Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Head repositioning accuracy in patients with neck pain and asymptomatic subjects: concurrent validity, influence of motion speed, motion direction and target distance

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Cervicocephalic kinesthetic deficiencies have been demonstrated in patients with chronic neck pain (NP). On the other hand, authors emphasized the use of different motion speeds for assessing functional impairment of the cervical spine.

Purpose

The objectives of this study were (1) to investigate the head repositioning accuracy in NP patients and control subjects and (2) to assess the influence of target distance, motion speed, motion direction and pain.

Materials and methods

Seventy-one subjects (36 healthy subjects and 35 NP patients; age 30–55 years) performed the head repositioning test (HRT) at two different speeds for horizontal and vertical movements and at two different distances. For each condition, six consecutive trials were sampled.

Results

The study showed the validity and reproducibility of the HRT, confirming a dysfunctional threshold of 4.5°. Normative values of head repositioning error up to 3.6° and 7.1° were identified for healthy and NP subjects, respectively. A distance of 180 cm from the target and a natural motion speed increased HRT accuracy. Repositioning after extension movement showed a significantly larger error in both groups. Intensity, duration of pain as well as pain level did not significantly alter head repositioning error.

Conclusions

The assessment of proprioceptive performance in healthy and NP subjects allowed the validation of the HRT. The HRT is a simple, not expensive and fast test, easily implementable in daily practice to assess and monitor treatment and evolution of proprioceptive cervical deficits.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Taylor JL, McCloskey DI (1988) Proprioception in the neck. Exp Brain Res 70(2):351–360

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Armstrong B, McNair P, Taylor D (2008) Head and neck position sense. Sports medicine 38(2):101–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Humphreys BK (2008) Cervical outcome measures: testing for postural stability and balance. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 31(7):540–546. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.08.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Falla D, Bilenkij G, Jull G (2004) Patients with chronic neck pain demonstrate altered patterns of muscle activation during performance of a functional upper limb task. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(13):1436–1440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. O’Leary S, Jull G, Kim M, Vicenzino B (2007) Cranio-cervical flexor muscle impairment at maximal, moderate, and low loads is a feature of neck pain. Man Ther 12(1):34–39. doi:10.1016/j.math.2006.02.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Revel M, Andre-Deshays C, Minguet M (1991) Cervicocephalic kinesthetic sensibility in patients with cervical pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 72(5):288–291

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kristjansson E, Hardardottir L, Asmundardottir M, Gudmundsson K (2004) A new clinical test for cervicocephalic kinesthetic sensibility: “the fly”. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 85(3):490–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pinsault N, Fleury A, Virone G, Bouvier B, Vaillant J, Vuillerme N (2008) Test-retest reliability of cervicocephalic relocation test to neutral head position. Physiotherapy theory and practice 24(5):380–391. doi:10.1080/09593980701884824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Swait G, Rushton AB, Miall RC, Newell D (2007) Evaluation of cervical proprioceptive function: optimizing protocols and comparison between tests in normal subjects. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(24):E692–E701. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815a5a1b

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Palmgren PJ, Andreasson D, Eriksson M, Hagglund A (2009) Cervicocephalic kinesthetic sensibility and postural balance in patients with nontraumatic chronic neck pain—a pilot study. Chiropr Osteopat 17:6. doi:10.1186/1746-1340-17-6

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rix GD, Bagust J (2001) Cervicocephalic kinesthetic sensibility in patients with chronic, nontraumatic cervical spine pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 82(7):911–919. doi:10.1053/apmr.2001.23300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Revel M, Minguet M, Gregoy P, Vaillant J, Manuel JL (1994) Changes in cervicocephalic kinesthesia after a proprioceptive rehabilitation program in patients with neck pain: a randomized controlled study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75(8):895–899

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Berthoz A, Pavard B, Young LR (1975) Perception of linear horizontal self-motion induced by peripheral vision (linearvection) basic characteristics and visual-vestibular interactions. Exp Brain Res 23(5):471–489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Blouin J, Gauthier GM, van Donkelaar P, Vercher JL (1995) Encoding the position of a flashed visual target after passive body rotations. NeuroReport 6(8):1165–1168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hullar TE, Minor LB (1999) High-frequency dynamics of regularly discharging canal afferents provide a linear signal for angular vestibuloocular reflexes. J Neurophysiol 82(4):2000–2005

