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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |