Journal
ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 96, Issue 5, Pages 854-861Publisher
W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.11.018
Keywords
Accelerometry; Neurology; Paresis; Rehabilitation; Stroke
Categories
Funding
- National Institutes of Health [T32 HD007434, F32 HD87048, R01 HD068290]
- Buchanan Family Research Fellowship
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Objectives: To (1) determine whether acceleration metrics derived from monitoring outside of treatment are responsive to change in upper extremity (UE) function; and secondarily to (2) compare metric values during task-specific training and while in the free-living environment, and (3) establish metric associations with an in-clinic measure of movement capabilities. Design: Before-after observational study. Setting: Inpatient hospital (primary purpose); outpatient hospital (secondary purpose). Participants: Individuals (n=8) with UE hemiparesis <30 days poststroke (primary purpose); individuals (n=27) with UE hemiparesis >= 6 months poststroke (secondary purpose). Intervention: The inpatient sample was evaluated for UE movement capabilities and monitored with wrist-Worn accelerometers for 22 hours outside of treatment before and after multiple sessions of task-specific training. The outpatient sample was evaluated for TIE movement capabilities and monitored during a single session of task-specific training and the subsequent 22 hours outside clinical settings. Main Outcome Measures: Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and acceleration metrics quantified from accelerometer recordings. Results: Five metrics improved in the inpatient sample, along with TIE function as measured on the ARAT: use ratio, magnitude ratio, variation ratio, median paretic UE acceleration magnitude, and paretic UE acceleration variability. Metric values were greater during task-specific training than in the free-living environment, and each metric was strongly associated with ARAT score. Conclusions: Multiple metrics that characterize different aspects of TIE movement are responsive to change in function. Metric values are different during training than in the free-living environment, providing further evidence that what the paretic UE does in the clinic may not generalize to what it does in everyday life. (C) 2015 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available