Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Control of reach extent with the paretic and nonparetic arms after unilateral sensorimotor stroke II: planning and adjustments to control movement distance

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nondisabled adults utilize both planning and feedback-based compensatory adjustments to control actual distance moved for skilled reach actions. The purpose of this study was to determine whether individuals post-stroke utilize planning and compensatory adjustments to control movement distance for reaches to targets that vary in distance. Individuals with mild to moderate motor impairment after stroke and nondisabled adults reached with both arms to targets presented at three distances (8, 16, 24 cm). The control of movement distance was compared between arms (control, nonparetic, and paretic) as to the use of planning (correlation of peak acceleration with movement distance), compensatory adjustments prior to peak velocity (correlation of time to peak velocity with movement distance), and compensatory adjustments after peak velocity (variance in movement distance accounted for by deterministic statistical model). The correlation of peak acceleration with movement distance for reaches with the paretic arm was significantly less than controls suggesting a decreased reliance on planning. Feedback-based compensatory adjustments, however, were present prior to and after peak velocity that assisted in achievement of movement distance in a similar manner as controls. Overall reach performance with the paretic arm was impaired, however, as evidenced by greater endpoint error and longer movement times than controls. The decreased use of planning to control movement distance after stroke suggests that the selected motor command was suboptimal in producing the desired movement outcome and may be related to an inability to generate muscle force quickly, lack of knowledge of arm dynamics due to decreased arm use, or lesion characteristics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersen RA, Cui H (2009) Intention, action planning, and decision making in parietal-frontal circuits. Neuron 63:568–583

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bamford J, Sandercock P, Dennis M, Burn J, Warlow C (1991) Classification and natural history of clinically identifiable subtypes of cerebral infarction. Lancet 337:1521–1526

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barker RN, Gill TJ, Brauer SG (2007) Factors contributing to upper limb recovery after stroke: a survey of stroke survivors in Queensland Australia. Disabil Rehabil 29:981–989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown SH, Cooke JD (1984) Initial agonist burst duration depends on movement amplitude. Exp Brain Res 55:523–527

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Calarusso RP, Hammill DD (1972) The motor-free visual perception test (MVPT). Academic Therapy Publications, San Rafael

    Google Scholar 

  • Canning CG, Ada L, O’Dwyer NJ (2000) Abnormal muscle activation characteristics associated with loss of dexterity after stroke. J Neurol Sci 176:45–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carey LM, Matyas TA (2011) Frequency of discriminative sensory loss in the hand after stroke in a rehabilitation setting. J Rehabil Med 43:257–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chae J, Yang G, Park BK, Labatia I (2002) Delay in initiation and termination of muscle contraction, motor impairment, and physical disability in upper limb hemiparesis. Muscle Nerve 25:568–575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Connell LA, Lincoln NB, Radford KA (2008) Somatosensory impairment after stroke: frequency of different deficits and their recovery. Clin Rehabil 22:758–767

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DeJong SL, Birkenmeier RL, Lang CE (2012) Person-specific changes in motor performance accompany upper extremity functional gains after stroke. J Appl Biomech 28:304–316

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Desmurget M, Grafton S (2000) Forward modeling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements. Trends Cogn Sci 4:423–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dukelow SP, Herter TM, Moore KD et al (2010) Quantitative assessment of limb position sense following stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 24:178–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster LJ (1999) The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke 30:2131–2140

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher BE, Winstein CJ, Velicki MR (2000) Deficits in compensatory trajectory adjustments after unilateral sensorimotor stroke. Exp Brain Res 132:328–344

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fogassi L, Luppino G (2005) Motor functions of the parietal lobe. Curr Opin Neurobiol 15:626–631

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975) “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189–198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S (1975) The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med 7:13–31

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ghez C, Gordon J (1987) Trajectory control in targeted force impulses. I. Role of opposing muscles. Exp Brain Res 67:225–240

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon J, Ghez C (1987a) Trajectory control in targeted force impulses. II Pulse height control. Exp Brain Res 67:241–252

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon J, Ghez C (1987b) Trajectory control in targeted force impulses. III. Compensatory adjustments for initial errors. Exp Brain Res 67:253–269

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harris JE, Eng JJ (2006) Individuals with the dominant hand affected following stroke demonstrate less impairment than those with the nondominant hand affected. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 20:380–389

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman-Maeir A, Katz N (1995) Validity of the behavioral inattention test (BIT): relationships with functional tasks. Am J Occup Ther 49:507–516

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hoshi E, Tanji J (2007) Distinctions between dorsal and ventral premotor areas: anatomical connectivity and functional properties. Curr Opin Neurobiol 17:234–242

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kawato M (1999) Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning. Curr Opin Neurobiol 9:718–727

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kitago T, Liang J, Huang VS et al (2013) Improvement after constraint-induced movement therapy: recovery of normal motor control or task-specific compensation? Neurorehabil Neural Repair 27:99–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kokotilo KJ, Eng JJ, McKeown MJ, Boyd LA (2010) Greater activation of secondary motor areas is related to less arm use after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 24:78–87

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lang CE, Wagner JM, Bastian AJ, Hu Q, Edwards DF, Sahrmann SA, Dromerick AW (2005) Deficits in grasp versus reach during acute hemiparesis. Exp Brain Res 166:126–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levin MF (1996) Interjoint coordination during pointing movements is disrupted in spastic hemiparesis. Brain 119(Pt 1):281–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levin MF, Michaelsen SM, Cirstea CM, Roby-Brami A (2002) Use of the trunk for reaching targets placed within and beyond the reach in adult hemiparesis. Exp Brain Res 143:171–180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Longo MR, Azanon E, Haggard P (2010) More than skin deep: body representation beyond primary somatosensory cortex. Neuropsychologia 48:655–668

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lyle RC (1981) A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res 4:483–492

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mani S, Mutha PK, Przybyla A, Haaland KY, Good DC, Sainburg RL (2013) Contralesional motor deficits after unilateral stroke reflect hemisphere-specific control mechanisms. Brain 136:1288–1303

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McCombe Waller S, Whitall J (2005) Hand dominance and side of stroke affect rehabilitation in chronic stroke. Clin Rehabil 19:544–551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCrea PH, Eng JJ (2005) Consequences of increased neuromotor noise for reaching movements in persons with stroke. Exp Brain Res 162:70–77

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Messier J, Kalaska JF (1999) Comparison of variability of initial kinematics and endpoints of reaching movements. Exp Brain Res 125:139–152

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mutha PK, Sainburg RL (2007) Control of velocity and position in single joint movements. Hum Mov Sci 26:808–823

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Platz T, Prass K, Denzler P, Bock S, Mauritz KH (1999) Testing a motor performance series and a kinematic motion analysis as measures of performance in high-functioning stroke patients: reliability, validity, and responsiveness to therapeutic intervention. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 80:270–277

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Platz T, Bock S, Prass K (2001) Reduced skilfulness of arm motor behaviour among motor stroke patients with good clinical recovery: does it indicate reduced automaticity? Can it be improved by unilateral or bilateral training? A kinematic motion analysis study. Neuropsychologia 39:687–698

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Portney L, Watkins M (2009) Foundations of Clinical Research: applications to practice. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Romo R, Lemus L, de Lafuente V (2012) Sense, memory, and decision-making in the somatosensory cortical network. Curr Opin Neurobiol 22:914–919

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sabes PN (2000) The planning and control of reaching movements. Curr Opin Neurobiol 10:740–746

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sainburg RL, Schaefer SY (2004) Interlimb differences in control of movement extent. J Neurophysiol 92:1374–1383

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer SY, Haaland KY, Sainburg RL (2007) Ipsilesional motor deficits following stroke reflect hemispheric specializations for movement control. Brain 130:2146–2158

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Semrau JA, Herter TM, Scott SH, Dukelow SP (2013) Robotic identification of kinesthetic deficits after stroke. Stroke 44:3414–3421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart JC, Cramer SC (2013) Patient-reported measures provide unique insights into motor function after stroke. Stroke 44:1111–1116

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart JC, Gordon J, Winstein CJ (2013) Planning and adjustments for the control of reach extent in a virtual environment. J Neuroeng Rehabil 10:27

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart JC, Gordon J, Winstein CJ (2014) Control of reach extent with the paretic and nonparetic arms after unilateral sensorimotor stroke: kinematic differences based on side of brain damage. Exp Brain Res 232:2407–2419

  • Tunik E, Rice NJ, Hamilton A, Grafton ST (2007) Beyond grasping: representation of action in human anterior intraparietal sulcus. Neuroimage 36(Suppl 2):T77–T86

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • van Kordelaar J, van Wegen EE, Nijland RH, de Groot JH, Meskers CG, Harlaar J, Kwakkel G (2012) Assessing longitudinal change in coordination of the paretic upper limb using on-site 3-dimensional kinematic measurements. Phys Ther 92:142–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner JM, Dromerick AW, Sahrmann SA, Lang CE (2007a) Upper extremity muscle activation during recovery of reaching in subjects with post-stroke hemiparesis. Clin Neurophysiol 118:164–176

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner JM, Lang CE, Sahrmann SA, Edwards DF, Dromerick AW (2007b) Sensorimotor impairments and reaching performance in subjects with poststroke hemiparesis during the first few months of recovery. Phys Ther 87:751–765

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams PS, Basso DM, Case-Smith J, Nichols-Larsen DS (2006) Development of the hand active sensation test: reliability and validity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87:1471–1477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Winter D (2005) Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP et al (2006) Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 296:2095–2104

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z (2000) Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nat Neurosci 3(Suppl):1212–1217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Lee Johnson and Bruce Larson for assistance with modifications to the virtual reality system and Liang-Ching Tsai for figure development. The virtual reality system used in this study was provided by Innovative Sports Training, Inc. Funding for this research was provided in part through a Mary McMillan Doctoral Scholarship and a Promotion of Doctoral Studies II Scholarship from the Foundation for Physical Therapy and a grant from the California Physical Therapy Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Program in Physical Therapy, Department of Exercise Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

    Jill Campbell Stewart

  2. Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy at the Ostrow School of Dentistry, University of Southern California, 1540 Alcazar Street, CHP 155, Los Angeles, CA, 90089-9006, USA

    James Gordon & Carolee J. Winstein

  3. Department of Neurology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Carolee J. Winstein

Authors
  1. Jill Campbell Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James Gordon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carolee J. Winstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carolee J. Winstein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stewart, J.C., Gordon, J. & Winstein, C.J. Control of reach extent with the paretic and nonparetic arms after unilateral sensorimotor stroke II: planning and adjustments to control movement distance. Exp Brain Res 232, 3431–3443 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-4025-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-4025-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation