Recruitment and sequencing of different degrees of freedom during pointing movements involving the trunk in healthy and hemiparetic subjects

Abstract

 Previous studies have shown that in neurologically normal subjects the addition of trunk motion during a reaching task does not affect the trajectory of the arm endpoint. Typically, the trunk begins to move before the onset and continues to move after the offset of the arm endpoint displacement. This observation shows that the potential contribution of the trunk to the motion of the arm endpoint toward a target is neutralized by appropriate compensatory movements of the shoulder and elbow. We tested the hypothesis that cortical and subcortical brain lesions may disrupt the timing of trunk and arm endpoint motion in hemiparetic subjects. Eight hemiparetic and six age-matched healthy subjects were seated on a stool with the right (dominant) arm in front of them on a table. The tip of the index finger (the arm endpoint) was initially at a distance of 20 cm from the midline of the chest. Wrist, elbow, and upper body positions as well as the coordinates of the arm endpoint were recorded with a three-dimensional motion analysis system (Optotrak) by infrared light-emitting diodes placed on the tip of the finger, the styloid process of the ulna, the lateral epicondyle of the humerus, the acromion processes bilaterally, and the sternal notch. In response to a preparatory signal, subjects lifted their arm 1–2 cm above the table and in response to a ”go” signal moved their endpoint as fast as possible from a near to a far target located at a distance of 35 cm and at a 45° angle to the right or left of the sagittal midline of the trunk. After a pause (200– 500 ms) they moved the endpoint back to the near target. Pointing movements were made without trunk motion (control trials) or with a sagittal motion of the trunk produced by means of a hip flexion or extension (test trials). In one set of test trials, subjects were required to move the trunk forward while moving the arm to the target (”in-phase movements”). In the other set, subjects were required to move the trunk backward when the arm moved to the far target (”out-of-phase movements”). Compared with healthy subjects, movements in hemiparetic subjects were segmented, slower, and characterized by a greater variability and by deflection of the trajectory from a straight line. In addition, there was a moderate increase in the errors in movement direction and extent. These deficits were similar in magnitude whether or not the trunk was involved. Although hemiparetic subjects were able to compensate the influence of the trunk motion on the movement of the arm endpoint, they accomplished this by making more segmented movements than healthy subjects. In addition, they were unable to stabilize the sequence of trunk and arm endpoint movements in a set of trials. It is concluded that recruitment and sequencing of different degrees of freedom may be impaired in this population of patients. This inability may partly be responsible for other deficits observed in hemiparetic subjects, including an increase in movement segmentation and duration. The lack of stereotypic movement sequencing may imply that these subjects had deficits in learning associated with short-term memory.