4.5 Article

Characterizing Touch Discrimination Impairment from Pooled Stroke Samples Using the Tactile Discrimination Test: Updated Criteria for Interpretation and Brief Test Version for Use in Clinical Practice Settings

Journal

BRAIN SCIENCES
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci13040533

Keywords

cerebrovascular accident; somatosensory; touch; standardized assessment; upper extremity; hand

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Somatosensory loss post-stroke is common, with touch sensation characteristically impaired. Yet, quantitative, standardized measures of touch discrimination available for clinical use are currently limited. The study aimed to characterize touch impairment and determine the sensitivity and specificity of shorter versions of the Tactile Discrimination Test (TDT). The findings showed that touch impairment was common in stroke survivors, and briefer versions of the TDT demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity.
Somatosensory loss post-stroke is common, with touch sensation characteristically impaired. Yet, quantitative, standardized measures of touch discrimination available for clinical use are currently limited. We aimed to characterize touch impairment and re-establish the criterion of abnormality of the Tactile Discrimination Test (TDT) using pooled data and to determine the sensitivity and specificity of briefer test versions. Baseline data from stroke survivors (n = 207) and older neurologically healthy controls (n = 100) assessed on the TDT was extracted. Scores were re-analyzed to determine an updated criterion of impairment and the ability of brief test versions to detect impairment. Updated scoring using an area score was used to calculate the TDT percent maximum area (PMA) score. Touch impairment was common for the contralesional hand (83%) but also present in the ipsilesional hand (42%). The criterion of abnormality was established as 73.1 PMA across older adults and genders. High sensitivity and specificity were found for briefer versions of the TDT (25 vs. 50 trials; 12 or 15 vs. 25 trials), with sensitivity ranging between 91.8 and 96.4% and specificity between 72.5 and 95.0%. Conclusion: Updated criterion of abnormality and the high sensitivity and specificity of brief test versions support the use of the TDT in clinical practice settings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available