4.3 Article

New biomechanical model for clinical evaluation of the upper extremity motion in subjects with neurological disorders: an application case

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2012.738199

Keywords

reaching task; upper extremity motion; biomechanics; clinical evaluation; neurological disorders

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cervical spinal cord injury and acquired brain injury commonly imply a reduction in the upper extremity function which complicates, or even constrains, the performance of basic activities of daily living. Neurological rehabilitation in specialised hospitals is a common treatment for patients with neurological disorders. This study presents a practical methodology for the objective and quantitative evaluation of the upper extremity motion during an activity of daily living of those subjects. A new biomechanical model (with 10 rigid segments and 20 degrees of freedom) was defined to carry out kinematic, dynamic and energetic analyses of the upper extremity motion during a reaching task through data acquired by an optoelectronic system. In contrast to previous upper extremity models, the present model includes the analysis of the grasp motion, which is considered as crucial by clinicians. In addition to the model, we describe a processing and analysis methodology designed to present relevant summaries of biomechanical information to rehabilitation specialists. As an application case, the method was tested on a total of four subjects: three healthy subjects and one pathological subject suffering from cervical spinal cord injury. The dedicated kinematic, dynamic and energetic analyses for this particular case are presented. The resulting set of biomechanical measurements provides valuable information for clinicians to achieve a thorough understanding of the upper extremity motion, and allows comparing the motion of healthy and pathological cases.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available