The quality of upper extremity (UE) function can be evaluated by measuring the kinematic parameters of patient movements.
OBJECTIVE:
This investigation focused on finding the angles and angular velocity amplitudes of UE motions in healthy participants to compare with the experimental results of patients with a UE disability who are trying to recover previous movement conditions.
METHODS:
The UE motions of 23 healthy adult volunteers were tested using a three-dimensional motion capture system and measuring hand segment motions. A simplified 7 degrees of freedom (DOF) human arm kinematic model created within MATLAB and used to process the experimental data.
RESULTS:
The interpersonal CV (coefficients of variability) of left-side motions showed that the lowest CV of linear velocity amplitudes was at elbow flexion (4.2%), but the highest was at wrist extension (48.3%). The lowest and highest CV of angular velocity amplitudes were 19.6% and 55.7%, during shoulder adduction and wrist extension, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS:
High interpersonal CV may restrict the direct comparison of kinematic parameters of UE in different healthy and disabled persons.
NakayamaHJorgensenHRaaschouHOlsenT. Compensation in recovery of upper extremity function after stroke: The Copenhagen stroke study. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation1994; 75(4): 394-398.
2.
JetteAMBranchMGBerlinJ. Musculoskeletal impairments and physical disablement among the aged. The Journals of Gerontology1990; 45(6): 203-208.
3.
AndrejevaiteVKasiuleviciusV. Family Medicine, Vilnius: National Medical Education Centre; 2009. 576.
4.
TedescoTLBurrigeJHHughesAMPickeringRMDesicanMRothwellJCVerheydenG. Multiple sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation and upper extremity rehabilitation in stroke: A review and meta-analysis. Clinical Neurophysiology2009; 127(1): 946-955.
5.
KiperPSzczudlikAVenneriAStozekJ. Computational models and motor learning paradigms: Could they prove insights for neuroplasticity after stroke? An overview. Journal of the Neurological Sciences2016; 369(1): 141-148.
6.
JuoceviciusAJamontaiteIEGlambaVDanysA. Changes of functional status of patients after stroke during the second period of rehabilitation and prognosis of the results. Gerontologija2009; 4(10): 238-248.
7.
BroeksJGLankhorstGJRumpingKPrevoAJ. The long-term outcome of arm function after stroke: Results of a follow-up study. Disability and Rehabilitation1999; 21(8): 357-364.
8.
LaffontIBakhtiKCoroianFvan DokkumLMottetDSchweighoferNFrogerJ. Innovative technologies applied to sensorimotor rehabilitation after stroke. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine2014; 57(1): 543-551.
9.
ReinmanPMManskeCR. The assessment of function: How is it measured? A clinical perspective. Journal of Manual and Manipulative Therapy2011; 19(2): 91-99.
10.
OzturkATartarAHuseyinsinogluBEErtasEH. A clinically feasible kinematic assessment method of upper extremity motor function impairment after stroke. Measurement2016; 80(1): 207-216.
11.
JebsenRHTaylorNTrieschmannRBTrotterMJHowardIA. An ojective and standardized test of hand function. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation1969; 50(6): 311-319.
12.
Fugl-MeyerARJaaskoILeymanIOlssonSSteglindS. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine1974; 7(1): 13-31.
13.
Van TuijlJJanssen-PottenYSeelenH. Evaluation of upper extremity motor function tests in teraplegics. Spinal Cord2002; 40(2): 51-64.
14.
DuffSVHeJNelsenMALaneCHJRoweVTWolfSLDromerikAWWinsteinCJ. Inter-rater reliability of the Wolf motor function test-functional ability scale: Why it matters. Journal of Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair2015; 29(5): 436-443.
15.
BoyceWGowlandCRosenbaumPLaneMPlewsNGoldsmithCRusselD. Measuring quality of movement in cerebral palsy: A review of instruments. Physical Therapy1991; 71(11): 813-819.
16.
MahoneyFI. Functional evaluation: The Bartel index. Maryland State Medical Journal1965; 14(1): 61-65.
17.
KeithRA. The functional independence measure: A new tool for rehabilitation. Advances in Clinical Rehabilitation1987; 1(1): 6-18.
18.
CarrJHShepherdRBNordholmLLynneD. Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Journal of Physical Therapy1985; 65(2): 175-180.
19.
MurphyMASunnerhagenKS. Responsiveness of upper extremity kinematic measures and clinical improvement during the first three months after stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair2013; 27(1): 71-80.
20.
MurphyMASunnerhagenKSJohnelsBWillenC. Three-dimensional kinematic motion analysis of a daily activity drinking from a glass: A pilot study. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation2006; 3(18): 1-11.
21.
ValaikieneJ. Stroke: Etiopathogenesis, incidence, diagnostic methods and their value for the choice of optimal treatment. Radiologija2007; 3(13): 225-231.
22.
WindolfMGotzenNMorlockM. Systematic accuracy and precision analysis of video motion capturing systems-exemplified on the Vicon-460 system. Journal of Biomechanics2008; 41(12): 2776-2780.
23.
LandMWVolchenkovDBlassingEBSchackT. From action representation to action execution: Exploring the links between cognitive and biomechanical levels of motor control. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience2013; 7(1): 127.
24.
MuckusK. Biomechanikos pagrindai. Kaunas: LKKA; 2006; p. 303.
25.
PattersonTSBishopMDMcGuirkTESethiARichardsLG. Reliability of upper extremity kinematics while performing different tasks in individuals with stroke. Journal of Motor Behaviour2011; 43(2): 11.
26.
FroehleAWGrannisKASherwoodRJDurenDL. Relationships between age at menarche, walking gait base of support, and stance phase frontal plane knee biomechanics in adolescent girls. Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation2016; 10(1): 10.
27.
WinbyCRGerusPKirkTBLloydDG. Correlation between EMG-based co-activation measures and medial and lateral compartment loads of the knee during gait. Journal of Clinical Biomechanics2013; 28(1): 6.
