4.6 Article

Upper Limb Coordination in Individuals With Stroke: Poorly Defined and Poorly Quantified

Journal

NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR
Volume 31, Issue 10-11, Pages 885-897

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1545968317739998

Keywords

upper limb; measurement; kinematics; interjoint coordination; rehabilitation

Funding

  1. Richard and Edith Strauss Musculoskeletal Doctoral Fellowship - McGill University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The identification of deficits in interjoint coordination is important in order to better focus upper limb rehabilitative treatment after stroke. The majority of standardized clinical measures characterize endpoint performance, such as accuracy, speed, and smoothness, based on the assumption that endpoint performance reflects interjoint coordination, without measuring the underlying temporal and spatial sequences of joint recruitment directly. However, this assumption is questioned since improvements of endpoint performance can be achieved through different degrees of restitution or compensation of upper limb motor impairments based on the available kinematic redundancy of the system. Confusion about adequate measurement may stem from a lack a definition of interjoint coordination during reaching. Methods and Results. We suggest an operational definition of interjoint coordination during reaching as a goal-oriented process in which joint degrees of freedom are organized in both spatial and temporal domains such that the endpoint reaches a desired location in a context-dependent manner. Conclusions. In this point-of-view article, we consider how current approaches to laboratory and clinical measures of coordination comply with our definition. We propose future study directions and specific research strategies to develop clinical measures of interjoint coordination with better construct and content validity than those currently in use.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available