4.3 Review

Using a Module-Based Analysis Framework for Investigating Muscle Coordination during Walking in Individuals Poststroke: A Literature Review and Synthesis

期刊

APPLIED BIONICS AND BIOMECHANICS
卷 2018, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2018/3795754

关键词

-

资金

  1. VA Office of Research and Development (ORD)
  2. VA/ORD Rehabilitation RD Service [1I01RX001935]
  3. National Institutes of Health [NIH P20 GM109040]
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [P20GM109040] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. Veterans Affairs [I01RX001935] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Factorization methods quantitatively group electromyographic signals from several muscles during dynamic tasks into multiple modules where each module consists of muscles that are coactive during the movement. Module-based analyses may provide an analytical framework for testing theories of poststroke motor control recovery based on one's ability to move independently from mass flexion-extension muscle group coactivation. Such a framework may be useful for understanding the causality between underlying neural impairments, biomechanical function, and walking performance in individuals poststroke. Our aim is to synthesize current evidence regarding the relationships between modules, gait mechanics, and rehabilitation in individuals poststroke. We synthesized eleven studies that performed module-based analyses during walking tasks for individuals poststroke. Modules were primarily identified by nonnegative matrix factorization, and fewer modules correlated with poor walking performance on biomechanical and clinical measures. Fewer modules indicated reduced ability to control individual muscle timing during paretic leg stance. There was evidence that rehabilitation can lead to the use of more and/or better-timed modules. While future work will need to establish the ability of modules to identify impairment mechanisms, they appear to offer a promising analytical approach for evaluating motor control.

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

4.3
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