4.5 Article

Kinematic optimization of spatiotemporal patterns in paretic arm training with stroke patients

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
卷 40, 期 7, 页码 1073-1081

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00141-5

关键词

stroke; arm kinematics; rehabilitation; motor learning; mathematical modeling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of rhythmic cueing on spatiotemporal control of sequential reaching movements of the paretic arm was studied in 21 hemispheric stroke patients. Reaching movements were studied with and without rhythmic metronome cuing in a counterbalanced design. Metronome frequencies were entrained to the naturally selected frequency of the patient. Results indicate statistically significant ( P < 0.05) improvements of spatiotemporal ann control during rhythmic entrainment. Variability of timing and reaching trajectories were reduced significantly. Time series analysis of sequential movement repetitions showed an immediate reduction in variability of arm kinematics during rhythmic entrainment within the first two to three repetitions of each trial. Rhythm also produced significant increases in angle ranges of elbow motion ( P < 0.05). Analysis of acceleration and velocity profiles of the wrist joint showed significant kinematic smoothing during rhythmic cuing. The link between rhythmic sensory timing and spatiotemporal motor control was investigated using a mathematical optimization model with minimization of peak acceleration as criterion. Rhythmically cued acceleration profiles fit the predicted model data significantly closer (P < 0.01) than the self-paced profiles. Since velocity and acceleration are mathematical derivatives of position-time trajectories, the model data suggest that enhanced timing precision via temporal phase and period coupling of the motor pattern to the rhythmic time timekeeper enhances the brain's computational ability to optimally scale movement parameters across time. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. 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

4.5
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