4.2 Article

Laterality of repetitive finger movement performance and clinical features of Parkinson's disease

期刊

HUMAN MOVEMENT SCIENCE
卷 49, 期 -, 页码 116-123

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2016.06.015

关键词

Finger tapping; UPDRS; Disease severity; Tremor; Rigidity

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  2. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) CTSA grant [1UL1RR029890]
  3. National Parkinson's Disease Foundation Center for Excellence at the University of Florida

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Impairments in acoustically cued repetitive finger movement often emerge at rates near to and above 2 Hz in persons with Parkinson's Disease (PD) in which some patients move faster (hastening) and others move slower (bradykinetic). The clinical features impacting this differential performance of repetitive finger movement remain unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare repetitive finger movement performance between the more and less affected side, and the difference in clinical ratings among performance groups. Forty-one participants diagnosed with idiopathic PD completed an acoustically cued repetitive finger movement task while on medication. Eighteen participants moved faster, 10 moved slower, and 13 were able to maintain the appropriate rate at rates above 2 Hz. Clinical measures of laterality, disease severity, and the UPDRS were obtained. There were no significant differences between the more and less affected sides regardless of performance group. Comparison of disease severity, tremor, and rigidity among performance groups revealed no significant differences. Comparison of posture and postural instability scores revealed that the participants that demonstrated hastening had worse posture and postural instability scores. Consideration of movement rate during the clinical evaluation of repetitive finger movement may provide additional insight into varying disease features in persons with PD. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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