This exploratory study investigated whether materials-based occupation elicited significantly better movement organization in the ipsilateral arm following left hemisphere stroke than imagery-based occupation. Five persons with left cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and 5 control participants performed functional tasks (e.g., slicing bread) under four conditions. During the materials-based condition, needed tools and objects were available for task completion. In the three imagery-based conditions, either the tool or object of the tool's action was present, or the participant was asked to simulate the task without objects. For all tasks, motor performance of persons with and without CVA was significantly more direct and less forceful during materials-based occupation. Movement time was significantly faster under this condition in three of the four tasks. The relationship between motor performance and context was reinforced. Persons with and without CVA adjusted their motor actions according to the affordances offered during materials-based occupation.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
FasoliS.E. (2000). Effects of context and instruction on movement kinematics in adults with and without cerebrovascular accident. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Boston University, Boston, MA.
5.
FasoliS.E.TromblyC.A.Tickle-DegnenL., & VerfaellieM.H. (in press). Effect of instructions on functional reach in persons with and without cerebrovascular accident. American Journal of Occupational Therapy.
6.
FettersL., & ToddJ. (1987). Quantitative assessment of infant reaching movements. Journal of Motor Behavior, 19, 147–166.
7.
FiskJ.D., & GoodaleM.A. (1988). The effects of unilateral brain damage on visually guided reaching: Hemispheric differences in the nature of the deficit. Experimental Brain Research, 72, 425–435.
8.
FlinnN.A. (1999). Clinical interpretation of “effect of rehabilitation tasks on organization of movement after stroke.”American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53, 345–347.
9.
GibsonJ.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In ShawR.E. & BransfordJ.J. (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
HallB.A., & NelsonD.L. (1998). The effect of materials on performance: A kinematic analysis of eating. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 5, 68–81.
11.
HarringtonD.L., & HaalandK.Y. (1992). Motor sequencing with left hemisphere damage. Brain, 115, 857–874.
12.
JeannerodM. (1988). The neural and behavioural organization of goal-directed movements. New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
KelsoJ.A.S. (1982). Concepts and issues in human motor behavior: Coming to grips with the jargon. In KelsoJ.A.S. (Ed.), Human motor behavior (pp. 21–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
KetelaarsM.A.C.GarryM.I., & FranksI.M. (1997). On-line programming of simple movement sequences. Human Movement Science, 16, 461–483.
15.
KimuraD., & ArchibaldY. (1974). Motor functions of the left hemisphere. Brain, 97, 337–350.
16.
LinK-C.WuC-Y., & TromblyC.A. (1998). Effects of task goal on movement kinematics and line bisection performance in adults without disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52, 179–187.
17.
MathiowetzV., & WadeM.G. (1995). Task constraints and functional motor performance of individuals with and without multiple sclerosis. Ecological Psychology, 7, 99–123.
18.
NelsonD.L. (1988). Occupation: Form and performance. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 42, 633–641.
19.
NelsonD.L., & PetersonC.Q. (1989). Enhancing therapeutic exercise through purposeful activity: A theoretic analysis. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 4(4), 12–22.
20.
ReedE.S. (1982). An outline of a theory of action systems. Journal of Motor Behavior, 14, 98–134.
21.
RosenthalR., & RosnowR.L. (1985). Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
RosenthalR., & RosnowR.L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
23.
RossL.M., & NelsonD.L. (2000). Comparing materials-based occupation, imagery-based occupation, and rote movement through kinematic analysis of reach. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 20, 45–60.
24.
SchmidtR.A. (1982). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
25.
SchmidtR.A., & LeeT.D. (1999). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
26.
TromblyC.A., & WuC-Y. (1999). Effect of rehabilitation tasks on organization of movement post stroke. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53, 333–344.
27.
TromblyC.A.WuC-Y., & CopeS. (1994). [Reliability of the OPTOTRAK three-dimensional motion analysis system.] Unpublished raw data.
28.
van VlietP.SheridanM.KerwinD.G., & FentemP. (1995). The influence of functional goals on the kinematics of reaching following stroke. APTA Neurology Report, 19, 11–15.
WuC-Y.TromblyC.A., & LinK.-C. (1994). The relationship between occupational form and occupational performance: A kinematic perspective. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48, 679–687.
31.
WuC.-Y.TromblyC.A.Tickle-DegnenL., & LinK.-C. (1998). The effects of object affordances on functional reach in adults with and without cerebral vascular accident. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52, 447–456.
32.
WuC.-Y.TromblyC.A.Tickle-DegnenL., & LinK.-C. (2000). A kinematic study of contextual effects on reaching performance in persons with and without stroke: Influences of object availability. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81, 95–101.
