Adam C Pigg1, Johanna Thompson-Westra2, Karin Mente3, Carine W Maurer3, Dietrich Haubenberger2, Mark Hallett3, Steven K Charles4. 1. Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA. 2. Clinical Trials Unit, Office of the Clinical Director, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. 3. Human Motor Control Section, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. 4. Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA; Neuroscience, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA. Electronic address: skcharles@byu.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although Essential Tremor is one of the most common movement disorders, we do not currently know which muscles are most responsible for tremor. Determining this requires multiple steps, one of which is characterizing the distribution of tremor among the degrees of freedom (DOF) of the upper limb. METHODS: Upper-limb motion was recorded while 22 subjects with ET performed postural and kinetic tasks involving a variety of limb configurations. We calculated the mean distribution of tremor among the seven DOF from the shoulder to the wrist, as well as the effect of limb configuration, repetition, and subject characteristics (sex, tremor onset, duration, and severity) on the distribution. RESULTS: On average, kinetic tremor was greatest in forearm pronation-supination and wrist flexion-extension, intermediate in shoulder internal-external rotation and wrist radial-ulnar deviation and then shoulder flexion-extension and elbow flexion-extension, and least in shoulder abduction-adduction. The average distribution of postural tremor was similar except for forearm pronation-supination, which played a smaller role than in kinetic tremor. Limb configuration and subject characteristics did significantly affect tremor, but practically only in forearm pronation-supination and wrist flexion-extension. There were no significant differences between repetitions, indicating that the distribution was consistent over the duration of the experiment. CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents a thorough characterization of tremor distribution from the shoulder to the wrist. SIGNIFICANCE: Understanding which DOF exhibit the most tremor may lead to more targeted peripheral tremor suppression.
OBJECTIVE: Although Essential Tremor is one of the most common movement disorders, we do not currently know which muscles are most responsible for tremor. Determining this requires multiple steps, one of which is characterizing the distribution of tremor among the degrees of freedom (DOF) of the upper limb. METHODS: Upper-limb motion was recorded while 22 subjects with ET performed postural and kinetic tasks involving a variety of limb configurations. We calculated the mean distribution of tremor among the seven DOF from the shoulder to the wrist, as well as the effect of limb configuration, repetition, and subject characteristics (sex, tremor onset, duration, and severity) on the distribution. RESULTS: On average, kinetic tremor was greatest in forearm pronation-supination and wrist flexion-extension, intermediate in shoulder internal-external rotation and wrist radial-ulnar deviation and then shoulder flexion-extension and elbow flexion-extension, and least in shoulder abduction-adduction. The average distribution of postural tremor was similar except for forearm pronation-supination, which played a smaller role than in kinetic tremor. Limb configuration and subject characteristics did significantly affect tremor, but practically only in forearm pronation-supination and wrist flexion-extension. There were no significant differences between repetitions, indicating that the distribution was consistent over the duration of the experiment. CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents a thorough characterization of tremor distribution from the shoulder to the wrist. SIGNIFICANCE: Understanding which DOF exhibit the most tremor may lead to more targeted peripheral tremor suppression.
Authors: Ge Wu; Frans C T van der Helm; H E J DirkJan Veeger; Mohsen Makhsous; Peter Van Roy; Carolyn Anglin; Jochem Nagels; Andrew R Karduna; Kevin McQuade; Xuguang Wang; Frederick W Werner; Bryan Buchholz Journal: J Biomech Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Lana Popović Maneski; Nikola Jorgovanović; Vojin Ilić; Strahinja Došen; Thierry Keller; Mirjana B Popović; Dejan B Popović Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2011-07-14 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Theresa A Zesiewicz; Jessica D Shaw; Kevin G Allison; Joseph S Staffetti; Michael S Okun; Kelly L Sullivan Journal: Curr Treat Options Neurol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Nicole Schuhmayer; Corinna Weber; Markus Kieler; Bernhard Voller; Walter Pirker; Eduard Auff; Dietrich Haubenberger Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2017-05-20 Impact factor: 4.891
Authors: David J Standring; Adam C Pigg; Johanna Thompson-Westra; Karin Mente; Carine W Maurer; Dietrich Haubenberger; Mark Hallett; Steven K Charles Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2022-07-16 Impact factor: 4.861