Cargando…
Smoothness metrics for reaching performance after stroke. Part 1: which one to choose?
BACKGROUND: Smoothness is commonly used for measuring movement quality of the upper paretic limb during reaching tasks after stroke. Many different smoothness metrics have been used in stroke research, but a ‘valid’ metric has not been identified. A systematic review and subsequent rigorous analysis...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8549250/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34702281 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00949-6 |
_version_ | 1784590746141065216 |
---|---|
author | Mohamed Refai, Mohamed Irfan Saes, Mique Scheltinga, Bouke L. van Kordelaar, Joost Bussmann, Johannes B. J. Veltink, Peter H. Buurke, Jaap H. Meskers, Carel G. M. van Wegen, Erwin E. H. Kwakkel, Gert van Beijnum, Bert-Jan F. |
author_facet | Mohamed Refai, Mohamed Irfan Saes, Mique Scheltinga, Bouke L. van Kordelaar, Joost Bussmann, Johannes B. J. Veltink, Peter H. Buurke, Jaap H. Meskers, Carel G. M. van Wegen, Erwin E. H. Kwakkel, Gert van Beijnum, Bert-Jan F. |
author_sort | Mohamed Refai, Mohamed Irfan |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Smoothness is commonly used for measuring movement quality of the upper paretic limb during reaching tasks after stroke. Many different smoothness metrics have been used in stroke research, but a ‘valid’ metric has not been identified. A systematic review and subsequent rigorous analysis of smoothness metrics used in stroke research, in terms of their mathematical definitions and response to simulated perturbations, is needed to conclude whether they are valid for measuring smoothness. Our objective was to provide a recommendation for metrics that reflect smoothness after stroke based on: (1) a systematic review of smoothness metrics for reaching used in stroke research, (2) the mathematical description of the metrics, and (3) the response of metrics to simulated changes associated with smoothness deficits in the reaching profile. METHODS: The systematic review was performed by screening electronic databases using combined keyword groups Stroke, Reaching and Smoothness. Subsequently, each metric identified was assessed with mathematical criteria regarding smoothness: (a) being dimensionless, (b) being reproducible, (c) being based on rate of change of position, and (d) not being a linear transform of other smoothness metrics. The resulting metrics were tested for their response to simulated changes in reaching using models of velocity profiles with varying reaching distances and durations, harmonic disturbances, noise, and sub-movements. Two reaching tasks were simulated; reach-to-point and reach-to-grasp. The metrics that responded as expected in all simulation analyses were considered to be valid. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 32 different smoothness metrics, 17 of which were excluded based on mathematical criteria, and 13 more as they did not respond as expected in all simulation analyses. Eventually, we found that, for reach-to-point and reach-to-grasp movements, only Spectral Arc Length (SPARC) was found to be a valid metric. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this systematic review and simulation analyses, we recommend the use of SPARC as a valid smoothness metric in both reach-to-point and reach-to-grasp tasks of the upper limb after stroke. However, further research is needed to understand the time course of smoothness measured with SPARC for the upper limb early post stroke, preferably in longitudinal studies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12984-021-00949-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8549250 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85492502021-10-27 Smoothness metrics for reaching performance after stroke. Part 1: which one to choose? Mohamed Refai, Mohamed Irfan Saes, Mique Scheltinga, Bouke L. van Kordelaar, Joost Bussmann, Johannes B. J. Veltink, Peter H. Buurke, Jaap H. Meskers, Carel G. M. van Wegen, Erwin E. H. Kwakkel, Gert van Beijnum, Bert-Jan F. J Neuroeng Rehabil Research BACKGROUND: Smoothness is commonly used for measuring movement quality of the upper paretic limb during reaching tasks after stroke. Many different smoothness metrics have been used in stroke research, but a ‘valid’ metric has not been identified. A systematic review and subsequent rigorous analysis of smoothness metrics used in stroke research, in terms of their mathematical definitions and response to simulated perturbations, is needed to conclude whether they are valid for measuring smoothness. Our objective was to provide a recommendation for metrics that reflect smoothness after stroke based on: (1) a systematic review of smoothness metrics for reaching used in stroke research, (2) the mathematical description of the metrics, and (3) the response of metrics to simulated changes associated with smoothness deficits in the reaching profile. METHODS: The systematic review was performed by screening electronic databases using combined keyword groups Stroke, Reaching and Smoothness. Subsequently, each metric identified was assessed with mathematical criteria regarding smoothness: (a) being dimensionless, (b) being reproducible, (c) being based on rate of change of position, and (d) not being a linear transform of other smoothness metrics. The resulting metrics were tested for their response to simulated changes in reaching using models of velocity profiles with varying reaching distances and durations, harmonic disturbances, noise, and sub-movements. Two reaching tasks were simulated; reach-to-point and reach-to-grasp. The metrics that responded as expected in all simulation analyses were considered to be valid. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 32 different smoothness metrics, 17 of which were excluded based on mathematical criteria, and 13 more as they did not respond as expected in all simulation analyses. Eventually, we found that, for reach-to-point and reach-to-grasp movements, only Spectral Arc Length (SPARC) was found to be a valid metric. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this systematic review and simulation analyses, we recommend the use of SPARC as a valid smoothness metric in both reach-to-point and reach-to-grasp tasks of the upper limb after stroke. However, further research is needed to understand the time course of smoothness measured with SPARC for the upper limb early post stroke, preferably in longitudinal studies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12984-021-00949-6. BioMed Central 2021-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8549250/ /pubmed/34702281 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00949-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Mohamed Refai, Mohamed Irfan Saes, Mique Scheltinga, Bouke L. van Kordelaar, Joost Bussmann, Johannes B. J. Veltink, Peter H. Buurke, Jaap H. Meskers, Carel G. M. van Wegen, Erwin E. H. Kwakkel, Gert van Beijnum, Bert-Jan F. Smoothness metrics for reaching performance after stroke. Part 1: which one to choose? |
title | Smoothness metrics for reaching performance after stroke. Part 1: which one to choose? |
title_full | Smoothness metrics for reaching performance after stroke. Part 1: which one to choose? |
title_fullStr | Smoothness metrics for reaching performance after stroke. Part 1: which one to choose? |
title_full_unstemmed | Smoothness metrics for reaching performance after stroke. Part 1: which one to choose? |
title_short | Smoothness metrics for reaching performance after stroke. Part 1: which one to choose? |
title_sort | smoothness metrics for reaching performance after stroke. part 1: which one to choose? |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8549250/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34702281 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00949-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mohamedrefaimohamedirfan smoothnessmetricsforreachingperformanceafterstrokepart1whichonetochoose AT saesmique smoothnessmetricsforreachingperformanceafterstrokepart1whichonetochoose AT scheltingaboukel smoothnessmetricsforreachingperformanceafterstrokepart1whichonetochoose AT vankordelaarjoost smoothnessmetricsforreachingperformanceafterstrokepart1whichonetochoose AT bussmannjohannesbj smoothnessmetricsforreachingperformanceafterstrokepart1whichonetochoose AT veltinkpeterh smoothnessmetricsforreachingperformanceafterstrokepart1whichonetochoose AT buurkejaaph smoothnessmetricsforreachingperformanceafterstrokepart1whichonetochoose AT meskerscarelgm smoothnessmetricsforreachingperformanceafterstrokepart1whichonetochoose AT vanwegenerwineh smoothnessmetricsforreachingperformanceafterstrokepart1whichonetochoose AT kwakkelgert smoothnessmetricsforreachingperformanceafterstrokepart1whichonetochoose AT vanbeijnumbertjanf smoothnessmetricsforreachingperformanceafterstrokepart1whichonetochoose |