4.6 Article

Quantitative Assessment of Limb Position Sense Following Stroke

Journal

NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR
Volume 24, Issue 2, Pages 178-187

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1545968309345267

Keywords

position sense; stroke; rehabilitation; robotics; proprioception

Funding

  1. CIHR [MOP 81366]
  2. NSERC [2451-06]
  3. SHS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Impairment of position sense of the upper extremity (UE) may impede activities of daily living and limit motor gains after stroke. Most clinical assessments of position sense rely on categorical or ordinal ratings by clinicians that lack sensitivity to change or the ability to discriminate subtle deficits. Objective. Use robotic technology to develop a reliable, quantitative technique with a continuous scale to assess UE position sense following stroke. Methods. Forty-five patients recruited from an inpatient stroke rehabilitation service and 65 age-matched healthy controls performed an arm position matching task. Each UE was fitted in the exoskeleton of a KINARM device. One UE was passively placed in one of 9 positions, and the subject was told to match his or her position with the other UE. Patients were compared with statistical distributions of control data to identify those with deficits in UE position sense. Test-retest sessions using 2 raters established interrater reliability. Results. Two thirds of left hemiparetic and one third of right hemiparetic patients had deficits in limb position sense. Left-affected stroke subjects demonstrated significantly more trial-to-trial variability than right-affected or control subjects. The robotic assessment technique demonstrated good interrater reliability but limited agreement with the clinical thumb localizing test. Conclusions. Robotic technology can provide a reliable quantitative means to assess deficits in limb position sense following stroke.

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