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wheeler AH, Goolkasian P, Baird AC, Darden BV 2nd (1999) Development of the Neck Pain and Disability Scale. Item analysis, face, and criterion-related validity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24(13):1290–1294

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jensen MP, Chen C, Brugger AM (2003) Interpretation of visual analog scale ratings and change scores: a reanalysis of two clinical trials of postoperative pain. J Pain 4(7):407–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Roren A, Mayoux-Benhamou MA, Fayad F, Poiraudeau S, Lantz D, Revel M (2009) Comparison of visual and ultrasound based techniques to measure head repositioning in healthy and neck-pain subjects. Man Ther 14(3):270–277. doi:10.1016/j.math.2008.03.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pinsault N, Vuillerme N, Pavan P (2008) Cervicocephalic relocation test to the neutral head position: assessment in bilateral labyrinthine-defective and chronic, nontraumatic neck pain patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89(12):2375–2378. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2008.06.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Teng CC, Chai H, Lai DM, Wang SF (2007) Cervicocephalic kinesthetic sensibility in young and middle-aged adults with or without a history of mild neck pain. Man Ther 12(1):22–28. doi:10.1016/j.math.2006.02.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee HY, Wang JD, Yao G, Wang SF (2008) Association between cervicocephalic kinesthetic sensibility and frequency of subclinical neck pain. Man Ther 13(5):419–425. doi:10.1016/j.math.2007.04.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brockett C, Warren N, Gregory JE, Morgan DL, Proske U (1997) A comparison of the effects of concentric versus eccentric exercise on force and position sense at the human elbow joint. Brain Res 771(2):251–258

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Grip H, Sundelin G, Gerdle B, Karlsson JS (2007) Variations in the axis of motion during head repositioning–a comparison of subjects with whiplash-associated disorders or non-specific neck pain and healthy controls. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 22(8):865–873. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.05.008

  25. Koho P, Orenius T, Kautiainen H, Haanpaa M, Pohjolainen T, Hurri H (2011) Association of fear of movement and leisure-time physical activity among patients with chronic pain. J Rehabil Med 43(9):794–799. doi:10.2340/16501977-0850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lindstroem R, Graven-Nielsen T, Falla D (2012) Current pain and fear of pain contribute to reduced maximum voluntary contraction of neck muscles in patients with chronic neck pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 93(11):2042–2048. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2012.04.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vernon H, Guerriero R, Kavanaugh S, Soave D, Puhl A (2013) Self-rated disability, fear-avoidance beliefs, nonorganic pain behaviors are important mediators of ranges of active motion in chronic whiplash patients. Disabil Rehabil 35(23):1954–1960. doi:10.3109/09638288.2013.768302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schmitt MA, van Meeteren NL, de Wijer A, van Genderen FR, van der Graaf Y, Helders PJ (2009) Patients with chronic whiplash-associated disorders: relationship between clinical and psychological factors and functional health status. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 88(3):231–238. doi:10.1097/PHM.0b013e318198b684

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Armstrong BS, McNair PJ, Williams M (2005) Head and neck position sense in whiplash patients and healthy individuals and the effect of the cranio-cervical flexion action. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 20(7):675–684. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.03.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Treleaven J, Takasaki H (2015) High variability of the subjective visual vertical test of vertical perception, in some people with neck pain—should this be a standard measure of cervical proprioception? Man Ther 20(1):183–188. doi:10.1016/j.math.2014.08.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Unit in Osteopathy, Faculty of Motor Sciences (FSM), Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium

    Pierre-Michel Dugailly, Roberta De Santis & Stéphane Sobczak

  2. Laboratory of Functional Anatomy, FSM, ULB, Brussels, Belgium

    Pierre-Michel Dugailly, Stéphane Sobczak, Anna Vigne & Véronique Feipel

  3. Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Erasmus Academic Hospital, Brussels, Belgium

    Mathieu Tits

  4. Department of Anatomy, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, UQTR, Trois-Rivières, QC, Canada

    Stéphane Sobczak

Authors
  1. Pierre-Michel Dugailly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roberta De Santis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mathieu Tits
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stéphane Sobczak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anna Vigne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Véronique Feipel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre-Michel Dugailly.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no personal or financial or institutional conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dugailly, PM., De Santis, R., Tits, M. et al. Head repositioning accuracy in patients with neck pain and asymptomatic subjects: concurrent validity, influence of motion speed, motion direction and target distance. Eur Spine J 24, 2885–2891 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4263-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4263-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation