3.8 Proceedings Paper

A Study of Hand Function in Stroke Patients Using Kinematic Metrics

出版社

IEEE
DOI: 10.1109/AIM46323.2023.10196244

关键词

Stroke patients; Kinematic metrics; Hand function; Principal component analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Currently, there is a lack of objective and precise evaluation methods for assessing hand function in stroke patients. To address this, we proposed a new assessment method that utilizes hand movement data collected from the Leap motion device. By analyzing and ranking the selected sensitive metrics, we were able to determine the most sensitive kinematic metrics to distinguish differences in hand function between normal individuals and stroke patients. The experimental results showed that the proposed method was effective, scientifically objective, and could assist with the evaluation of hand function in stroke-induced hemiplegia.
Currently, many methods for assessing hand function in stroke patients are administered by humans, which can lack objectivity and make it difficult to achieve precise evaluations. In order to tackle this issue, we proposed a new assessment method that utilized hand movement data collected from the Leap motion device. By applying the independent sample T-test or Mann-Whitney U-test, we identified sensitive kinematic metrics from the 38 extracted metrics. We then used the principal component analysis (PCA) method to further analyze and rank the selected sensitive metrics. This processing enabled us to determine the most sensitive kinematic metrics that can distinguish differences in hand function between normal individuals and stroke patients. To validate the proposed method, we conducted an experiment with 15 volunteers. The results showed that MiddleMCP-Max was the most sensitive metric for distinguishing patients from normal individuals. The experimental results also demonstrated that the proposed method was effective, scientifically objective, and may be useful in assisting with the hand function evaluation of stroke-induced hemiplegia.

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

3.8
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