Issue 5-99, 2020

Original article

https://doi.org/10.38025/2078-1962-2020-99-5-79-87

Objective Evaluation of Proprioceptive Perception of Single-Joint Arm Movements in Patients with Hemiparesis of Central Genesis

View article (Download PDF file)



Download XML file

1,2 ORCIDPavlova O.G., 1,2,3 ORCIDRoschin V.Yu., 4,5 ORCIDSidorova M.V., 6,7 ORCIDSelionov V.A., 8 ORCIDNikolaev E.A., 8 ORCIDKhatkova S.E., 4,5 ORCIDIvanova G.E.

1 Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation
2 NeuroBioLab LLC, Moscow, Russian Federation
3 Institute of Biomedical Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation
4 Federal Center for Brain and Neurotechnology of the Russian Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russian Federation
5 Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation
6 Institute for Information Transmission Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation
7 Central Clinical Hospital of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation
8 National Medical Research Center «Treatment and Rehabilitation Center», Moscow, Russian Federation


ABSTRACT

Aim. Objective evaluation of proprioceptive perception of paretic arm single-joint movements in patients with unilateral brain damage using the method developed by us.

Material and methods. Proprioceptive perception of pronation-supination of the forearm, flexion-extension in the shoulder, elbow and wrist joints and abduction-adduction in the shoulder and wrist joints was tested in 23 patients with right-sided and 17 patients with left-sided brain damage. The patient with his eyes closed was made to perform a series of passive cyclical test movements, during which he had to copy them with active movements of the other arm. Joint angles were recorded in the test joint and the same joint of the other arm. The integrity of proprioceptive sensitivity was judged by the degree of similarity between “active” and “passive” movements estimated by means of objective qualitative and quantitative indicators.

Results. Proprioceptive deficiency was detected in 83% of patients with lesion in the right and in 71% of patients with lesion in the left hemisphere, while the proportion of test movements that revealed a violation of proprioceptive perception was 1.4 times higher in the right-hemisphere patients than in the left-hemisphere patients. A significant part of proprioceptive impairments, – 80% when testing movements of more distal and 29% – proximal segments of the arm, was detected by the presence of qualitative copying errors.

Conclusion. The method used made it possible to identify proprioceptive deficits in more than half of patients with damage to both the right and left hemispheres. Proprioceptive perception of the distal arm segment movements suffered more often and was more pronounced than the proximal one. A significant part of distal segment proprioception disorders manifested themselves in the form of gross qualitative copying errors, which can be detected visually during testing, even without the use of recording equipment.



KEYWORDS: proprioception, single-joint movements, unilateral brain lesion, hemiparesis, rehabilitation

FOR CITATION: Pavlova O.G., Roschin V.Y., Sidorova M.V., Selionov V.A., Nikolaev E.A., Khatkova S.E., Ivanova G.E. Objective Evaluation of Proprioceptive Perception of Single-joint Arm Movements in Patients with Hemiparesis of Central Genesis. Bulletin of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2020; 5 (99): 79-87. https://doi.org/10.38025/2078-1962-2020-99-5-79-87


References:

  1. Tuthill J. C., Azim E. Proprioception. Current Biology. 2018; (28): 194-203.
  2. Kozlovskaya I. B. Afferentnyi kontrol’ proizvol’nykh dvizhenii [Afferent Control of Voluntary Movements]. Moscow. Nauka. 1976: 295 p. (In Russ.).
  3. Ostry D. J., Gribble P. L. Sensory plasticity in human motor learning. Trends in Neurosciences. 2016; 39 (2): 114-123. DOI:10.1016/j.tins.2015.12.006
  4. Meyer S., Karttunen A. H., Thijs V., Feys H., Verheyden G. How do somatosensory deficits in the arm and hand relate to upper limb impairment, activity, and participation problems after stroke? A systematic review. Physical Therapy. 2014; 94 (9): 1220-1231. DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20130271
  5. Schabrun S. M., Hillier S. Evidence for the retraining of sensation after stroke: a systematic review. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2009; (23): 27-39. DOI:10.1177/0269215508098897
  6. Coupar F., Pollock A., Rowe P., Weir C., Langhorne P. Predictors of upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2012; (26): 291-313. DOI:10.1177/0269215511420305cre.sagepub.com
  7. Hillier S., Immink M., Thewlis D. Assessing Proprioception: A Systematic Review of Possibilities. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 2015; 29 (10): 933949. DOI:10.1177/1545968315573055nnr.sagepub.com
  8. Han J., Waddington G., Adams R., Anson J., Liu Y. Assessing proprioception: A critical review of methods. Journal of Sport and Health Science. 2016; (5): 80-90.
  9. Semrau J. A., Herter T. M., Scott S. H., Dukelow S. P. Robotic identification of kinesthetic deficits after stroke. Stroke. 2013; (44): 3414-3421. DOI:10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.002058
  10. Semrau J. A., Wang J. C., Herter T. M., Scott S., Dukelow S. P. Relationship between visuospatial neglect and kinesthetic deficits after stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 2015; 29 (4): 318-328. DOI:10.1177/1545968314545173
  11. Semrau J. A., Herter T. M., Scott S. H., Dukelow S. P. Inter-rater reliability of kinesthetic measurements with the KINARM robotic exoskeleton. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 2017; (14): 42-50. DOI:10.1186/s12984-017-0260-z
  12. Pavlova O. G., Roschin V. Y., Sidorova M. V., Selionov V. A., Kulikov M. A., Staritsyn A. N. Method for qualitative and quantitative assessment of proprioceptive perception of single-joint arm movements. Human Physiology. 2018; 44 (4): 445-455. DOI:10.1134/S0362119718040126
  13. Oldfield, R. C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971; 9 (1): 97-113. DOI:10.1016/0028-3932 (71)90067-4
  14. Gregson J. M., Leathley M. J., Moore A. P., Smith T. L., Sharma A. K., Watkins C. L. Reliability of measurements of muscle tone and muscle power in stroke patients. Age and Aging. 2000; (29): 223-228. DOI:10.1093/ageing/29.3.223
  15. Fugl-Meyer A. R., Jaasko L., Leyman I., Olsson S., Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 1975; (7): 13-31.
  16. Roschin V. Y., Pavlova O. G., Selionov V. A., Solopova I. A., Zhvansky D. S., Staroverova O. N., Khat’kova S. E. Comparison of Objective Indicators of Proprioception of Single-Joint Arm Movements in Healthy Subjects and Post-Stroke Patients in Sitting and Lying Positions. Human Physiology. 2019; 45 (4): 397-404. DOI:10.1134/S0362119719040133
  17. Connell L. A. Somatosensory impairment after stroke: frequency of different deficits and their recovery. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2008; (22): 758-767. DOI:10.1177/0269215508090674
  18. Naito E., Morita T., Amemiya K. Body representations in the human brain revealed by kinesthetic illusions and their essential contributions to motor control and corporeal awareness. Neuroscience Research. 2016; (104): 16-30.
  19. Taylor J. Evolution and Dissolution of the Nervous System. Selected Writings of John Hughlings Jackson. NY. Basic Books Inc. 1958; (22): 45-55.
  20. Findlater S. E., Hawe R. L., Semrau J. A., Kenzie J. M., Yu A. Y., Scott S. H., Dukelow S. P. Lesion locations associated with persistent proprioceptive impairment in the upper limbs after stroke. NeuroImage: Clinical. 2018; (20): 955-971. DOI:10.1016/j.nicl.2018.10.003



Creative Commons License
The content is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

©


This is an open article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by the National Medical Research Center for Rehabilitation and Balneology.