Kinesthetic deficits after perinatal stroke: robotic measurement in hemiparetic children

Andrea M Kuczynski, Jennifer A Semrau, Adam Kirton, Sean P Dukelow, Andrea M Kuczynski, Jennifer A Semrau, Adam Kirton, Sean P Dukelow

Abstract

Background: While sensory dysfunction is common in children with hemiparetic cerebral palsy (CP) secondary to perinatal stroke, it is an understudied contributor to disability with limited objective measurement tools. Robotic technology offers the potential to objectively measure complex sensorimotor function but has been understudied in perinatal stroke. The present study aimed to quantify kinesthetic deficits in hemiparetic children with perinatal stroke and determine their association with clinical function.

Methods: Case-control study. Participants were 6-19 years of age. Stroke participants had MRI confirmed unilateral perinatal arterial ischemic stroke or periventricular venous infarction, and symptomatic hemiparetic cerebral palsy. Participants completed a robotic assessment of upper extremity kinesthesia using a robotic exoskeleton (KINARM). Four kinesthetic parameters (response latency, initial direction error, peak speed ratio, and path length ratio) and their variabilities were measured with and without vision. Robotic outcomes were compared across stroke groups and controls and to clinical measures of sensorimotor function.

Results: Forty-three stroke participants (23 arterial, 20 venous, median age 12 years, 42% female) were compared to 106 healthy controls. Stroke cases displayed significantly impaired kinesthesia that remained when vision was restored. Kinesthesia was more impaired in arterial versus venous lesions and correlated with clinical measures.

Conclusions: Robotic assessment of kinesthesia is feasible in children with perinatal stroke. Kinesthetic impairment is common and associated with stroke type. Failure to correct with vision suggests sensory network dysfunction.

Keywords: Cerebral palsy; Kinesthesia; Perinatal; Proprioception; Robotics; Stroke.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Pediatric robotic kinesthesia task. White circles represent the location of robotic movement endpoints. Each of the three targets were separated by 12 cm. Black lines show the movement of the robotically moved passive arm. Grey lines show the movements performed by the active arm to mirror-match the movement of the robot. a Hand paths of an exemplar 10 year old female control, AIS, and PVI participants for six movements in a single direction. A 17 year old male participant with AIS makes larger initial direction errors (IDE) in comparison to the ideal (robotic) trajectory (dashed line). A 7 year old female participant with PVI also demonstrates greater angular deviations than the exemplar control. b Hand speed profiles associated with movement in one direction depict the speed of the robotically moved passive arm (black line) relative to movements of the participant (grey lines). The speed profile of the exemplar control indicates excellent matching of robot speed. The speed profile of the AIS participant indicates variable speed after the movement of the passive arm. A participant with PVI matches the speed of the robot, but moves much later when matching
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Hand movements in the kinesthesia task. Individual and average hand movements in each direction for an exemplar participant from each group. White circles represent the location of robotic movement endpoints. Black dashed lines show the mirrored movement of the robotically moved passive arm from the first target (black circle) to the end target (white circle). The direction of movement between the three targets is shown in the bottom left corner. Light grey lines show the movements performed by the active arm to mirror-match the movement of the robot. Dark grey lines indicate the average hand movement in each direction. a A 15 year old female typically developing child/adolescent demonstrates excellent matching of the robot movement with low IDE and excellent PLR. b An 11 year old female participant with AIS shows difficulty in matching the length (PLR) and direction (IDE) of movement, and does not complete all 6 trials within the movements (direction 3 and 4). c A 15 year old male with PVI moves with large IDE in most directions
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Group data of response latency. Boxplots of response latency (RL) and RLv (top row) are shown for each of the three groups with vision removed and vision restored. Scatter plots without (middle row) and with (bottom row) vision show the performance in the parameters for stroke cases and controls with 95% prediction intervals of control performance defining normal boundaries (black lines). Both AIS and PVI groups demonstrate increased RL (a) and RLv (d) relative to controls. Stroke cases often demonstrated consistently greater RL (b, c) and RLv (e, f) across all ages (x-axis)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Group data of initial direction error. Boxplots of initial direction error (IDE) and IDEv (top row) are shown for each of the three groups with vision removed and vision restored. Scatter plots without (middle row) and with (bottom row) vision show the performance in the parameters for stroke cases and controls with 95% prediction intervals of control performance defining normal boundaries (black lines). Both AIS and PVI demonstrate increased IDE (a) and IDEv (d) relative to controls in both vision conditions. Stroke cases often demonstrated greater IDE (b, c) and IDEv (e, f) across all ages (x-axis)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Group data of peak speed ratio. Boxplots of peak speed ratio (PSR) and PSRv (top row) are shown for each of the three groups with vision removed and vision restored. Scatter plots without (middle row) and with (bottom row) vision show the performance in the parameters for stroke cases and controls with 95% prediction intervals of control performance defining normal boundaries (black lines). Both AIS and PVI groups demonstrate increased PSR (a) and PSRv (d) relative to controls. Stroke cases often demonstrated greater PSR (b, c) and PSRv (e, f) across all ages (x-axis)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Group data of path length ratio. Boxplots of path length ratio (PLR) and PLRv (top row) are shown for each of the three groups with vision removed and vision restored. Scatter plots without (middle row) and with (bottom row) vision show the performance in the parameters for stroke cases and controls with 95% prediction intervals of control performance defining normal boundaries (black lines). Both AIS and PVI groups demonstrate increased PLR (a) and PLRv (d) relative to controls. Stroke cases often demonstrated greater PLR (b, c) and PLRv (e, f) across all ages (x-axis)

References

    1. Sherrington C. On the proprioceptive system, especially in its reflex aspect. Brain. 1907;29:467–82. doi: 10.1093/brain/29.4.467.
    1. McCloskey DI. Kinesthetic sensibility. Physiol Rev. 1978;58:763–820.
    1. Gandevia SC, Refshauge KM, Collins DF. Proprioception: peripheral inputs and perceptual interactions. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2002;508:61–8. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-0713-0_8.
    1. Sainburg RL, Ghilardi MF, Poizner H, Ghez C. Control of limb dynamics in normal subjects and patients without proprioception. J Neurophysiol. 1995;73:820–35.
    1. Gordon J, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C. Impairments of reaching movements in patients without proprioception. I Spatial errors. J Neurophysiol. 1995;73:347–60.
    1. Feys H, De WW, Nuyens G, van de WA, Selz B, Kiekens C. Predicting motor recovery of the upper limb after stroke rehabilitation: value of a clinical examination. Physiother Res Int. 2000;5:1–18. doi: 10.1002/pri.180.
    1. Semrau JA, Herter TM, Scott SH, Dukelow SP. Robotic identification of kinesthetic deficits after stroke. Stroke J Cereb Circ. 2013;44:3414–21. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.002058.
    1. Semrau JA, Wang JC, Herter TM, Scott SH, Dukelow SP. Relationship between visuospatial neglect and kinesthetic deficits after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29:318–28. doi: 10.1177/1545968314545173.
    1. Connell LA, Lincoln NB, Radford KA. Somatosensory impairment after stroke: frequency of different deficits and their recovery. Clin Rehabil. 2008;22:758–67. doi: 10.1177/0269215508090674.
    1. Raju TN, Nelson KB, Ferriero D, Lynch JK. Ischemic perinatal stroke: summary of a workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Pediatrics. 2007;120:609–16. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-0336.
    1. Kirton A, deVeber G, Pontigon AM, MacGregor D, Shroff M. Presumed perinatal ischemic stroke: vascular classification predicts outcomes. Ann. Neurol. 2008;63:436–43. doi: 10.1002/ana.21334.
    1. Kirton A. Predicting developmental plasticity after perinatal stroke. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013;55(8):681–2.
    1. Tizard JP, Paine RS, Crothers B. Disturbances of sensation in children with hemiplegia. J Am Med Assoc. 1954;155:628–32. doi: 10.1001/jama.1954.03690250008003.
    1. Van Heest AE, House J. Putnam M. Sensibility deficiencies in the hands of children with spastic hemiplegia. JHand SurgAm. 1993;18:278–81.
    1. Brown JV, Schumacher U, Rohlmann A, Ettlinger G, Schmidt RC, Skreczek W. Aimed movements to visual targets in hemiplegic and normal children: is the “good” hand of children with infantile hemiplegia also normal? Neuropsychologia. 1989;27:283–302. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(89)90019-5.
    1. Kuczynski AM, Dukelow SP, Semrau JA, Kirton A. Robotic quantification of position sense in children with perinatal stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016;30(8):762–72. doi: 10.1177/1545968315624781.
    1. Bleyenheuft Y, Gordon AM. Precision grip control, sensory impairments and their interactions in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy: a systematic review. Res Dev Disabil. 2013;34:3014–28. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2013.05.047.
    1. Cooper J, Majnemer A, Rosenblatt B, Birnbaum R. The determination of sensory deficits in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. J Child Neurol. 1995;10:300–9. doi: 10.1177/088307389501000412.
    1. Goble DJ, Hurvitz EA, Brown SH. Deficits in the ability to use proprioceptive feedback in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Int J Rehabil Res. 2009;32:267–9. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0b013e32832a62d5.
    1. Pickett K, Konczak J. Measuring kinaesthetic sensitivity in typically developing children. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2009;51:711–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03229.x.
    1. Bairstow PJ, Laszlo JI. Kinaesthetic sensitivity to passive movements and its relationship to motor development and motor control. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1981;23:606–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1981.tb02042.x.
    1. Elliott JM, Connolly KJ, Doyle AJ. Development of kinaesthetic sensitivity and motor performance in children. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1988;30:80–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1988.tb04728.x.
    1. Lincoln N. The unreliability of sensory assessments. Clin Rehabil. 1991;5:273–82.
    1. Coderre AM, Zeid AA, Dukelow SP, Demmer MJ, Moore KD, Demers MJ, et al. Assessment of upper-limb sensorimotor function of subacute stroke patients using visually guided reaching. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24(6):528–41. doi: 10.1177/1545968309356091.
    1. Dukelow SP, Herter TM, Moore KD, Demers MJ, Glasgow JI, Bagg SD, et al. Quantitative assessment of limb position sense following stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24:178–87. doi: 10.1177/1545968309345267.
    1. Dukelow SP, Herter TM, Bagg SD, Scott SH. The independence of deficits in position sense and visually guided reaching following stroke. J Neuroengineering Rehabil. 2012;9:72. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-9-72.
    1. Hughes CML, Tommasino P, Budhota A, Campolo D. Upper extremity proprioception in healthy aging and stroke populations, and the effects of therapist- and robot-based rehabilitation therapies on proprioceptive function. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9:120. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00120.
    1. Volpe BT, Huerta PT, Zipse JL, Rykman A, Edwards D, Dipietro L, et al. Robotic devices as therapeutic and diagnostic tools for stroke recovery. Arch Neurol. 2009;66:1086–90. doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2009.182.
    1. Maciejasz P, Eschweiler J, Gerlach-Hahn K, Jansen-Troy A, Leonhardt S. A survey on robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation. J Neuroengineering Rehabil. 2014;11:3. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-3.
    1. Garraway WM, Akhtar AJ, Gore SM, Prescott RJ, Smith RG. Observer variation in the clinical assessment of stroke. Age Ageing. 1976;5:233–40. doi: 10.1093/ageing/5.4.233.
    1. Carey LM, Oke LE, Matyas TA. Impaired limb position sense after stroke: a quantitative test for clinical use. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77:1271–8. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90192-6.
    1. Kitchen L, Westmacott R, Friefeld S, MacGregor D, Curtis R, Allen A, et al. The pediatric stroke outcome measure: a validation and reliability study. Stroke. 2012;43:1602–8. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.639583.
    1. Eliasson AC, Krumlinde-sundholm L, Rosblad B, Beckung E, Arner M, Ohrvall AM, et al. The Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) for children with cerebral palsy: scale development and evidence of validity and reliability. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006;48:549–54. doi: 10.1017/S0012162206001162.
    1. Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987;67:206–7.
    1. Hirayama K, Fukutake T, Kawamura M. “Thumb localizing test” for detecting a lesion in the posterior column-medial lemniscal system. J Neurol Sci. 1999;167:45–9. doi: 10.1016/S0022-510X(99)00136-7.
    1. Krumlinde-sundholm L, Holmefur M, Kottorp A, Eliasson AC. The Assisting Hand Assessment: current evidence of validity, reliability, and responsiveness to change. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2007;49:259–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.00259.x.
    1. Barreca SR, Stratford PW, Lambert CL, Masters LM, Streiner DL. Test-retest reliability, validity, and sensitivity of the Chedoke arm and hand activity inventory: a new measure of upper-limb function for survivors of stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:1616–22. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.017.
    1. Tiffin J, Asher EJ. The Purdue pegboard; norms and studies of reliability and validity. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32:234–47. doi: 10.1037/h0061266.
    1. Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971;9:97–113. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4.
    1. Wilson B, Cockburn J, Halligan P. Development of a behavioral test of visuospatial neglect. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;68:98–102.
    1. Boyd R, Sakzewski L, Ziviani J, Abbott DF, Badawy R, Gilmore R, et al. INCITE: a randomised trial comparing constraint induced movement therapy and bimanual training in children with congenital hemiplegia. BMC Neurol. 2010;10:4. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-10-4.
    1. Doyle S, Bennett S, Fasoli SE, McKenna KT. Interventions for sensory impairment in the upper limb after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;6:CD006331.
    1. Goble DJ, Aaron MB, Warschausky S, Kaufman JN, Hurvitz EA. The influence of spatial working memory on ipsilateral remembered proprioceptive matching in adults with cerebral palsy. Exp Brain Res. 2012;223:259–69. doi: 10.1007/s00221-012-3256-8.
    1. Debert CT, Herter TM, Scott SH, Dukelow S. Robotic assessment of sensorimotor deficits after traumatic brain injury. J Neurol Phys Ther JNPT. 2012;36:58–67. doi: 10.1097/NPT.0b013e318254bd4f.
