After cervical Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), upper limb movements made by patients have a lack of smoothness and a hand velocity profile characterized by a high number of velocity peaks.
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of the present paper is to propose three novel kinematic indices for quantifying movement agility and smoothness, and to analyze their discriminative capability between healthy and pathological people.
METHODS:
18 people, healthy and two groups of patients with cervical SCI, participated in the study. Kinematic indices in relation to movement agility and smoothness were computed from hand trajectories and velocity profiles during the performance of the ADL of drinking from a glass.
RESULTS:
The proposed indices discriminated between healthy and SCI people. The results are greater in healthy than SCI people. Both smoothness indices detected significant differences between healthy and both SCI groups. Moreover, the Agility index showed capacity for discriminating between both patients groups.
CONCLUSIONS:
The main contribution of this research consists on the proposal of kinematic indices from experimental data, whose results are dimensionless and relative to a pattern of healthy subjects. We hope that kinematic indices proposed are a step toward the standardization of the quantitative assessment of movement characteristics and functional impairments.
AizawaJ., MasudaT., KoyamaT., NakamaruK., IsozakiK., OkawaA., & MoritaS. (2010). Three-dimensional motion of the upper extremity joints during various activities of daily living. Journal of biomechanics, 43(15), 2915–2922.
2.
BalasubramanianS., Melendez-CalderonA., & BurdetE. (2012). A robust and sensitive metric for quantifying movement smoothness. Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 59(8), 2126–2136.
3.
BalasubramanianS., ColomboR., SterpiI., SanguinetiV., & BurdetE. (2012a) Robotic assessment of upper limb motor function after stroke. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 91(11), S255–S269.
4.
BeninatoM., O’KaneK. S., & SullivanP. E. (2004). Relationship between motor FIM and muscle strength in lower cervical-level spinal cord injuries. Spinal Cord, 42(9), 533–540.
5.
BoseckerC., DipietroL., VolpeB., & KrebsH. I. (2010). Kinematic robot-based evaluation scales and clinical counterparts to measure upper limb motor performance in patients with chronic stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 24(1), 62–69.
6.
ButlerE. E., LaddA. L., LaMontL. E., & RoseJ. (2010). Temporal–spatial parameters of the upper limb during a reach & grasp cycle for children. Posture, 32(3), 301–306.
7.
CachoE. W. A., de OliveiraR., OrtolanR. L., VarotoR., & CliquetA. (2011). Upper limb assessment in tetraplegia: Clinical, functional and kinematic correlations. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 34(1), 65–72.
8.
CelikO., O’MalleyM. K., BoakeC., LevinH. S., YozbatiranN., & ReistetterT. (2010). Normalized movement quality measures for therapeutic robots strongly correlate with clinical motor impairment measures. Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 18(4), 433–444.
9.
ChangJ. J., WuT. I., WuW. L., & SuF. C. (2005). Kinematical measure for spastic reaching in children with cerebral palsy. Clinical Biomechanics, 20(4), 381–388.
10.
ColomboR., PisanoF., MiceraS., MazzoneA., DelconteC., CarrozzaM. C., & MinucoG. (2008). Assessing mechanisms of recovery during robot-aided neurorehabilitation of the upper limb. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 22(1), 50–63.
11.
de los Reyes-GuzmánA., Dimbwadyo-TerrerI., Trincado-AlonsoF., Monasterio-HuelinF., TorricelliD., & Gil-AgudoA. (2014). Quantitative assessment based on kinematic measures of functional impairments during upper extremity movements: A review. Clinical Biomechanics, 29(7), 719–727.
12.
De los Reyes-GuzmánA., Dimbwadyo-TerrerI., Pérez-NombelaS., TrincadoF., TorricelliD., & Gil-AgudoA. (2014). Objective metrics for functional evaluation of upper limb during the ADL of drinking: Application in SCI. In Springer International Publishing. XIII Mediterranean Conference on Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing,
1751–1754.
13.
de los Reyes-GuzmánA., Gil-AgudoA., Peñasco-MartínB., Solís-MozosM., del Ama-EspinosaA., & Pérez-RizoE. (2010). Kinematic analysis of the daily activity of drinking from a glass in a population with cervical spinal cord injury. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 7(1), 41.
14.
DipietroL., KrebsH. I., FasoliS. E., VolpeB. T., SteinJ., BeverC., & HoganN. (2007). Changing motor synergies in chronic stroke. Journal of Neurophysiology, 98(2), 757–768.
15.
FasoliS. E., TromblyC. A., Tickle-DegnenL., & VerfaellieM. H. (2002). Effect of instructions on functional reach in persons with and without cerebrovascular accident. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56(4), 380–390.
16.
HoganN., & SternadD. (2009). Sensitivity of smoothness measures to movement duration, amplitude, and arrests. Journal of Motor Behavior, 41(6), 529–534.
17.
JaspersE., DesloovereK., BruyninckxH., KlingelsK., MolenaersG., AertbeliënE., & FeysH. (2011). Three-dimensional upper limb movement characteristics in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy and typically developing children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(6), 2283–2294.
18.
KamperD. G., McKenna-ColeA. N., KahnL. E., & ReinkensmeyerD. J. (2002). Alterations in reaching after stroke and their relation to movement direction and impairment severity. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83(5), 702–707.
19.
KimK., SongW. K., LeeJ., LeeH. Y., ParkD. S., KoB. W., & KimJ. (2014). Kinematic analysis of upper extremity movement during drinking in hemiplegic subjects. Clinical Biomechanics, 29(3), 248–256.
20.
KlotzM. C. M., KostL., BraatzF., EwerbeckV., HeitzmannD., GantzS., & WolfS. I. (2013). Motion capture of the upper extremity during activities of daily living in patients with spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Posture, 38(1), 148–152.
21.
LangC. E., WagnerJ. M., EdwardsD. F., SahrmannS. A., & DromerickA. W. (2006). Recovery of grasp versus reach in people with hemiparesis poststroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 20(4), 444–454.
22.
LangC. E., WagnerJ. M., BastianA. J., HuQ., EdwardsD. F., SahrmannS. A., & DromerickA. W. (2005). Deficits in grasp versus reach during acute hemiparesis. Experimental Brain Research, 166(1), 126–136.
23.
MagermansD. J., ChadwickE. K. J., VeegerH. E. J., & Van Der HelmF. C. T. (2005). Requirements for upper extremity motions during activities of daily living. Clinical Biomechanics, 20(6), 591–599.
24.
MaynardF. M., BrackenM. B., CreaseyG. J. F. D., DitunnoJ. F., DonovanW. H., DuckerT. B., & YoungW. (1997). International standards for neurological and functional classification of spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 35(5), 266–274.
25.
MerloA., LonghiM., GiannottiE., PratiP., GiacobbiM., RuscelliE., & MazzoliD. (2012). Upper limb evaluation with robotic exoskeleton. Normative values for indices of accuracy, speed and smoothness. NeuroRehabilitation, 33(4), 523–530.
26.
MurgiaA., KyberdP., & BarnhillT. (2010). The use of kinematic and parametric information to highlight lack of movement and compensation in the upper extremities during activities of daily living. Posture, 31(3), 300–306.
27.
MurphyM. A., WillénC., & SunnerhagenK. S. (2013). Responsiveness of upper extremity kinematic measures and clinical improvement during the first three months after stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 27(9), 844–853.
28.
MurphyM. A., WillénC., & SunnerhagenK. S. (2011). Kinematic variables quantifying upper-extremity performance after stroke during reaching and drinking from a glass. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 25(1), 71–80.
29.
MurphyM. A., SunnerhagenK. S., JohnelsB., & WillénC. (2006). Three-dimensional kinematic motion analysis of a daily activity drinking from a glass: A pilot study. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 3(1), 18.
30.
OsuR., OtaK., FujiwaraT., OtakaY., KawatoM., & LiuM. (2011). Quantifying the quality of hand movement in stroke patients through three-dimensional curvature. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 8(1), 62.
31.
PetuskeyK., BagleyA., AbdalaE., JamesM. A., & RabG. (2007). Upper extremity kinematics during functional activities: Three-dimensional studies in a normal pediatric population. Posture, 25(4), 573–579.
32.
RohrerB., FasoliS., KrebsH. I., HughesR., VolpeB., FronteraW. R., & HoganN. (2002). Movement smoothness changes during stroke recovery. The Journal of Neuroscience, 22(18), 8297–8304.
van AndelC. J., WolterbeekN., DoorenboschC. A., VeegerD. H., & HarlaarJ. (2008). Complete D kinematics of upper extremity functional tasks. Posture, 27(1), 120–127.
35.
Van den BergM. E. L., CastelloteJ. M., Mahillo-FernandezI., & de Pedro-CuestaJ. (2010). Incidence of spinal cord injury worldwide: A systematic review. Neuroepidemiology, 34(3), 184–192.
36.
Van Der HeideJ. C., FockJ. M., OttenB., StremmelaarE., & Hadders-AlgraM. (2005). Kinematic characteristics of reaching movements in preterm children with cerebral palsy. Pediatric Research, 57(6), 883–889.
37.
WagnerJ. M., RhodesJ. A., & PattenC. (2008). Reproducibility and minimal detectable change of three-dimensional kinematic analysis of reaching tasks in people with hemiparesis after stroke. Physical Therapy, 88(5), 652–663.
38.
ZariffaJ., KapadiaN., KramerJ. L., TaylorP., Alizadeh-MeghraziM., ZivanovicV., & SteevesJ. D. (2012). Relationship between clinical assessments of function and measurements from an upper-limb robotic rehabilitation device in cervical spinal cord injury. Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 20(3), 341–350.
