Upper Extremity Kinematic Parameters: Reference Ranges Based on Kinect V2

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunkun Zhao ◽  
Chuan Guo ◽  
Haibo Bian ◽  
Jiyong Yu ◽  
Haiying Wen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Reference Ranges ◽  
Kinematic Parameters ◽  
Kinect V2

Abstract WP153: Establishing Kinimatic Age-referenced Normative Values of the Upper Extremity Using the InMotion 2 Robot

Stroke ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carly A Creelman ◽  
Grace J Kim ◽  
Michael Taub ◽  
Michael W O'Dell
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Stroke Rehabilitation ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Kinematic Parameter ◽  
Normative Values ◽  
Healthy Population ◽  
Dominant Hand ◽  
Kinematic Parameters ◽  
Kinematic Assessment ◽  
Group 5

Introduction: The use of technology in stroke rehabilitation is growing rapidly. Upper extremity robotic devices provide both therapeutic intervention as well as objective kinematic assessment to evaluate arm ability of individuals with stroke. The InMotion 2® is a shoulder/elbow robot widely used in the clinic and within stroke rehabilitation research. It has the capability to provide kinematic assessment of the arm, however there are no age-referenced normative values available for comparison to a healthy population. The aim of this study was to establish normative kinematic values for the InMotion 2 robot. Hypothesis: Not Applicable. Methods: Forty healthy individuals with no history of stroke or other neurological conditions with full passive and active range of motion in both upper extremities were recruited from the community. Subjects were recruited based on age (40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-80), 10 subjects per group (5 males and 5 females). Subjects were assessed on circle and clock drawing tasks with their dominant and non-dominant arm over three trials. The kinematic parameters measured included smoothness, joint independence, hold deviation, and displacement. The mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of dominant hand test 1 and 2 were averaged together for combined scores across age groups. Results: The following age referenced normative values were determined for each kinematic parameter: smoothness (m/s), mean and SD for 40-49 age group (.585; .027), 50-59 (.566; .033), 60-69 (.540; .048), and 70-80 (.561; .033); joint independence: 40-49 (.861; .019), 50-59 (.858; .0394), 60-69 (.839; .030), and 70-80 (.853; 024); hold deviation (meters), 40-49 (.017; .005), 50-59 (.019; .004), 60-69 (.019; .006), and 70-80 (.022; .004); displacement (meters), 40-49 (.132; .001), 50-59 (.132; .001), 60-69 (.132; .001), and 70-80 (.131; .0004). Conclusion: The analysis demonstrated that age, sex, and hand dominance did not have a significant effect on normative kinematic outcomes, however age referenced normative values establish baseline and ceiling levels which provide more meaning when interpreting scores for individuals with stroke. Further research investigating the reliability of the kinematic parameters is currently underway.

Design a Haptic-Combined Virtual Reality System to Improve Box and Block Test (BBT) for Upper Extremity Function Assessment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying Dong ◽  
Xiaoyu Liu ◽  
Min Tang ◽  
Hongqiang Huo ◽  
Duo Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Kinematic Parameters ◽  
Stroke Patients ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Zero Crossings ◽  
Block Test ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Function Assessment

Abstract Background: The Box and Block Test (BBT) has been widely used to assess gross upper extremity (UE) motor function. We designed a haptic-combined virtual reality (VR) system, named VBBT, to improve BBT with kinematic parameters for more specific assessments.Methods: According to the block-transfer task in BBT, we designed a VBBT system with a haptic device to provide a sense of the grasping force and block's gravity during task performance for UE function assessment. Besides the number of transferred blocks (N-TB), some kinematic parameters were also collected in VBBT for more specific assessment, including the number of zero-crossings of moving acceleration (NZC-ACC), the number of zero-crossings of derivative of releasing force (NZC-DRF), the ratio of path length and linear length (PLR) and the distance between barrier partition and drop position (DDP). 16 post-stroke patients and 113 healthy subjects were recruited to examine quantitative performances, concurrent validity, test-retest reliability and subjective preference between the BBT and VBBT.Results: Based on the measurements of 95% healthy subjects, the normative ranges of quantitative performances were established for BBT and VBBT. Deficiencies in patients’ UE function could be identified when their measurements fell outsides. A moderate correlation was found in the N-TBs between the VBBT and BBT (r = 0.42). The measurements in VBBT presented a stronger age-related correlation than that in BBT (R2 = 0.57 and R2 = 0.16). The N-TBs in both BBT and VBBT were strongly correlated to the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) (|r| = 0.84 and 0.83), and the NZC-ACC and NZC-DRF in VBBT also showed significant correlations. (|r| = 0.76 and 0.79). The N-TB, NZC-ACC and NZC-DRF in VBBT showed a good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.75, 0.78 and 0.80) while a moderate reliability was found in BBT (ICC = 0.62). For the patient preference, VBBT was given a higher score than the BBT (p < 0.05) for its enjoyment and completion effort performing.Conclusion: The VBBT improved a gross manual assessment in BBT, which can provide clinically validated, reliable and motivative assessment with kinematic parameters for specific UE motor functions of post-stroke patients.

scholarly journals Kinematic parameters obtained with the ArmeoSpring for upper-limb assessment after stroke: a reliability and learning effect study for guiding parameter use

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nabila Brihmat ◽  
Isabelle Loubinoux ◽  
Evelyne Castel-Lacanal ◽  
Philippe Marque ◽  
David Gasq
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Learning Effect ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Peak Velocity ◽  
Minimal Detectable Change ◽  
Kinematic Parameters ◽  
Stroke Patients ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background After stroke, kinematic measures obtained with non-robotic and robotic devices are highly recommended to precisely quantify the sensorimotor impairments of the upper-extremity and select the most relevant therapeutic strategies. Although the ArmeoSpring exoskeleton has demonstrated its effectiveness in stroke motor rehabilitation, its interest as an assessment tool has not been sufficiently documented. The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of selected kinematic parameters obtained with the ArmeoSpring in post-stroke patients. Methods This study involved 30 post-stroke patients (mean age = 54.5 ± 16.4 years; time post-stroke = 14.7 ± 26.7 weeks; Upper-Extremity Fugl-Meyer Score (UE-FMS) = 40.7 ± 14.5/66) who participated in 3 assessment sessions, each consisting of 10 repetitions of the ‘horizontal catch’ exercise. Five kinematic parameters (task and movement time, hand path ratio, peak velocity, number of peak velocity) and a global Score were computed from raw ArmeoSpring’ data. Learning effect and retention were analyzed using a 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA, and reliability was investigated using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and minimal detectable change (MDC). Results We observed significant inter- and intra-session learning effects for most parameters except peak velocity. The measures performed in sessions 2 and 3 were significantly different from those of session 1. No additional significant difference was observed after the first 6 trials of each session and successful retention was also highlighted for all the parameters. Relative reliability was moderate to excellent for all the parameters, and MDC values expressed in percentage ranged from 42.6 to 102.8%. Conclusions After a familiarization session, the ArmeoSpring can be used to reliably and sensitively assess motor impairment and intervention effects on motor learning processes after a stroke. Trial registration The study was approved by the local hospital ethics committee in September 2016 and was registered under number 05-0916.

ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF UPPER EXTREMITY FUNCTION ASSESSMENT OF STROKE PATIENTS BY ANGULAR KINEMATIC PARAMETERS

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (05) ◽  
pp. 1750080 ◽  
Author(s):  
KRISTINA DAUNORAVIČENĖ ◽  
ARTURAS LINKEL ◽  
JURGITA ŽIŽIENĖ ◽  
JULIUS GRIŠKEVIČIUS ◽  
ALVYDAS JUOCEVIČIUS ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Joint Angle ◽  
Arm Movement ◽  
Accurate Assessment ◽  
Kinematic Parameters ◽  
Stroke Patients ◽  
Rehabilitation Programs ◽  
Angular Velocities ◽  
Patient Groups ◽  
Upper Extremity Movement

This study focuses on the functional assessment of the upper extremity of stroke patients via analysis of angular kinematics features. Amplitudes and angular velocities of multi-joint movements more precisely describe functional state at different impairment levels. However, the arm movement as a whole could be analyzed by means of joint angle–angle diagrams, which illustrate the 2D trajectory of upper extremity during movement and show the visual ranges of upper extremity in different cycles of motion. The functional range of motion of each upper extremity segment in all patient groups for more accurate assessment of capability was calculated. Moreover, we calculated the area (S) between two curves in joint angle–angle diagrams as a novel index of the complete upper extremity movement range evaluation. Our findings correspond to clinical rates and upper extremity assessment based on joint angle–angle diagrams seems to be a promising method for accurate assessment and/or predicting the outcomes of rehabilitation programs.

scholarly journals Characteristic upper extremity kinematic parameters of healthy people during defined motions

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Artūras Linkel ◽  
Julius Griškevičius ◽  
James Shippen ◽  
Barbara May ◽  
Kristina Daunoravičienė
Keyword(s):  
Angular Velocity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Healthy People ◽  
Shoulder Abduction ◽  
Characteristic Parameters ◽  
Kinematic Parameters ◽  
Coefficient Of Variability

One of most common ways to examine the quality of the patient’s upper extremity (UE) function is measuring the movement’s kinematic parameters during the motion. However, is it reliable to compare a patient’s UE motions data with healthy people’s characteristic parameters? In this paper is shown that intrapersonal coefficient of variability (CV) in angles amplitudes differs from 3.2% during elbow flexion to 52.9% during wrist abduction and CV in angular velocity differs from 22.1% during shoulder abduction to 66.3% during wrist abduction

Articulatory Behavior Pre and Post Full-Mouth Tooth Extraction and Alveoloplasty

1980 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 630-645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald Zimmermann ◽  
J.A. Scott Kelso ◽  
Larry Lander
Keyword(s):  
Control Subject ◽  
High Speed ◽  
Tooth Extraction ◽  
Kinematic Parameters ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Articulatory Movements ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Experimental Subjects ◽  
Normal Speech

High speed cinefluorography was used to track articulatory movements preceding and following full-mouth tooth extraction and alveoloplasty in two subjects. Films also were made of a control subject on two separate days. The purpose of the study was to determine the effects of dramatically altering the structural dimensions of the oral cavity on the kinematic parameters of speech. The results showed that the experimental subjects performed differently pre and postoperatively though the changes were in different directions for the two subjects. Differences in both means and variabilities of kinematic parameters were larger between days for the experimental (operated) subjects than for the control subject. The results for the Control subject also showed significant differences in the mean values of kinematic variables between days though these day-to-day differences could not account for the effects found pre- and postoperatively. The results of the kinematic analysis, particularly the finding that transition time was most stable over the experimental conditions for the operated subjects, are used to speculate about the coordination of normal speech.

Combining Values

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4, 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Proximal Phalanx ◽  
Common Error ◽  
The Third ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment ◽  
The Individual

Abstract To account for the effects of multiple impairments, evaluating physicians must provide a summary value that combines multiple impairments so the whole person impairment is equal to or less than the sum of all the individual impairment values. A common error is to add values that should be combined and typically results in an inflated rating. The Combined Values Chart in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, includes instructions that guide physicians about combining impairment ratings. For example, impairment values within a region generally are combined and converted to a whole person permanent impairment before combination with the results from other regions (exceptions include certain impairments of the spine and extremities). When they combine three or more values, physicians should select and combine the two lowest values; this value is combined with the third value to yield the total value. Upper extremity impairment ratings are combined based on the principle that a second and each succeeding impairment applies not to the whole unit (eg, whole finger) but only to the part that remains (eg, proximal phalanx). Physicians who combine lower extremity impairments usually use only one evaluation method, but, if more than one method is used, the physician should use the Combined Values Chart.

Impairment Tutorial: Functionally Limiting Upper Extremity Pain: Controversies in Impairment Rating

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 4-12
Author(s):  
Lorne Direnfeld ◽  
James Talmage ◽  
Christopher Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Radicular Pain ◽  
Illness Behavior ◽  
Orthopedic Surgeon ◽  
First Case ◽  
Clinical Presentations ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Physical Examinations ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment ◽  
The Individual

Abstract This article was prompted by the submission of two challenging cases that exemplify the decision processes involved in using the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). In both cases, the physical examinations were normal with no evidence of illness behavior, but, based on their histories and clinical presentations, the patients reported credible symptoms attributable to specific significant injuries. The dilemma for evaluators was whether to adhere to the AMA Guides, as written, or to attempt to rate impairment in these rare cases. In the first case, the evaluating neurologist used alternative approaches to define impairment based on the presence of thoracic outlet syndrome and upper extremity pain, as if there were a nerve injury. An orthopedic surgeon who evaluated the case did not base impairment on pain and used the upper extremity chapters in the AMA Guides. The impairment ratings determined using either the nervous system or upper extremity chapters of the AMA Guides resulted in almost the same rating (9% vs 8% upper extremity impairment), and either value converted to 5% whole person permanent impairment. In the second case, the neurologist evaluated the individual for neuropathic pain (9% WPI), and the orthopedic surgeon rated the patient as Diagnosis-related estimates Cervical Category II for nonverifiable radicular pain (5% to 8% WPI).

Spinal Impairment Evaluation: Fifth Edition Changes

2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert H. Haralson
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Spinal Cord Injuries ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Treatment Results ◽  
Standard Terminology ◽  
Made In

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document