Comparison of range-of-motion and variability in upper body movements between transradial prosthesis users and able-bodied controls when executing goal-oriented tasks

Current upper limb prostheses do not replace the active degrees-of-freedom distal to the elbow inherent to intact physiology. Limited evidence suggests that transradial prosthesis users demonstrate shoulder and trunk movements to compensate for these missing volitional degrees-of-freedom. The purpos...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation 2014-09, Vol.11 (1), p.132-132
Hauptverfasser: Major, Matthew J, Stine, Rebecca L, Heckathorne, Craig W, Fatone, Stefania, Gard, Steven A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 132
container_issue 1
container_start_page 132
container_title Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
container_volume 11
creator Major, Matthew J
Stine, Rebecca L
Heckathorne, Craig W
Fatone, Stefania
Gard, Steven A
description Current upper limb prostheses do not replace the active degrees-of-freedom distal to the elbow inherent to intact physiology. Limited evidence suggests that transradial prosthesis users demonstrate shoulder and trunk movements to compensate for these missing volitional degrees-of-freedom. The purpose of this study was to enhance understanding of the effects of prosthesis use on motor performance by comparing the movement quality of upper body kinematics between transradial prosthesis users and able-bodied controls when executing goal-oriented tasks that reflect activities of daily living. Upper body kinematics were collected on six able-bodied controls and seven myoelectric transradial prosthesis users during execution of goal-oriented tasks. Range-of-motion, absolute kinematic variability (standard deviation), and kinematic repeatability (adjusted coefficient-of-multiple-determination) were quantified for trunk motion in three planes, shoulder flexion/extension, shoulder ab/adduction, and elbow flexion/extension across five trials per task. Linear mixed models analysis assessed between-group differences and correlation analysis evaluated association between prosthesis experience and kinematic repeatability. Across tasks, prosthesis users demonstrated increased trunk motion in all three planes and shoulder abduction compared to controls (p ≤ 0.004). Absolute kinematic variability was greater for prosthesis users for all degrees-of-freedom irrespective of task, but was significant only for degrees-of-freedom that demonstrated increased range-of-motion (p ≤ 0.003). For degrees-of-freedom that did not display increased absolute variability for prosthesis users, able-bodied kinematics were characterized by significantly greater repeatability (p ≤ 0.015). Prosthesis experience had a strong positive relationship with average kinematic repeatability (r = 0.790, p = 0.034). The use of shoulder and trunk movements by prosthesis users as compensatory motions to execute goal-oriented tasks demonstrates the flexibility and adaptability of the motor system. Increased variability in movement suggests that prosthesis users do not converge on a defined motor strategy to the same degree as able-bodied individuals. Kinematic repeatability may increase with prosthesis experience, or encourage continued device use, and future work is warranted to explore these relationships. As compensatory dynamics may be necessary to improve functionality of transradial prostheses, users ma
doi_str_mv 10.1186/1743-0003-11-132
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4164738</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A539682052</galeid><sourcerecordid>A539682052</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b650t-34d94d3f4858b785e27d7ed05e292b3992979c8c9e6472eca7ffd42d681627d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkk1v1DAQhiMEoqVw54QsceGSYjvOhy9I1YovqRKX3i0nnuy6JHawnW33D_E7mXTL0kVFQjlkNPPO49G8k2WvGT1nrKnes1oUOaW0yBnLWcGfZKeH1NMH8Un2IsZrDAQtxfPshJdM8lqI0-znyo-TDjZ6R3xPgnZryH2fjz5ZTGlnyBbLurWDTTtiHZmnCQJpvdmR0W9hBJciaSHdADiSEBCDNlYPZAo-pg1EG8kcIcQ7mG4HyLHZgiGddyn4IZKbDbbCLXRzsm5N1l4PuQ8WyahKOn6PL7NnvR4ivLr_n2VXnz5erb7kl98-f11dXOZtVdKUF8JIYYpeNGXT1k0JvDY1GIqB5G0hJZe17JpOQiVqDp2u-94IbqqGVSgtzrIPe-w0tyOYDicIelBTsKMOO-W1VccVZzdq7bdKMAQWDQJWe0Br_T8Ax5XOj2qxSS02KcYUuoiUd_djBP9jhpjUaGMHw6Ad-DkqVlZVwyXl8n-kTKLTlUDp27-k134ODtd5pyorzuv6j2qtB1DW9R7n7BaouigLie_Scpnw_BEVfgZGi75CbzF_1ED3DR1eRQzQH3bCqFpu-bEtvHloxqHh9_EWvwBQ0fHa</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1561562277</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of range-of-motion and variability in upper body movements between transradial prosthesis users and able-bodied controls when executing goal-oriented tasks</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><creator>Major, Matthew J ; Stine, Rebecca L ; Heckathorne, Craig W ; Fatone, Stefania ; Gard, Steven A</creator><creatorcontrib>Major, Matthew J ; Stine, Rebecca L ; Heckathorne, Craig W ; Fatone, Stefania ; Gard, Steven A</creatorcontrib><description>Current upper limb prostheses do not replace the active degrees-of-freedom distal to the elbow inherent to intact physiology. Limited evidence suggests that transradial prosthesis users demonstrate shoulder and trunk movements to compensate for these missing volitional degrees-of-freedom. The purpose of this study was to enhance understanding of the effects of prosthesis use on motor performance by comparing the movement quality of upper body kinematics between transradial prosthesis users and able-bodied controls when executing goal-oriented tasks that reflect activities of daily living. Upper body kinematics were collected on six able-bodied controls and seven myoelectric transradial prosthesis users during execution of goal-oriented tasks. Range-of-motion, absolute kinematic variability (standard deviation), and kinematic repeatability (adjusted coefficient-of-multiple-determination) were quantified for trunk motion in three planes, shoulder flexion/extension, shoulder ab/adduction, and elbow flexion/extension across five trials per task. Linear mixed models analysis assessed between-group differences and correlation analysis evaluated association between prosthesis experience and kinematic repeatability. Across tasks, prosthesis users demonstrated increased trunk motion in all three planes and shoulder abduction compared to controls (p ≤ 0.004). Absolute kinematic variability was greater for prosthesis users for all degrees-of-freedom irrespective of task, but was significant only for degrees-of-freedom that demonstrated increased range-of-motion (p ≤ 0.003). For degrees-of-freedom that did not display increased absolute variability for prosthesis users, able-bodied kinematics were characterized by significantly greater repeatability (p ≤ 0.015). Prosthesis experience had a strong positive relationship with average kinematic repeatability (r = 0.790, p = 0.034). The use of shoulder and trunk movements by prosthesis users as compensatory motions to execute goal-oriented tasks demonstrates the flexibility and adaptability of the motor system. Increased variability in movement suggests that prosthesis users do not converge on a defined motor strategy to the same degree as able-bodied individuals. Kinematic repeatability may increase with prosthesis experience, or encourage continued device use, and future work is warranted to explore these relationships. As compensatory dynamics may be necessary to improve functionality of transradial prostheses, users may benefit from dedicated training that encourages optimization of these dynamics to facilitate execution of daily living activity, and fosters adaptable but reliable motor strategies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1743-0003</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1743-0003</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-132</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25192744</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Activities of Daily Living ; Adult ; Artificial Limbs ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Comparative analysis ; Data processing ; Female ; Humans ; Implants, Artificial ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Motion control ; Movement - physiology ; Nervous system ; Physiological aspects ; Prostheses ; Prosthesis ; Range of Motion, Articular - physiology ; Studies ; Upper Extremity - physiology</subject><ispartof>Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2014-09, Vol.11 (1), p.132-132</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>2014 Major et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.</rights><rights>Major et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b650t-34d94d3f4858b785e27d7ed05e292b3992979c8c9e6472eca7ffd42d681627d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b650t-34d94d3f4858b785e27d7ed05e292b3992979c8c9e6472eca7ffd42d681627d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4164738/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4164738/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25192744$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Major, Matthew J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stine, Rebecca L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heckathorne, Craig W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fatone, Stefania</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gard, Steven A</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of range-of-motion and variability in upper body movements between transradial prosthesis users and able-bodied controls when executing goal-oriented tasks</title><title>Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation</title><addtitle>J Neuroeng Rehabil</addtitle><description>Current upper limb prostheses do not replace the active degrees-of-freedom distal to the elbow inherent to intact physiology. Limited evidence suggests that transradial prosthesis users demonstrate shoulder and trunk movements to compensate for these missing volitional degrees-of-freedom. The purpose of this study was to enhance understanding of the effects of prosthesis use on motor performance by comparing the movement quality of upper body kinematics between transradial prosthesis users and able-bodied controls when executing goal-oriented tasks that reflect activities of daily living. Upper body kinematics were collected on six able-bodied controls and seven myoelectric transradial prosthesis users during execution of goal-oriented tasks. Range-of-motion, absolute kinematic variability (standard deviation), and kinematic repeatability (adjusted coefficient-of-multiple-determination) were quantified for trunk motion in three planes, shoulder flexion/extension, shoulder ab/adduction, and elbow flexion/extension across five trials per task. Linear mixed models analysis assessed between-group differences and correlation analysis evaluated association between prosthesis experience and kinematic repeatability. Across tasks, prosthesis users demonstrated increased trunk motion in all three planes and shoulder abduction compared to controls (p ≤ 0.004). Absolute kinematic variability was greater for prosthesis users for all degrees-of-freedom irrespective of task, but was significant only for degrees-of-freedom that demonstrated increased range-of-motion (p ≤ 0.003). For degrees-of-freedom that did not display increased absolute variability for prosthesis users, able-bodied kinematics were characterized by significantly greater repeatability (p ≤ 0.015). Prosthesis experience had a strong positive relationship with average kinematic repeatability (r = 0.790, p = 0.034). The use of shoulder and trunk movements by prosthesis users as compensatory motions to execute goal-oriented tasks demonstrates the flexibility and adaptability of the motor system. Increased variability in movement suggests that prosthesis users do not converge on a defined motor strategy to the same degree as able-bodied individuals. Kinematic repeatability may increase with prosthesis experience, or encourage continued device use, and future work is warranted to explore these relationships. As compensatory dynamics may be necessary to improve functionality of transradial prostheses, users may benefit from dedicated training that encourages optimization of these dynamics to facilitate execution of daily living activity, and fosters adaptable but reliable motor strategies.</description><subject>Activities of Daily Living</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Artificial Limbs</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Data processing</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Implants, Artificial</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Motion control</subject><subject>Movement - physiology</subject><subject>Nervous system</subject><subject>Physiological aspects</subject><subject>Prostheses</subject><subject>Prosthesis</subject><subject>Range of Motion, Articular - physiology</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Upper Extremity - physiology</subject><issn>1743-0003</issn><issn>1743-0003</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkk1v1DAQhiMEoqVw54QsceGSYjvOhy9I1YovqRKX3i0nnuy6JHawnW33D_E7mXTL0kVFQjlkNPPO49G8k2WvGT1nrKnes1oUOaW0yBnLWcGfZKeH1NMH8Un2IsZrDAQtxfPshJdM8lqI0-znyo-TDjZ6R3xPgnZryH2fjz5ZTGlnyBbLurWDTTtiHZmnCQJpvdmR0W9hBJciaSHdADiSEBCDNlYPZAo-pg1EG8kcIcQ7mG4HyLHZgiGddyn4IZKbDbbCLXRzsm5N1l4PuQ8WyahKOn6PL7NnvR4ivLr_n2VXnz5erb7kl98-f11dXOZtVdKUF8JIYYpeNGXT1k0JvDY1GIqB5G0hJZe17JpOQiVqDp2u-94IbqqGVSgtzrIPe-w0tyOYDicIelBTsKMOO-W1VccVZzdq7bdKMAQWDQJWe0Br_T8Ax5XOj2qxSS02KcYUuoiUd_djBP9jhpjUaGMHw6Ad-DkqVlZVwyXl8n-kTKLTlUDp27-k134ODtd5pyorzuv6j2qtB1DW9R7n7BaouigLie_Scpnw_BEVfgZGi75CbzF_1ED3DR1eRQzQH3bCqFpu-bEtvHloxqHh9_EWvwBQ0fHa</recordid><startdate>20140906</startdate><enddate>20140906</enddate><creator>Major, Matthew J</creator><creator>Stine, Rebecca L</creator><creator>Heckathorne, Craig W</creator><creator>Fatone, Stefania</creator><creator>Gard, Steven A</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGLB</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140906</creationdate><title>Comparison of range-of-motion and variability in upper body movements between transradial prosthesis users and able-bodied controls when executing goal-oriented tasks</title><author>Major, Matthew J ; Stine, Rebecca L ; Heckathorne, Craig W ; Fatone, Stefania ; Gard, Steven A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b650t-34d94d3f4858b785e27d7ed05e292b3992979c8c9e6472eca7ffd42d681627d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Activities of Daily Living</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Artificial Limbs</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Data processing</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Implants, Artificial</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Motion control</topic><topic>Movement - physiology</topic><topic>Nervous system</topic><topic>Physiological aspects</topic><topic>Prostheses</topic><topic>Prosthesis</topic><topic>Range of Motion, Articular - physiology</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Upper Extremity - physiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Major, Matthew J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stine, Rebecca L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heckathorne, Craig W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fatone, Stefania</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gard, Steven A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health &amp; Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied &amp; Life Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Major, Matthew J</au><au>Stine, Rebecca L</au><au>Heckathorne, Craig W</au><au>Fatone, Stefania</au><au>Gard, Steven A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of range-of-motion and variability in upper body movements between transradial prosthesis users and able-bodied controls when executing goal-oriented tasks</atitle><jtitle>Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation</jtitle><addtitle>J Neuroeng Rehabil</addtitle><date>2014-09-06</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>132</spage><epage>132</epage><pages>132-132</pages><issn>1743-0003</issn><eissn>1743-0003</eissn><abstract>Current upper limb prostheses do not replace the active degrees-of-freedom distal to the elbow inherent to intact physiology. Limited evidence suggests that transradial prosthesis users demonstrate shoulder and trunk movements to compensate for these missing volitional degrees-of-freedom. The purpose of this study was to enhance understanding of the effects of prosthesis use on motor performance by comparing the movement quality of upper body kinematics between transradial prosthesis users and able-bodied controls when executing goal-oriented tasks that reflect activities of daily living. Upper body kinematics were collected on six able-bodied controls and seven myoelectric transradial prosthesis users during execution of goal-oriented tasks. Range-of-motion, absolute kinematic variability (standard deviation), and kinematic repeatability (adjusted coefficient-of-multiple-determination) were quantified for trunk motion in three planes, shoulder flexion/extension, shoulder ab/adduction, and elbow flexion/extension across five trials per task. Linear mixed models analysis assessed between-group differences and correlation analysis evaluated association between prosthesis experience and kinematic repeatability. Across tasks, prosthesis users demonstrated increased trunk motion in all three planes and shoulder abduction compared to controls (p ≤ 0.004). Absolute kinematic variability was greater for prosthesis users for all degrees-of-freedom irrespective of task, but was significant only for degrees-of-freedom that demonstrated increased range-of-motion (p ≤ 0.003). For degrees-of-freedom that did not display increased absolute variability for prosthesis users, able-bodied kinematics were characterized by significantly greater repeatability (p ≤ 0.015). Prosthesis experience had a strong positive relationship with average kinematic repeatability (r = 0.790, p = 0.034). The use of shoulder and trunk movements by prosthesis users as compensatory motions to execute goal-oriented tasks demonstrates the flexibility and adaptability of the motor system. Increased variability in movement suggests that prosthesis users do not converge on a defined motor strategy to the same degree as able-bodied individuals. Kinematic repeatability may increase with prosthesis experience, or encourage continued device use, and future work is warranted to explore these relationships. As compensatory dynamics may be necessary to improve functionality of transradial prostheses, users may benefit from dedicated training that encourages optimization of these dynamics to facilitate execution of daily living activity, and fosters adaptable but reliable motor strategies.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>25192744</pmid><doi>10.1186/1743-0003-11-132</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1743-0003
ispartof Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2014-09, Vol.11 (1), p.132-132
issn 1743-0003
1743-0003
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4164738
source MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PubMed Central; EZB Electronic Journals Library; PubMed Central Open Access; Springer Nature OA Free Journals
subjects Activities of Daily Living
Adult
Artificial Limbs
Biomechanical Phenomena
Comparative analysis
Data processing
Female
Humans
Implants, Artificial
Male
Middle Aged
Motion control
Movement - physiology
Nervous system
Physiological aspects
Prostheses
Prosthesis
Range of Motion, Articular - physiology
Studies
Upper Extremity - physiology
title Comparison of range-of-motion and variability in upper body movements between transradial prosthesis users and able-bodied controls when executing goal-oriented tasks
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-18T19%3A33%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20range-of-motion%20and%20variability%20in%20upper%20body%20movements%20between%20transradial%20prosthesis%20users%20and%20able-bodied%20controls%20when%20executing%20goal-oriented%20tasks&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20neuroengineering%20and%20rehabilitation&rft.au=Major,%20Matthew%20J&rft.date=2014-09-06&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=132&rft.epage=132&rft.pages=132-132&rft.issn=1743-0003&rft.eissn=1743-0003&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/1743-0003-11-132&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA539682052%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1561562277&rft_id=info:pmid/25192744&rft_galeid=A539682052&rfr_iscdi=true