    1. Scott SH, Dukelow SP. Potential of robots as next-generation technology for clinical assessment of neurological disorders and upper-limb therapy. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48:335–53. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2010.04.0057.
    1. Fasoli SE, Ladenheim B, Mast J, Krebs HI. New horizons for robot-assisted therapy in pediatrics. Am J Phys Med Rehabil Assoc Acad Physiatr. 2012;91:S280–289. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31826bcff4.
    1. Visser J, Geuze RH. Kinaesthetic acuity in adolescent boys: a longitudinal study. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2000;42:93–6. doi: 10.1017/S0012162200000189.
    1. Tamnes CK, Ostby Y, Fjell AM, Westlye LT, Due-Tønnessen P, Walhovd KB. Brain maturation in adolescence and young adulthood: regional age-related changes in cortical thickness and white matter volume and microstructure. Cereb Cortex N Y N 1991. 2010;20:534–48.
    1. Lebel C, Walker L, Leemans A, Phillips L, Beaulieu C. Microstructural maturation of the human brain from childhood to adulthood. Neuroimage. 2008;40:1044–55. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.12.053.
    1. Smorenburg ARP, Ledebt A, Deconinck FJA, Savelsbergh GJP. Visual feedback of the non-moving limb improves active joint-position sense of the impaired limb in Spastic Hemiparetic Cerebral Palsy. Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32:1107–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.01.016.
    1. Goodale MA, Westwood DA, Milner AD. Two distinct modes of control for object-directed action. Prog Brain Res. 2004;144:131–44. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(03)14409-3.
    1. Goble DJ, Brown SH. The biological and behavioral basis of upper limb asymmetries in sensorimotor performance. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008;32:598–610. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.10.006.
    1. Schabrun SM, Hillier S. Evidence for the retraining of sensation after stroke: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23:27–39. doi: 10.1177/0269215508098897.
    1. Scott SH. The computational and neural basis of voluntary motor control and planning. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012;16:541–9. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.09.008.
    1. Schaefer SY, Haaland KY, Sainburg RL. Hemispheric specialization and functional impact of ipsilesional deficits in movement coordination and accuracy. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47:2953–66. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.06.025.
    1. Schaefer SY, Haaland KY, Sainburg RL. Ipsilesional motor deficits following stroke reflect hemispheric specializations for movement control. Brain J Neurol. 2007;130:2146–58. doi: 10.1093/brain/awm145.
    1. Kenzie JM, Semrau JA, Findlater SE, Yu AY, Desai JA, Herter TM, et al. Localization of Impaired Kinesthetic Processing Post-stroke. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:505. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00505.
    1. Riquelme I, Padrón I, Cifre I, González-Roldán AM, Montoya P. Differences in somatosensory processing due to dominant hemispheric motor impairment in cerebral palsy. BMC Neurosci. 2014;15:10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-15-10.
    1. Sainburg RL, Schaefer SY. Interlimb differences in control of movement extent. J Neurophysiol. 2004;92:1374–83. doi: 10.1152/jn.00181.2004.
    1. Goble DJ, Brown SH. Task-dependent asymmetries in the utilization of proprioceptive feedback for goal-directed movement. Exp Brain Res. 2007;180:693–704. doi: 10.1007/s00221-007-0890-7.
    1. Kennard MA. Age and other factors in motor recovery from precentral lesions in monkeys. Am J Physiol. 1936;115:137–46.
    1. Hoon AH, Stashinko EE, Nagae LM, Lin DDM, Keller J, Bastian A, et al. Sensory and motor deficits in children with cerebral palsy born preterm correlate with diffusion tensor imaging abnormalities in thalamocortical pathways. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2009;51:697–704. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2009.03306.x.
    1. Hoon AH, Lawrie WT, Melhem ER, Reinhardt EM, Van Zijl PCM, Solaiyappan M, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging of periventricular leukomalacia shows affected sensory cortex white matter pathways. Neurology. 2002;59:752–6. doi: 10.1212/WNL.59.5.752.
    1. Cappello L, Elangovan N, Contu S, Khosravani S, Konczak J, Masia L. Robot-aided assessment of wrist proprioception. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9:198. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00198.
    1. Aman JE, Elangovan N, Yeh I-L, Konczak J. The effectiveness of proprioceptive training for improving motor function: a systematic review. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:1075.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe