Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 188, Issue 4, pp 589–601 | Cite as

Trans-radial upper extremity amputees are capable of adapting to a novel dynamic environment

  • Christopher N. Schabowsky
  • Alexander W. Dromerick
  • Rahsaan J. Holley
  • Brian Monroe
  • Peter S. Lum
Research Article

Abstract

This study investigated differences in adaptation to a novel dynamic environment between eight trans-radial upper extremity (UE) prosthetic users and eight naive, neurologically intact subjects. Participants held onto the handle of a robotic manipulandum and executed reaching movements within a horizontal plane following a pseudo-random sequence of targets. Curl field perturbations were imposed by the robot motors, and we compared the rate and quality of adaptation between the prosthetic and control subjects. Adaptation was quantitatively assessed by peak error, defined as the maximum orthogonal distance between an observed trajectory and an ideal straight trajectory. Initial exposure to the curl field resulted in large errors, and as the subjects adapted to the novel environment, the errors decreased. During the early phase of adaptation, group differences in the rate of motor adaptation were not significant. However, during late learning, both error magnitude and variability were larger in the prosthetic group. The quality of adaptation, as indicated by the magnitude of the aftereffects, was similar between groups. We conclude that in persons with trans-radial arm amputation, motor adaptation to curl fields during reaching is similar to unimpaired individuals. These findings are discussed in relation to mechanisms of motor adaptation, neural plasticity following an upper extremity amputation (UEA), and potential motor recovery therapies for prosthetic users.

References

  1. Adamovich SV, Berkinblit MB, Hening W, Sage J, Poizner H (2001) The interaction of visual and proprioceptive inputs in pointing to actual and remembered targets in Parkinson’s disease. Neuroscience 104(4):1027–1041PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brashers-Krug T, Shadmehr R, Bizzi E (1996) Consolidation in human motor memory. Nature 382:252–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burdet E, Franklin DW, Osu R, Tee KP, Kawato M, and Milner TE (2004) How are internal models of unstable tasks formed? EMBC 2004 Conference Proceedings 4491–4494Google Scholar
  4. Caithness G, Osu R, Chase H, Klassen J, Kawato M, Wolpert DM, Flanagan JR (2004) Failure to consolidate the consolidation theory of learning for sensorimotor adaptation tasks. J Neurosci 24(40):8662–8671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cirstea MC, Levin MF (2000) Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain 123(Pt 5):940–953PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark BC, Pierce JR, Manini TM, Ploutz-Snyder LL (2007) Effect of prolonged unweighting of human skeletal muscle on neuromotor force control. Eur J Appl Physiol 100(1):53–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen LG, Bandinelli S, Findley TW, Hallett M (1991) Motor reorganization after upper limb amputation in man. A study with focal magnetic stimulation. Brain 114:615–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conditt MA, Gandolfo F, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1997) The motor system does not learn the dynamics of the arm by rote memorization of past experience. J Neurophysiol 74:2174–2178Google Scholar
  9. Della-Maggiore V, Malfait N, Ostry DJ, Paus T (2004) Stimulation of the posterior parietal cortex interferes with arm trajectory adjustments during the learning of new dynamics. J Neurosci 24(44):9971–9976PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE, MacKenzie EJ (1998) Incidence, acute care length of stay, and discharge to rehabilitation of traumatic amputee patients: an epidemiologic study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 79(3):279–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dromerick AW, Lum PS, Hidler J (2006) Activity-based therapies. NeuroRx 3(4):428–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dudkiewicz I, Gabrielov R, Seiv-Ner I, Zelig G, Heim M (2004) Evaluation of prosthetic usage in upper limb amputees. Disabil Rehabil 26:60–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duff SV, Sainburg RL (2007) Lateralization of motor adaptation reveals independence in control of trajectory and steady-state position. Exp Brain Res 179(4):551–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Enoka RM, Christou EA, Hunter SK, Kornatz KW, Semmler JG, Taylor AM, Tracy BL (2003) Mechanisms that contribute to differences in motor performance between young and old adults. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 13(1):1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Esquenazi A (2004) Amputation rehabilitation and prosthetic restoration. From surgery to community reintegration. Disabil Rehabil 26(14–15):831–836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flor H, Elbert T, Knecht S, Wienbruch C, Pantev C, Larbig W (1995) Phantom limb pain as a perceptual correlate of massive cortical reorganization in upper extremity amputees. Nature 375:482–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flor H, Mühlnickel W, Karl A, Denke C, Grüsser S, Kurth R, Taub E (2000) A neural substrate for nonpainful phantom limb phenomena. Neuroreport 11(7):1407–1411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Flor H, Nikolajsen L, Staehelin Jensen T (2006) Phantom limb pain: a case of maladaptive CNS plasticity? Nat Rev Neurosci 7(11):873–881PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flanagan JR, Wing AM (1997) The role of internal models in motor planning and control: evidence from grip force adjustments during movements of handheld loads. J Neurosci 17:1519–1528Google Scholar
  20. Franklin DW, Osu R, Burdet E, Kawato M, Milner TE (2003) Adaptation to stable and unstable dynamics achieved by combined impedance control and inverse dynamics model. J Neurophysiol 90:3270–3282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gribble PL, Ostry DJ (1999) Compensation for interaction torques during single- and multijoint limb movement. J Neurophysiol 82(5):2310–2326PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Grüsser S, Mühlnickel W, Denke C, Karl A, Flor H (2001) The relationship of phantom phenomena and cortical reorganization. Neuroscience 102:263–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall EJ, Flament D, Fraser C, Lemon RN (1990) Non-invasive brain stimulation reveals reorganized cortical outputs in amputees. Neurosci Lett 116:379–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hill SW, Patla AE, Ishac MG, Adkin AL, Supan TJ, Barth DG (1999) Altered kinetic strategy for the control of swing limb elevation over obstacles in unilateral below-knee amputee gait. J Biomech 32(5):545–549PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hidler J, Nichols D, Pelliccio M, Brady K (2005) Advances in the understanding and treatment of stroke impairment using robotic devices. Top Stroke Rehabil 12(2):22–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Irlbacher K, Meyer BU, Voss M, Brandt S, Röricht S (2002) Spatial reorganization of cortical motor output maps of stump muscles in human upper-limb amputees. Neurosci Lett 321:129–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karl A, Birbaumer N, Lutzenberger W, Cohen LG, Flor H (2001) Reorganization of motor and somatosensory cortex in upper extremity amputees with phantom limb pain. J Neurosci 21(10):3609–3618PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Krebs HI, Volpe BT, Ferraro M, Fasoli S, Palazzolo J, Rohrer B, Edelstein L, Hogan N (2002) Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: from evidence-based to science-based rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil 8(4):54–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lackner JR, Dizio P (1994) Rapid adaptation to Coriolis force perturbations of arm trajectory. J Neurophysiol 72:299–313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC, Majmundar M, Van der Loos M (2002) Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83(7):952–959PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lum PS, Burgar CG, Van der Loos M, Shor PC, Majmundar M, Yap R (2006) MIME robotic device for upper-limb neurorehabilitation in subacute stroke subjects: a follow-up study. J Rehabil Res Dev 43(5):631–642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Madeleine P, Mathiassen SE, Arendt-Nielsen L (2007) Changes in the degree of motor variability associated with experimental and chronic neck-shoulder pain during a standardised repetitive arm movement. Exp Brain Res [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  33. Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Kashman N, Volland G (1985) Adult norms for the Nine Hole Peg Test of finger dexterity. Am J Occup Ther 5(1):24–37Google Scholar
  34. McCarthy ML, Ewashko T, MacKenzie EJ (1998) Determinants of use of outpatient rehabilitation services following upper extremity injury. J Hand Ther 11(1):32–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. McNaughton S, Timmann D, Watts S, Hore J (2004) Overarm throwing speed in cerebellar subjects: effect of timing of ball release. Exp Brain Res 154:470–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meimoun Y, Mizrahi J (2000) Biomechanical simulation of an amputated forearm with and without a prosthesis. Proc Inst Mech Eng (H) 214(3):287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Melendez D, LeBlanc M (1988) Survey of arm amputees not wearing prostheses: implications for research and service. J Assoc Child Prosthet Orthot Clin 23:62Google Scholar
