1. The peg would have to be at least 2-3 inches in diameter so I could grasp it with my whole hand.
2. I would have to be allowed to pry my fingers open with my good hand to insert the peg.
3. I would have to be standing.
4. I would have to be allowed to pry my fingers off the peg with my good hand once inserted.
5. I would need the pegboard lower than my shoulders.
Nothing here helps me to recover any of my upper limb.
My conclusion from this is that assessment research is almost completely worthless. Come up with interventions that actually bring back functionality. I really wish researchers would at least think a minuscule amount about how their research will help make survivors lives better. This one does nothing of the sort. This is exactly why we need a stroke strategy, because this was a complete fucking waste of time.
http://jneuroengrehab.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12984-016-0116-y
- Bernadette C. Tobler-Ammann,
- Eling D. de BruinEmail authorView ORCID ID profile,
- Marie-Christine Fluet,
- Olivier Lambercy,
- Rob A. de Bie and
- Ruud H. Knols
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation201613:8
DOI: 10.1186/s12984-016-0116-y
© Tobler-Ammann et al. 2016
Received: 7 August 2015
Accepted: 17 January 2016
Published: 22 January 2016
Abstract
Background
Measuring arm and hand
function of the affected side is vital in stroke rehabilitation.
Therefore, the Virtual Peg Insertion Test (VPIT), an assessment
combining virtual reality and haptic feedback during a goal-oriented
task derived from the Nine Hole Peg Test (NHPT), was developed. This
study aimed to evaluate (1) the concurrent validity of key outcome
measures of the VPIT, namely the execution time and the number of
dropped pegs, with the NHPT and Box and Block Test (BBT), and (2) the
test-retest-reliability of these parameters together with the VPIT’s
additional kinetic and kinematic parameters in patients with chronic
stroke.
The three tests were
administered on 31 chronic patients with stroke in one session
(concurrent validity), and the VPIT was retested in a second session
3–7 days later (test-retest reliability). Spearman rank correlation
coefficients (ρ) were calculated for assessing concurrent validity, and
intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to determine
relative reliability. Bland-Altman plots were drawn and the smallest
detectable difference (SDD) was calculated to examine absolute
reliability.
Results
For the 31 included patients,
11 were able to perform the VPIT solely via use of their affected arm,
whereas 20 patients also had to utilize support from their unaffected
arm. For n = 31, the VPIT showed low correlations with the NHPT (ρ = 0.31 for time (Tex[s]); ρ = 0.21 for number of dropped pegs (Ndp)) and BBT (ρ = −0.23 for number of transported cubes (Ntc); ρ = −0.12 for number of dropped cubes (Ndc)). The test-retest reliability for the parameters Tex[s], mean grasping force (Fggo[N]), number of zero-crossings (Nzc[1/sgo/return) and mean collision force (Fcmean[N]) were good to high, with ICCs ranging from 0.83 to 0.94. Fair reliability could be found for Fgreturn (ICC = 0.75) and trajectory error (Etrajgo[cm]) (0.70). Poor reliability was measured for Etrajreturn[cm] (0.67) and Ndp (0.58). The SDDs were: Tex = 70.2 s, Ndp = 0.4 pegs; Fggo/return = 3.5/1.2 Newton; Nzc[1/s]go/return = 0.2/1.8 zero-crossings; Etrajgo/return = 0.5/0.8 cm; Fcmean = 0.7 Newton.
Conclusions
The VPIT is a promising upper
limb function assessment for patients with stroke requiring other
components of upper limb motor performance than the NHPT and BBT. The
high intra-subject variation indicated that it is a demanding test for
this stroke sample, which necessitates a thorough introduction to this
assessment. Once familiar, the VPIT provides more objective and
comprehensive measurements of upper limb function than conventional,
non-computerized hand assessments.
No comments:
Post a Comment