Relationship Between Clinical Measures of Upper Limb Movement Quality and Activity Poststroke

You mean objective measurement of movement is not available from any of these? Must stroke survivors take charge and explain how to do stroke research since you are not keeping up-to-date in your chosen field?  And neither are your mentors and senior researchers. Firings must take place.

• accelerometers (24 posts to June 2013)
• accelerometry (4 post to February 2012)
• Inertial Motion Capture Systems (2) 
• motion analysis (4 post to April 2013)
• motion captu/re (7 post to March 2013)
• motion capture software (1 post to July 2017)
• motion capture system (3 post to June 2013)
• Motion Pattern Tracking (1 to January 2016)
• motion sensors (12 posts to August 2012)
• motion tracking (2 post to December 2015)
• motion-capture sensors (1 post to May 2017)

 

Relationship Between Clinical Measures of Upper Limb Movement Quality and Activity Poststroke

Show all authors

Mindy F. Levin, PhD*, Vimonwan Hiengkaew, Yongchai Nilanont, MD, ...

First Published May 10, 2019 Research Article

https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968319847969

Article information

Abstract

Background. Understanding the relationship between movement quality (impairment) and performance (activity) in poststroke patients is important for rehabilitation intervention studies. This has led to an interest in kinematic characterization of upper limb motor impairment. Since instrumented motion analysis is not readily clinically available, observational kinematics may be a viable alternative.  
Objective. To determine if upper limb movement quality during a reach-to-grasp task identified by observation could be used to describe the relationship between motor impairments and the time to perform functional tasks.  
Methods. Cross-sectional, secondary analysis of baseline data from 141 participants with stroke, age 18 to 85 years, who participated in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clinical assessment of movement quality using the Reaching Performance Scale for Stroke (RPSS–Close and Far targets) and of performance (activity) from the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT–7 items) was assessed. The degree to which RPSS component scores explained scores on WMFT items was determined by multivariable regression.  
Results. Clinically significant decreases (>2 seconds) in performance time for some of the more complex WMFT tasks involving prehension were predicted from RPSS–Close and Far target components. Trunk compensatory movements did not predict either increases or decreases in performance time for the WMFT tasks evaluated. Overall, the strength of the regression models was low.  
Conclusions. In lieu of kinematic analysis, observational clinical movement analysis may be a valid and accessible method to determine relationships between motor impairment, compensations and upper limb function in poststroke patients. Specific relationships are unlikely to generalize to all tasks due to kinematic redundancy and task specificity.

Keywords stroke, motor control, upper limb, impairment, activity, redundancy

View access options