The added value of kinematic evaluation of the timed finger-to-nose test in persons post-stroke

Gudrun M Johansson, Helena Grip, Mindy F Levin, Charlotte K Häger, Gudrun M Johansson, Helena Grip, Mindy F Levin, Charlotte K Häger

Abstract

Background: Upper limb coordination in persons post-stroke may be estimated by the commonly used Finger-to-Nose Test (FNT), which is also part of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment. The total movement time (TMT) is used as a clinical outcome measure, while kinematic evaluation also enables an objective quantification of movement quality and motor performance. Our aims were to kinematically characterize FNT performance in persons post-stroke and controls and to investigate the construct validity of the test in persons with varying levels of impairment post-stroke.

Methods: A three-dimensional motion capture system recorded body movements during performance of the FNT in 33 persons post-stroke who had mild or moderate upper limb motor impairments (Fugl-Meyer scores of 50-62 or 32-49, respectively), and 41 non-disabled controls. TMT and kinematic variables of the hand (pointing time, peak speed, time to peak speed, number of movement units, path ratio, and pointing accuracy), elbow/shoulder joints (range of motion, interjoint coordination), and scapular/trunk movement were calculated. Our analysis focused on the pointing phase (knee to nose movement of the FNT). Independent t or Mann-Whitney U tests and effect sizes were used to analyze group differences. Sub-group analyses based on movement time and stroke severity were performed. Within the stroke group, simple and multiple linear regression were used to identify relationships between TMT to kinematic variables.

Results: The stroke group had significant slower TMT (mean difference 2.6 s, d = 1.33) than the control group, and six other kinematic variables showed significant group differences. At matched speeds, the stroke group had lower accuracy and excessive scapular and trunk movements compared to controls. Pointing time and elbow flexion during the pointing phase were most related to stroke severity. For the stroke group, the number of movement units during the pointing phase showed the strongest association with the TMT, and explained 60% of the TMT variance.

Conclusions: The timed FNT discriminates between persons with mild and moderate upper limb impairments. However, kinematic analysis to address construct validity highlights differences in pointing movement post-stroke that are not captured in the timed FNT.

Keywords: Arm; Hand; Kinematic assessment; Stroke; Validity.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Marker set up, events and normalized phases of the Finger-to-Nose test. A) The unfilled marker was positioned on the dorsal side of the head, and the markers with a center dot were positioned on the trunk. Three markers (placed on nose, right and left medial epicondyles) were removed after recording a static trial for modelling purpose. Left hand shows the start position (Knee touch) and right hand shows the end position (Nose touch) for the pointing phase. B) Normalized phases of the Finger-to-Nose-Test based on the time derivative of distance (a negative value denotes that the finger moves towards the nose, and a positive value denotes that the finger moves from the nose). Note that the end of the pointing phase is also the event ‘Nose touch’. Likewise, the end of the return phase is when the hand reaches the knee, for the event ‘Knee Touch’. For detailed definitions of the events a–d, see Methods
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Examples of movement paths and velocity profiles from the stroke group and the control group. Movement paths from the pointing phase of the markers of the index finger and the acromion in the sagittal plane, and velocity profiles with marked movement units of one person post-stroke (left panel) and one control person (right panel). The arrow indicates the direction of the movement
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Histograms of variable error and acromion displacement from time-matched subgroup data. Mean and 95% confidence interval for (a) variable error (mm) and (b) acromion displacement (mm) during the Finger-to-Nose test. Data from 22 controls (dark bars) are compared with data from 22 persons post-stroke (light bars)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Histograms of pointing time and elbow flexion from stroke subgroup data. Mean and 95% confidence interval) for (a) pointing time (s) and (b) elbow flexion (deg) during the knee to nose movement of the Finger-to-Nose-Test. Data from 23 persons post-stroke with mild impairments (dark bars) and ten persons post-stroke with moderate impairments (light bars) are compared with data from the control group (horizontal lines indicate mean and 95% confidence interval)

References

    1. Swaine BR, Lortie E, Gravel D. The reliability of the time to execute various forms of the finger-to-nose test in healthy subjects. Physiother Theory Pract. 2005;21:271–9. doi: 10.1080/09593980500321119.
    1. World Health Organization . International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
    1. Todorov E, Jordan MI. Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nat Neurosci. 2002;5:1226–35. doi: 10.1038/nn963.
    1. Bernstein NA. The co-ordination and regulation of movements. Oxford: PErgamon Press; 1967.
    1. Jantzen KJ, Oullier O, Scott Kelso JA. Neuroimaging coordination dynamics in the sport sciences. Methods. 2008;45:325–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2008.06.001.
    1. Feys PG, Davies-Smith A, Jones R, Romberg A, Ruutiainen J, Helsen WF, Ketelaer P. Intention tremor rated according to different finger-to-nose test protocols: a survey. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:79–82. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2003.50068.
    1. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaaskö L, Leyman I, Ollson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7:13–31.
    1. Swaine BR JD, Bourbonnais D, Larochelle JL. Norms for 15- to 34-year-olds for different versions of the finger-to-nose test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:1665–9. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.11.021.
    1. Levin MF, Kleim JA, Wolf SL. What do motor “recovery” and “compensation” mean in patients following stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:313–9. doi: 10.1177/1545968308328727.
    1. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jääskö L, Leyman I. Metod för funktionsdiagnostisk bedömning av hemiplegi. Sjukgymnasten. 1974;1:4–12.
    1. Subramanian SK, Yamanaka J, Chilingaryan G, Levin MF. Validity of movement pattern kinematics as measures of arm motor impairment poststroke. Stroke. 2010;41:2303–8. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.593368.
    1. Alt Murphy M, Willen C, Sunnerhagen KS. Kinematic variables quantifying upper-extremity performance after stroke during reaching and drinking from a glass. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25:71–80. doi: 10.1177/1545968310370748.
    1. Wagner JM, Rhodes JA, Patten C. Reproducibility and minimal detectable change of three-dimensional kinematic analysis of reaching tasks in people with hemiparesis after stroke. Phys Ther. 2008;88:652–63. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20070255.
    1. Patterson TS, Bishop MD, McGuirk TE, Sethi A, Richards LG. Reliability of upper extremity kinematics while performing different tasks in individuals with stroke. J Mot Behav. 2011;43:121–30. doi: 10.1080/00222895.2010.548422.
    1. Liebermann DG, Levin MF, McIntyre J, Weiss PL, Berman S. Arm path fragmentation and spatiotemporal features of hand reaching in healthy subjects and stroke patients. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2010;2010:5242–5.
    1. de los Reyes-Guzman A, Dimbwadyo-Terrer I, Trincado-Alonso F, Monasterio-Huelin F, Torricelli D, Gil-Agudo A. Quantitative assessment based on kinematic measures of functional impairments during upper extremity movements: A review. Clin Biomech. 2014;29:719–27. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.06.013.
    1. van Dokkum L, Hauret I, Mottet D, Froger J, Metrot J, Laffont I. The contribution of kinematics in the assessment of upper limb motor recovery early after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014;28:4–12. doi: 10.1177/1545968313498514.
    1. Merdler T, Liebermann GD, Levin FM, Berman S. Arm-plane representation of shoulder compensation during pointing movements in patients with stroke. J Electromyogr Kines. 2013;23:938–47. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2013.03.006.
    1. Cirstea MC, Mitnitski AB, Feldman AG, Levin MF. Interjoint coordination dynamics during reaching in stroke. Exp Brain Res. 2003;151:289–300. doi: 10.1007/s00221-003-1438-0.
    1. Cirstea MC, Levin MF. Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain. 2000;123:940–53. doi: 10.1093/brain/123.5.940.
    1. Cirstea MC, Levin MF. Improvement of arm movement patterns and endpoint control depends on type of feedback during practice in stroke survivors. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21:398–411. doi: 10.1177/1545968306298414.
    1. Archambault P, Pigeon P, Feldman AG, Levin MF. Recruitment and sequencing of different degrees of freedom during pointing movements involving the trunk in healthy and hemiparetic subjects. Exp Brain Res. 1999;126:55–67. doi: 10.1007/s002210050716.
    1. Levin MF. Interjoint coordination during pointing movements is disrupted in spastic hemiparesis. Brain. 1996;119:281–93. doi: 10.1093/brain/119.1.281.
    1. Caimmi M, Carda S, Giovanzana C, Maini ES, Sabatini AM, Smania N, Molteni F. Using kinematic analysis to evaluate constraint-induced movement therapy in chronic stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22:31–9. doi: 10.1177/1545968307302923.
    1. Lum PS, Mulroy S, Amdur RL, Requejo P, Prilutsky BI, Dromerick AW. Gains in upper extremity function after stroke via recovery or compensation: potential differential effects on amount of real-world limb use. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009;16:237–53. doi: 10.1310/tsr1604-237.
    1. Alt Murphy M, Häger CK. Kinematic analysis of the upper extremity after stroke - How far have we reached and what have we grasped? Phys Ther Rev. 2015;20:137–55. doi: 10.1179/1743288X15Y.0000000002.
    1. Kwakkel G. Towards integrative neurorehabilitation science. Physiother Res Int. 2009;14:137–46. doi: 10.1002/pri.446.
    1. Pandyan AD, Johnson GR, Price CI, Curless RH, Barnes MP, Rodgers H. A review of the properties and limitations of the Ashworth and modified Ashworth scales as measures of spasticity. Clin Rehabil. 1999;13:373–83. doi: 10.1191/026921599677595404.
    1. Schmidt AR, Lee TD. Motor control and learning: a behavioural emphasis. 4. Champaign, Ill, Leeds: Human Kinetics; 2005.
    1. Zackowski KM, Dromerick AW, Sahrmann SA, Thach WT, Bastian AJ. How do strength, sensation, spasticity and joint individuation relate to the reaching deficits of people with chronic hemiparesis? Brain. 2004;127:1035–46. doi: 10.1093/brain/awh116.
    1. Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res. 1976;5:3–8. doi: 10.3102/0013189X005010003.
    1. Fritz CO, Morris PE, Richler JJ. Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012;141:2–18. doi: 10.1037/a0024338.
    1. Munro B. Statistical methods for health care research. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.
    1. Wagner JM, Lang CE, Sahrmann SA, Hu Q, Bastian AJ, Edwards DF, Dromerick AW. Relationships between sensorimotor impairments and reaching deficits in acute hemiparesis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2006;20:406–16. doi: 10.1177/1545968306286957.
    1. Buneo CA, Andersen RA. The posterior parietal cortex: sensorimotor interface for the planning and online control of visually guided movements. Neuropsychologia. 2006;44:2594–606. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.10.011.
    1. Thielman G. Rehabilitation of reaching poststroke: a randomized pilot investigation of tactile versus auditory feedback for trunk control. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2010;34:138–44. doi: 10.1097/NPT.0b013e3181efa1e8.
    1. Pain LM, Baker R, Richardson D, Agur AM. Effect of trunk-restraint training on function and compensatory trunk, shoulder and elbow patterns during post-stroke reach: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37:553–62. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.932450.
    1. Roby-Brami A, Feydy A, Combeaud M, Biryukova EV, Bussel B, Levin MF. Motor compensation and recovery for reaching in stroke patients. Acta Neurol Scand. 2003;107:369–81. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0404.2003.00021.x.
    1. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH. Motor control : Translating Research into Clinical Practice. 4. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
    1. Swaine BR, Sullivan SJ. Reliability of the scores for the finger-to-nose test in adults with traumatic brain injury. Phys Ther. 1993;73:71–8.
    1. Fitts PM. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol. 1954;47:381–91. doi: 10.1037/h0055392.
    1. Levin MF, Desrosiers J, Beauchemin D, Bergeron N, Rochette A. Development and validation of a scale for rating motor compensations used for reaching in patients with hemiparesis: the reaching performance scale. Phys Ther. 2004;84:8–22.
    1. Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Ellis M, Archer AL, Morgan B, Piacentino A. Assessing wolf motor function test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Stroke. 2001;32:1635–9. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.32.7.1635.
    1. Van de Winckel A, Feys H, van der Knaap S, Messerli R, Baronti F, Lehmann R, Van Hemelrijk B, Pante F, Perfetti C, De Weerdt W. Can quality of movement be measured? rasch analysis and inter-rater reliability of the motor evaluation scale for upper extremity in stroke patients (MESUPES) Clin Rehabil. 2006;20:871–84.
    1. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2013.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe