4.1 Article

Slower reaction and response times and impaired hand-eye coordination in individuals with neck pain

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.msksp.2020.102273

关键词

Neck pain; Hand-eye coordination; Reaction time; Response time; Sensorimotor

资金

  1. Faculty of Associated Medical Sciences, Chiang Mai University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Neck pain is associated with sensorimotor dysfunction. Research is sparse of the effect of neck pain on reaction and response times and hand-eye coordination. Objectives: To investigate hand and foot reaction and response times and hand-eye coordination in individuals with neck pain and to determine any relationships with clinical features of neck pain. Methods: Sixty individuals with neck pain and 60 controls of similar age and gender were recruited. Tests of simple reaction and response time were measured on the dominant hand and foot. Hand-eye coordination was measured by tracing a variety of coordination patterns with different levels of difficulty. Clinical features measured were intensity and duration of pain, and neck disability. Results: Hand and foot reaction and response times were significantly slower in the neck pain group compared to controls (all p < 0.001). The neck pain group took longer to trace the hand-eye coordination task at the hardest level (p = 0.03). Neck disability scores correlated with hand reaction time (r = 0.4, p = 0.005) and time taken in hand-eye coordination tasks (r = 0.2 for all levels, p < 0.05). Reaction and response times were correlated with time taken in the hand-eye coordination test (r = 0.2-0.4, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Individuals with neck pain had slower hand and foot reaction and response times and impaired hand-eye coordination, suggesting deficits in sensorimotor function. Training speed, as a function of acuity, and hand-eye coordination might be considered in clinical assessment. Further research is needed to identify potential underlying mechanisms of the slower and less well coordinated movement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据