Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024
Measurement properties of movement smoothness metrics for upper limb reaching movements in people with moderate to severe subacute stroke.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cornec Gwenaël, Lempereur Mathieu, Mensah-Gourmel Johanne, Robertson Johanna, Miramand Ludovic, Medee Beatrice, Bellaiche Soline, Gross Raphael, Gracies Jean-Michel, Remy-Neris Olivier, Bayle Nicolas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Movement smoothness is a potential kinematic biomarker of upper extremity (UE) movement quality and recovery after stroke; however, the measurement properties of available smoothness metrics have been poorly assessed in this group. We aimed to measure the reliability, responsiveness and construct validity of several smoothness metrics.
METHODS: This ancillary study of the REM-AVC trial included 31 participants with hemiparesis in the subacute phase of stroke (median time since stroke: 38 days). Assessments performed at inclusion (Day 0, D0) and at the end of a rehabilitation program (Day 30, D30) included the UE Fugl Meyer Assessment (UE-FMA), the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and 3D motion analysis of the UE during three reach-to-point movements at a self-selected speed to a target located in front at shoulder height and at 90% of arm length. Four smoothness metrics were computed: a frequency domain smoothness metric, spectral arc length metric (SPARC); and three temporal domain smoothness metrics (TDSM): log dimensionless jerk (LDLJ); number of submovements (nSUB); and normalized average rectified jerk (NARJ).
RESULTS: At D30, large clinical and kinematic improvements were observed. Only SPARC and LDLJ had an excellent reliability (intra-class correlation > 0.9) and a low measurement error (coefficient of variation < 10%). SPARC was responsive to changes in movement straightness (rSpearman=0.64) and to a lesser extent to changes in movement duration (rSpearman=0.51) while TDSM were very responsive to changes in movement duration (rSpearman>0.8) and not to changes in movement straightness (non-significant correlations). Most construct validity hypotheses tested were verified except for TDSM with low correlations with clinical metrics at D0 (rSpearman<0.5), ensuing low predictive validity with clinical metrics at D30 (non-significant correlations).
CONCLUSIONS: Responsiveness and construct validity of TDSM were hindered by movement duration and/or noise-sensitivity. Based on the present results and concordant literature, we recommend using SPARC rather than TDSM in reaching movements of uncontrolled duration in individuals with spastic paresis after stroke.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01383512, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ , June 27, 2011.
METHODS: This ancillary study of the REM-AVC trial included 31 participants with hemiparesis in the subacute phase of stroke (median time since stroke: 38 days). Assessments performed at inclusion (Day 0, D0) and at the end of a rehabilitation program (Day 30, D30) included the UE Fugl Meyer Assessment (UE-FMA), the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and 3D motion analysis of the UE during three reach-to-point movements at a self-selected speed to a target located in front at shoulder height and at 90% of arm length. Four smoothness metrics were computed: a frequency domain smoothness metric, spectral arc length metric (SPARC); and three temporal domain smoothness metrics (TDSM): log dimensionless jerk (LDLJ); number of submovements (nSUB); and normalized average rectified jerk (NARJ).
RESULTS: At D30, large clinical and kinematic improvements were observed. Only SPARC and LDLJ had an excellent reliability (intra-class correlation > 0.9) and a low measurement error (coefficient of variation < 10%). SPARC was responsive to changes in movement straightness (rSpearman=0.64) and to a lesser extent to changes in movement duration (rSpearman=0.51) while TDSM were very responsive to changes in movement duration (rSpearman>0.8) and not to changes in movement straightness (non-significant correlations). Most construct validity hypotheses tested were verified except for TDSM with low correlations with clinical metrics at D0 (rSpearman<0.5), ensuing low predictive validity with clinical metrics at D30 (non-significant correlations).
CONCLUSIONS: Responsiveness and construct validity of TDSM were hindered by movement duration and/or noise-sensitivity. Based on the present results and concordant literature, we recommend using SPARC rather than TDSM in reaching movements of uncontrolled duration in individuals with spastic paresis after stroke.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01383512, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ , June 27, 2011.