| Literature DB >> 34814839 |
Hsiu-Yun Hsu1,2,3, Che-Wei Lin3,4, Yu-Ching Lin1,5, Po-Ting Wu6, Hirokazu Kato7, Fong-Chin Su3,4, Li-Chieh Kuo8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Music-based interventions (MBI), using music as a therapeutic medium, has been utilized as a promising strategy for motor relearning and shaping. However, currently, MBI with active performance training is restricted to being extensively applied for patients with various levels of defects in fine motor skills and cognitive functions. Therefore, the integration of vibrotactile stimulation with MBI has been adopted as a motor training strategy intended to enhance motor learning through use of vibration stimuli. The current study was designed to investigate differences in the sensorimotor performance of older adults' hands under baseline, a single session of active MBI, and vibrotactile-enriched MBI conditions.Entities:
Keywords: Hand function; Haptic; Music-based intervention; Sensorimotor
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34814839 PMCID: PMC8609800 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-021-02604-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Fig. 1Illustration of the vibrotactile-enriched music-based intervention system
The descriptive statistics and the results of the repeated measure ANOVA used to determine the precision pinch performance, hand function, and sensory status under the three conditions
| Conditions | Difference across conditions | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Active MBI | Vibortactile-enriched MBI | F | η2p | |||
| PHUA | FPpeak (N) | 13.19 ± 1.54 | 12.91 ± 1.15‡ | 12.40 ± 1.01†‡ | 7.295 | .003 | .343 |
| FRpeak | 2.98 ± .33 | 2.94 ± .30‡ | 2.76 ± .23†‡ | 14.370 | < 0.001 | .507 | |
| MTT (seconds) | Barognosis | 3.18 ± .10 | 3.10 ± .09‡ | 2.81 ± .09†‡ | 19.126 | < 0.001 | .577 |
| Roughness differentiation | 31.12 ± 6.40 | 28.56 ± 4.13*‡ | 27.49 ± 3.60†‡ | 15.036 | < 0.001 | .518 | |
| Stereognosis | 24.86 ± 2.65 | 23.46 ± 2.71* | 22.40 ± 4.39† | 9.057 | 0.001 | .393 | |
| SWM test (gm) | Thumb | .181 ± .211 | .156 ± .206 | .130 ± .205† | 4.389 | .022 | .239 |
| Index finger | .161 ± .170 | .124 ± .153*‡ | .083 ± .111†‡ | 6.373 | .005 | .313 | |
| Little finger | .123 ± .143 | .093 ± .109‡ | .060 ± .073†‡ | 4.700 | .017 | .251 | |
| PPT | Pin insertion- DH | 14.1 ± .4 | 15.0 ± .3* | 15.2 ± .3† | 8.454 | 0.001 | .377 |
| Pin insertion- BH | 11.3 ± 1.6 | 12.1 ± 1.2* | 11.9 ± 1.4† | .11.932 | < 0.001 | .460 | |
| Assembly | 31.8 ± 5.9 | 35.6 ± 5.6* | 34.6 ± 5.2† | 18.458 | < 0.001 | .568 | |
A repeated measure ANOVA was used to compare the effects of the different interventions. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. A post hoc test was used to examine whether any differences existed among the different conditions. After the Bonferroni correction, the statistical threshold was adjusted to p < 0.016
*: Significant difference between Baseline and Active MBI. †: Significant difference between Baseline and Vibortactile-enriched MBI. ‡: Significant difference between Active MBI and Vibortactile-enriched MBI
FR Force ratio (FPpeak: FLmax), FP maximum pinch force during the lifting phase, MTT Manual tactile test, SWM test Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test, PPT Purdue Pegboard Test, DH Dominant hand, BH Both hands