Cargando…

The Arm Movement Detection (AMD) test: a fast robotic test of proprioceptive acuity in the arm

BACKGROUND: We examined the validity and reliability of a short robotic test of upper limb proprioception, the Arm Movement Detection (AMD) test, which yields a ratio-scaled, objective outcome measure to be used for evaluating the impact of sensory deficits on impairments of motor control, motor ada...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mrotek, Leigh Ann, Bengtson, Maria, Stoeckmann, Tina, Botzer, Lior, Ghez, Claude P., McGuire, John, Scheidt, Robert A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5490232/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28659156
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-017-0269-3
_version_ 1783246947571728384
author Mrotek, Leigh Ann
Bengtson, Maria
Stoeckmann, Tina
Botzer, Lior
Ghez, Claude P.
McGuire, John
Scheidt, Robert A.
author_facet Mrotek, Leigh Ann
Bengtson, Maria
Stoeckmann, Tina
Botzer, Lior
Ghez, Claude P.
McGuire, John
Scheidt, Robert A.
author_sort Mrotek, Leigh Ann
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We examined the validity and reliability of a short robotic test of upper limb proprioception, the Arm Movement Detection (AMD) test, which yields a ratio-scaled, objective outcome measure to be used for evaluating the impact of sensory deficits on impairments of motor control, motor adaptation and functional recovery in stroke survivors. METHODS: Subjects grasped the handle of a horizontal planar robot, with their arm and the robot hidden from view. The robot applied graded force perturbations, which produced small displacements of the handle. The AMD test required subjects to respond verbally to queries regarding whether or not they detected arm motions. Each participant completed ten, 60s trials; in five of the trials, force perturbations were increased in small increments until the participant detected motion while in the others, perturbations were decreased until the participant could no longer detect motion. The mean and standard deviation of the 10 movement detection thresholds were used to compute a Proprioceptive Acuity Score (PAS). Based on the sensitivity and consistency of the estimated thresholds, the PAS quantifies the likelihood that proprioception is intact. Lower PAS scores correspond to higher proprioceptive acuity. Thirty-nine participants completed the AMD test, consisting of 25 neurologically intact control participants (NIC), seven survivors of stroke with intact proprioception in the more affected limb (HSS+P), and seven survivors of stroke with impaired or absent proprioception in the more affected limb (HSS-P). RESULTS: Significant group differences were found, with the NIC and HSS+P groups having lower (i.e., better) PAS scores than the HSS-P group. A subset of the participants completed the AMD test multiple times and the AMD test was found to be reliable across repetitions. CONCLUSIONS: The AMD test required less than 15 min to complete and provided an objective, ratio-scaled measure of proprioceptive acuity in the upper limb. In the future, this test could be utilized to evaluate the contributions of sensory deficits to motor recovery following stroke. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12984-017-0269-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5490232
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54902322017-06-30 The Arm Movement Detection (AMD) test: a fast robotic test of proprioceptive acuity in the arm Mrotek, Leigh Ann Bengtson, Maria Stoeckmann, Tina Botzer, Lior Ghez, Claude P. McGuire, John Scheidt, Robert A. J Neuroeng Rehabil Methodology BACKGROUND: We examined the validity and reliability of a short robotic test of upper limb proprioception, the Arm Movement Detection (AMD) test, which yields a ratio-scaled, objective outcome measure to be used for evaluating the impact of sensory deficits on impairments of motor control, motor adaptation and functional recovery in stroke survivors. METHODS: Subjects grasped the handle of a horizontal planar robot, with their arm and the robot hidden from view. The robot applied graded force perturbations, which produced small displacements of the handle. The AMD test required subjects to respond verbally to queries regarding whether or not they detected arm motions. Each participant completed ten, 60s trials; in five of the trials, force perturbations were increased in small increments until the participant detected motion while in the others, perturbations were decreased until the participant could no longer detect motion. The mean and standard deviation of the 10 movement detection thresholds were used to compute a Proprioceptive Acuity Score (PAS). Based on the sensitivity and consistency of the estimated thresholds, the PAS quantifies the likelihood that proprioception is intact. Lower PAS scores correspond to higher proprioceptive acuity. Thirty-nine participants completed the AMD test, consisting of 25 neurologically intact control participants (NIC), seven survivors of stroke with intact proprioception in the more affected limb (HSS+P), and seven survivors of stroke with impaired or absent proprioception in the more affected limb (HSS-P). RESULTS: Significant group differences were found, with the NIC and HSS+P groups having lower (i.e., better) PAS scores than the HSS-P group. A subset of the participants completed the AMD test multiple times and the AMD test was found to be reliable across repetitions. CONCLUSIONS: The AMD test required less than 15 min to complete and provided an objective, ratio-scaled measure of proprioceptive acuity in the upper limb. In the future, this test could be utilized to evaluate the contributions of sensory deficits to motor recovery following stroke. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12984-017-0269-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-06-28 /pmc/articles/PMC5490232/ /pubmed/28659156 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-017-0269-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Methodology
Mrotek, Leigh Ann
Bengtson, Maria
Stoeckmann, Tina
Botzer, Lior
Ghez, Claude P.
McGuire, John
Scheidt, Robert A.
The Arm Movement Detection (AMD) test: a fast robotic test of proprioceptive acuity in the arm
title The Arm Movement Detection (AMD) test: a fast robotic test of proprioceptive acuity in the arm
title_full The Arm Movement Detection (AMD) test: a fast robotic test of proprioceptive acuity in the arm
title_fullStr The Arm Movement Detection (AMD) test: a fast robotic test of proprioceptive acuity in the arm
title_full_unstemmed The Arm Movement Detection (AMD) test: a fast robotic test of proprioceptive acuity in the arm
title_short The Arm Movement Detection (AMD) test: a fast robotic test of proprioceptive acuity in the arm
title_sort arm movement detection (amd) test: a fast robotic test of proprioceptive acuity in the arm
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5490232/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28659156
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-017-0269-3
work_keys_str_mv AT mrotekleighann thearmmovementdetectionamdtestafastrobotictestofproprioceptiveacuityinthearm
AT bengtsonmaria thearmmovementdetectionamdtestafastrobotictestofproprioceptiveacuityinthearm
AT stoeckmanntina thearmmovementdetectionamdtestafastrobotictestofproprioceptiveacuityinthearm
AT botzerlior thearmmovementdetectionamdtestafastrobotictestofproprioceptiveacuityinthearm
AT ghezclaudep thearmmovementdetectionamdtestafastrobotictestofproprioceptiveacuityinthearm
AT mcguirejohn thearmmovementdetectionamdtestafastrobotictestofproprioceptiveacuityinthearm
AT scheidtroberta thearmmovementdetectionamdtestafastrobotictestofproprioceptiveacuityinthearm
AT mrotekleighann armmovementdetectionamdtestafastrobotictestofproprioceptiveacuityinthearm
AT bengtsonmaria armmovementdetectionamdtestafastrobotictestofproprioceptiveacuityinthearm
AT stoeckmanntina armmovementdetectionamdtestafastrobotictestofproprioceptiveacuityinthearm
AT botzerlior armmovementdetectionamdtestafastrobotictestofproprioceptiveacuityinthearm
AT ghezclaudep armmovementdetectionamdtestafastrobotictestofproprioceptiveacuityinthearm
AT mcguirejohn armmovementdetectionamdtestafastrobotictestofproprioceptiveacuityinthearm
AT scheidtroberta armmovementdetectionamdtestafastrobotictestofproprioceptiveacuityinthearm