|
Levin, M. F., Berman, S., Weiss, N., Parmet, Y., Banina, M. C., Frenkel-Toledo, S., et al. (2023). ENHANCE proof-of-concept three-arm randomized trial: effects of reaching training of the hemiparetic upper limb restricted to the spasticity-free elbow range (Vol. 13).
Abstract: Post-stroke motor recovery processes remain unknown. Timescales and patterns of upper-limb (UL) recovery suggest a major impact of biological factors, with modest contributions from rehabilitation. We assessed a novel impairment-based training motivated by motor control theory where reaching occurs within the spasticity-free elbow range. Patients with subacute stroke (</= 6 month; n = 46) and elbow flexor spasticity were randomly allocated to a 10-day UL training protocol, either personalized by restricting reaching to the spasticity-free elbow range defined by the tonic stretch reflex threshold (TSRT) or non-personalized (non-restricted) and with/without anodal transcranial direct current stimulation. Outcomes assessed before, after, and 1 month post-intervention were elbow flexor TSRT angle and reach-to-grasp arm kinematics (primary) and stretch reflex velocity sensitivity, clinical impairment, and activity (secondary). Results were analyzed for 3 groups as well as those of the effects of impairment-based training. Clinical measures improved in both groups. Spasticity-free range training resulted in faster and smoother reaches, smaller (i.e., better) arm-plane path length, and closer-to-normal shoulder/elbow movement patterns. Non-personalized training improved clinical scores without improving arm kinematics, suggesting that clinical measures do not account for movement quality. Impairment-based training within a spasticity-free elbow range is promising since it may improve clinical scores together with arm movement quality.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique Identifier: NCT02725853; Initial registration date: 01/04/2016.
|
|
|
Levin, M. F., Liebermann, D. G., Parmet, Y., & Berman, S. (2015). Compensatory Versus Noncompensatory Shoulder Movements Used for Reaching in Stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, .
Abstract: BACKGROUND: The extent to which the upper-limb flexor synergy constrains or compensates for arm motor impairment during reaching is controversial. This synergy can be quantified with a minimal marker set describing movements of the arm-plane. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether and how (a) upper-limb flexor synergy in patients with chronic stroke contributes to reaching movements to different arm workspace locations and (b) reaching deficits can be characterized by arm-plane motion. METHODS: Sixteen post-stroke and 8 healthy control subjects made unrestrained reaching movements to targets located in ipsilateral, central, and contralateral arm workspaces. Arm-plane, arm, and trunk motion, and their temporal and spatial linkages were analyzed. RESULTS: Individuals with moderate/severe stroke used greater arm-plane movement and compensatory trunk movement compared to those with mild stroke and control subjects. Arm-plane and trunk movements were more temporally coupled in stroke compared with controls. Reaching accuracy was related to different segment and joint combinations for each target and group: arm-plane movement in controls and mild stroke subjects, and trunk and elbow movements in moderate/severe stroke subjects. Arm-plane movement increased with time since stroke and when combined with trunk rotation, discriminated between different subject groups for reaching the central and contralateral targets. Trunk movement and arm-plane angle during target reaches predicted the subject group. CONCLUSIONS: The upper-limb flexor synergy was used adaptively for reaching accuracy by patients with mild, but not moderate/severe stroke. The flexor synergy, as parameterized by the amount of arm-plane motion, can be used by clinicians to identify levels of motor recovery in patients with stroke.
|
|
|
Liebermann, D. G. (2008). Biomechanical aspects of motor control in human landing. In R. Bartlett, & Y. Hong (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Biomechanics and Human Movement Science. Routledge Ltd.
|
|
|
Liebermann, D. G., Ben-David, J., Schweitzer, N., Apter, Y., & Parush, A. (1995). A field study of braking reactions during driving I: Triggering and modulation. Ergonomics, 38(9), 1894–1902.
Abstract: The present experiment was carried out to explore the response of driving subjects to emergency braking. The field trial consisted of driving behind a leading vehicle while the following drivers' responses were recorded by telemetry. A group of 51 individuals performed a series of trials at two driving speeds (60 and 80km/h), two following distances (6 and 12 m), and two braking conditions (real and dummy braking). Not all of these subjects completed all conditions or the minimum number of trials. The dependent variables were the total braking time (TBT) and its subcomponents: braking reaction time (BRT), and accelerator-to-brake movement time (MT). These data were analysed in three separate three-way ANOVAs with repeated measures on all factors. The results showed that when subjects were not aware of the forthcoming braking, the distance and braking conditions had major effects on all dependent variables. At the shorter following distance drivers reacted and moved faster. Similarly, when the brakes were real compared with dummy (i.e. brake lights only) drivers reacted faster. In addition, drivers reacted to onset of brake lights in 83% of the cases when dummy braking was applied, compared with 97% when real brakes were applied. Speed of driving did not show any significant effects and did not appear to influence the cognitive or attentional set to anticipate an emergency manoeuvre. These findings suggest that changes in angular velocity during optic expansion of the leading vehicle may be used as a cue to modulate braking movement, while onset of brake lights alone may be enough to trigger a ‘ballistic’ preventive response.
|
|
|
Liebermann, D. G., Berman, S., Weingarden H., Levin, M. F., & Weiss, P. L. (2009). Kinematic features of arm and trunk movements in stroke patients and age-matched healthy controls during reaching in virtual and physical environments. In Virtual Rehabilitation International Conference (pp. 179–184).
Abstract: Motor performance of stroke patients and healthy individuals was compared in terms of selected kinematic features of arm and trunk movements while subjects reached for visual targets in virtual (VR) and physical (PH) environments. In PH, the targets were placed at an extended arm distance, while in VR comparably placed virtual targets were presented via GestureTek's IREX system. Our goal was to obtain further insights into research methods related to VR-based rehabilitation. Eight right-hemiparetic stroke patients (age =46-87 years) and 8 healthy adults (age =51-73 years) completed 84 reaching movements in VR and PH environments while seated. The results showed that arm and trunk movements differed in the two environments in patients and to a lesser extent in healthy individuals. Arm motion of patients became jerkier in VR, with larger paths and longer movement durations, and presented greater arm torsion (i.e., larger elbow rotations around the hand-shoulder axis). Interestingly, patients also showed a significant reduction of compensatory trunk movements during VR reaching. The findings indicate that when targets were perceived to be beyond hand reach, stroke patients may be less able to estimate 3D virtual target locations obtained from the 2D TV planar displays. This was not the case for healthy participants.
|
|