  38. Millstein SG, Heger H, Hunter GA (1986) Prosthetic use in adult upper limb amputees: a comparison of the body powered and electrically powered prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int 10(1):27–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Milner TE, Franklin DW (2005) Impedance control and internal model use during the initial stage of adaptation to novel dynamics. J Physiol 567:651–664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Milner TE, Hinder MR (2006) Position information but not force information is used in adapting to changes in environmental dynamics. J Neurophysiol 96(2):526–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nielsen CC (1991) A survey of amputees: functional level and life satisfaction, information needs, and the prosthetist’s role. J Prosthet Orthot 3:125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nielsen CC, Psonak RA, Kalter TL (1989) Factors affecting the use of prosthetic services. J Prosthet Orthot 1:242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oxford Grice K, Vogel KA, Le V, Mitchell A, Muniz S, Vollmer MA (2003) Adult norms for a commercially available Nine Hole Peg Test for finger dexterity. Am J Occup Ther 57:570–573PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pasquina PF, Bryant PR, Huang ME, Roberts TL, Nelson VS, Flood KM (2006) Advances in amputee care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87((3 Suppl 1)):S34–S43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Patton JL, Stoykov ME, Kovic M, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2006) Evaluation of robotic training forces that either enhance or reduce error in chronic hemiparetic stroke survivors. Exp Brain Res 168:368–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pezzin LE, Dillingham TR, MacKenzie EJ (2000) Rehabilitation and the long-term outcomes of persons with trauma-related amputations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81(3):292–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Richardson AM, Overduin SA, Valero-Cabré A, Padoa-Schioppa C, Pascual-Leone A, Bizzi E, Press DZ (2006) Disruption of primary motor cortex before learning impairs memory of movement dynamics J Neurosci 26(48):12466–12470Google Scholar
  48. Roricht S, Meyer BU, Niehaus L, Brandt SA (1999) Long-term reorganization of motor cortex outputs after arm amputation. Neurology 53:106–111PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Sainburg RL, Ghez C, Kalakanis D (1999) Intersegmental dynamics are controlled by sequential anticipatory, error correction, and positional control mechanisms. J Neurophysiol 81:1045–1056PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Sanger TD (2006) Arm trajectories in dyskinetic cerebral palsy have increased random variability. J Child Neurol 21(7):551–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schabowsky CN, Hidler JM, Lum PS (2007) Greater reliance on impedance control in the nondominant arm compared with the dominant arm when adapting to a novel dynamic environment. Exp Brain Res 182(4):567–577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1994) Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J Neurosci 14:3208–3224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Scheidt RA, Stoeckmann T (2007) Reach adaptation and final position control amid environmental uncertainty following stroke. J Neurophysiol [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  54. Scheidt RA, Reinkensmeyer DJ, Conditt MA, Rymer WZ, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2000) Persistence of motor adaptation during constrained, multi-joint arm movements. J Neurophysiol 84(2):853–862PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Scheidt RA, Dingwell J, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2001) Learning to move amid uncertainty. J Neurophysiol 86:971–985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Shadmehr R, Brashers-Krug T (1997) Functional stages in the formation of human long-term motor memory. J Neurosci 17:409–419PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith MA, Shadmehr R (2005) Intact ability to learn internal models of arm dynamics in Huntington’s disease but not cerebellar degeneration. J Neurophysiol 93:2809–2821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Soede M (1982) Mental control load and acceptance of arm prosthesis. Automedica 4:183–191Google Scholar
  59. Takahashi C, Reinkensmeyer D (2003) Hemiparetic stroke impairs anticipatory control of arm movement. Exp Brain Res 149:131–140PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Thoroughman KA, Shadmehr R (2000) Learning of action through adaptive combination of motor primitives. Nature 407:742–746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Verbessem P, Op’t Eijnde B, Swinnen SP, Vangheluwe S, Hespel P, Dom R (2002) Unimanual and bimanual voluntary movement in Huntington’s disease. Exp Brain Res 147(4):529–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wall PD, Gutnick M (1974) Ongoing activity in peripheral nerves: the physiology and pharmacology of impulses originating from a neuroma. Exp Neurol 43:580–593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang J, Sainburg RL (2007) The dominant and nondominant arms are specialized for stabilizing different features of task performance. Exp Brain Res 178(4):565–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weinstein S (1968) Intensive and extensive aspects of tactile sensitivity as a function of body part, sex, and laterality. In: Kenshalo DR (ed) The Skin Senses. Thomas, Springfield, pp 195–222Google Scholar
  65. Winter DA (1990) Biomechanics and motor control of human movement, 2nd edn. Wiley, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  66. Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP, Taub E, Uswatte G, Morris D, Giuliani C, Light KE, Nichols-Larsen D (2006) Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 296(17):2095–2104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wright TW, Hagen AD, Wood MB (1995) Prosthetic usage in major upper extremity amputations. J Hand Surg (Am) 20(4):619–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wu CY, Chen CL, Tsai WC, Lin KC, Chou SH (2007) A randomized controlled trial of modified constraint-induced movement therapy for elderly stroke survivors: changes in motor impairment, daily functioning, and quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 88(3):273–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yoshitake Y, Kouzaki M, Fukuoka H, Fukunaga T, Shinohara M (2007) Modulation of muscle activity and force fluctuations in the plantarflexors after bedrest depends on knee position. Muscle Nerve 35(6):745–755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher N. Schabowsky
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alexander W. Dromerick
    • 3
  • Rahsaan J. Holley
    • 4
  • Brian Monroe
    • 5
  • Peter S. Lum
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Applied Biomechanics and Rehabilitation Research (CABRR)National Rehabilitation HospitalWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringThe Catholic University of AmericaWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Rehabilitation Medicine and NeurologyGeorgetown University School of MedicineWashingtonUSA
  4. 4.Inpatient Occupational TherapyNational Rehabilitation HospitalWashingtonUSA
  5. 5.District Amputee CareWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations