± 6% | −42 ± 29% | −8 ± 12% | < | |||
| dMIt vs. SW |
|
|
|
|
| - | ||
| Frequency | Upper Limbs | SW | 22 ± 1% | 16 ± 3% | 18 ± 8% | 9 ± 10% | 0.238 | |
| dMIt | 22 ± 1% | 11 ± 2% | 9 ± 9% | 11 ± 9% |
| |||
| dMIt vs. SW |
| 0.901 | 0.056 |
| 0.910 | - | ||
| Lower Limbs | SW | 23 ± 1% | 14 ± 3% | 20 ± 6% | 20 ± 6% | 0.112 | ||
| dMIt | 28 ± 1% | 18 ± 3% | 29 ± 7% | 27 ± 8% |
| |||
| dMIt vs. SW |
|
| 0.120 |
|
| - | ||
| Waveform | Upper Limbs | SW | −4 ± 2% | −30 ± 12% | −49 ± 12% | −95 ± 36% | < | |
| dMIt | −1 ± 3% | −10 ± 9% | −42 ± 12% | −56 ± 20% | < | |||
| dMIt vs. SW |
|
| < | 0.112 |
| - | ||
| Lower Limbs | SW | −29 ± 3% | −55 ± 7% | −97 ± 23% | −79 ± 14% | < | ||
| dMIt | −22 ± 3% | −44 ± 7% | −97 ± 24% | −76 ± 13% | < | |||
| dMIt vs. SW |
|
|
| 0.776 | 0.910 | - | ||
| Chronometry Task | dMIt | 3 ± 5% | −2 ± 9% | 2 ± 16% | 0.941 | |||