Search

Regaining independent living can be challenging in patients undergoing inpatient geriatric rehabilitation. Given the paucity of evidence-based physiotherapy programs for this particular heterogeneous group, the Geriatric Activation Program Pellenberg (GAPP) was developed. Investigate the evolution of functional performance, and predict detectable changes throughout 4 weeks of GAPP. Methods: Participants in this observational study (2017–2019) followed GAPP as part of their rehabilitation program. Functional balance (Berg balance scale (BBS)) and independence (Katz scale) were the primary outcomes, with gait speed, elbow and knee extension strength, cognitive processing speed, and mood as secondary outcomes. All outcomes were assessed at baseline, 2 weeks and 4 weeks later. Prediction analysis was conducted using logistic regression modeling. Previously reported minimal detectable change with 95% confidence interval (MDC95) was used as detectable change. We recruited 111 participants, with 83 completing 4 weeks of GAPP and all assessments. Over 4 weeks, all outcome measures showed a significant improvement (p ≤.007). Detectable change was found for BBS (mean improvement of 12.8 points (95% CI: 10.9–14.8), MDC95 = 6.6) and gait speed (mean improvement of 0.24 m/s (95% CI: 0.19–0.29), MDC95 = 0.1 m/s). We found that baseline scores lower than 26 on the BBS (75% sensitivity, 65% specificity) and gait speed lower than 0.34 m/s (53% sensitivity, 81% specificity) were associated with participants achieving detectable change at 4 weeks on BBS and gait speed, respectively. Functional performance of a heterogeneous group of geriatric inpatients improved notably after 4 weeks of GAPP. Baseline scores on BBS and gait speed can partially predict detectable changes in functional performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Purpose Methods and materials Results Conclusions \nIMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION After stroke, upper limb somatosensation can be impaired which affects motor control. Vision is often used to compensate for this. A clinical assessment which assesses the combined sensorimotor function in the absence of vision would be beneficial in studies targeting sensorimotor improvement.We adapted the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) to be performed without vision and called this modified version the sensorimotor ARAT (sARAT). Sixty healthy participants and 22 participants with chronic stroke performed the ARAT, sARAT, Fugl-Meyer upper extremity assessment (FM-UE) and Erasmus modified Nottingham sensory assessment (EmNSA). Discriminative validity of sARAT was evaluated by comparing performance between healthy participants and participants with chronic stroke. Convergent validity was evaluated by correlating sARAT with FM-UE and EmNSA.Participants with stroke performed worse on the sARAT compared to healthy participants (p < 0.001), with median scores of 52 (IQR 32-57) and 57 (IQR 57-57), respectively. The sARAT showed high correlations with FM-UE and EmNSA (r = 0.80-0.90).The sARAT shows good discriminative and convergent validity in people with chronic stroke. It allows a quick assessment of the combined upper limb sensorimotor function, by performing the well-known ARAT with the eyes closed. The sensorimotor adaptation of the Action Research Arm Test (sARAT) is a clinical assessment of upper limb activity which is performed with the eyes closed. Combining the gold standard ARAT with the sensorimotor adaptation sARAT can inform about the influence of somatosensory impairments on upper limb activity in stroke survivors when vision is blocked. The sARAT shows good discriminative and convergent validity in persons with chronic stroke. The sensorimotor adaptation of the Action Research Arm Test (sARAT) is a clinical assessment of upper limb activity which is performed with the eyes closed.Combining the gold standard ARAT with the sensorimotor adaptation sARAT can inform about the influence of somatosensory impairments on upper limb activity in stroke survivors when vision is blocked.The sARAT shows good discriminative and convergent validity in persons with chronic stroke. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Upper limb sensory processing deficits are common in the chronic phase after stroke and are associated with decreased functional performance. Yet, current clinical assessments show suboptimal psychometric properties. Our aim was to develop and validate a novel robot-based assessment of sensory processing. We assessed 60 healthy participants and 20 participants with chronic stroke using existing clinical and robot-based assessments of sensorimotor function. In addition, sensory processing was evaluated with a new evaluation protocol, using a bimanual planar robot, through passive or active exploration, reproduction and identification of 15 geometrical shapes. The discriminative validity of this novel assessment was evaluated by comparing the performance between healthy participants and participants with stroke, and the convergent validity was evaluated by calculating the correlation coefficients with existing assessments for people with stroke. The results showed that participants with stroke showed a significantly worse sensory processing ability than healthy participants (passive condition: p = 0.028, Hedges' g = 0.58; active condition: p = 0.012, Hedges' g = 0.73), as shown by the less accurate reproduction and identification of shapes. The novel assessment showed moderate to high correlations with the tactile discrimination test: a sensitive clinical assessment of sensory processing (r = 0.52–0.71). We conclude that the novel robot-based sensory processing assessment shows good discriminant and convergent validity for use in participants with chronic stroke. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Somatosensory function plays an important role in motor learning. More than half of the stroke patients have somatosensory impairments in the upper limb, which could hamper recovery. Question: Is sensorimotor upper limb (UL) therapy of more benefit for motor and somatosensory outcome than motor therapy? Design: Randomized assessor- blinded multicenter controlled trial with block randomization stratified for neglect, severity of motor impairment, and type of stroke. Participants: 40 first-ever stroke patients with UL sensorimotor impairments admitted to the rehabilitation center. Intervention: Both groups received 16 h of additional therapy over 4 weeks consisting of sensorimotor (N = 22) or motor (N = 18) UL therapy. Outcome measures: Action Research Arm test (ARAT) as primary outcome, and other motor and somatosensory measures were assessed at baseline, post-intervention and after 4 weeks follow-up. Results: No significant between-group differences were found for change scores in ARAT or any somatosensory measure between the three time points. For UL impairment (Fugl-Meyer assessment), a significant greater improvement was found for the motor group compared to the sensorimotor group from baseline to post-intervention [mean (SD) improvement 14.65 (2.19) vs. 5.99 (2.06); p = 0.01] and from baseline to follow-up [17.38 (2.37) vs. 6.75 (2.29); p = 0.003]. Conclusion: UL motor therapy may improve motor impairment more than UL sensorimotor therapy in patients with sensorimotor impairments in the early rehabilitation phase post stroke. For these patients, integrated sensorimotor therapy may not improve somatosensory function and may be less effective for motor recovery. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03236376. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sensory processing consists in the integration and interpretation of somatosensory information. It builds upon proprioception but is a distinct function requiring complex processing by the brain over time. Currently little is known about the effect of aging on sensory processing ability or the influence of other covariates such as motor function, proprioception, or cognition. In this study, we measured upper limb passive and active sensory processing, motor function, proprioception, and cognition in 40 healthy younger adults and 54 older adults. We analyzed age differences across all measures and evaluated the influence of covariates on sensory processing through regression. Our results showed larger effect sizes for age differences in sensory processing ( r = 0.38) compared with motor function ( r = 0.18-0.22) and proprioception ( r = 0.10-0.27) but smaller than for cognition ( r = 0.56-0.63). Aside from age, we found no evidence that sensory processing performance was related to motor function or proprioception, but active sensory processing was related to cognition (β = 0.30-0.42). In conclusion, sensory processing showed an age-related decline, whereas some proprioceptive and motor abilities were preserved across age. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Sensory processing consists in the integration and interpretation of sensory information by the brain over time and can be affected by lesion while proprioception remains intact. We investigated how sensory processing can be used to reproduce and identify shapes. We showed that the effect of age on sensory processing is more pronounced than its effect on proprioception or motor function. Age and cognition are related to sensory processing, not proprioception or motor function.

Somatosensory function plays an important role for upper limb motor learning. However, knowledge about underlying mechanisms of sensorimotor therapy is lacking. We aim to investigate differences in therapy-induced resting-state functional connectivity changes between additional sensorimotor compared with motor therapy in the early-phase post stroke. Thirty first-stroke patients with a sensorimotor impairment were included for an assessor-blinded multi-centre randomized controlled trial within 8 weeks post stroke [13 (43%) females; mean age: 67 ± 13 years; mean time post stroke: 43 ± 13 days]. Patients were randomly assigned to additional sensorimotor ( n  = 18) or motor ( n  = 12) therapy, receiving 16 h of additional therapy within 4 weeks. Sensorimotor evaluations and resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging were performed at baseline (T1), post-intervention (T2) and after 4 weeks follow-up (T3). Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging was also performed in an age-matched healthy control group ( n  = 19) to identify patterns of aberrant connectivity in stroke patients between hemispheres, or within ipsilesional and contralesional hemispheres. Mixed model analysis investigated session and treatment effects between stroke therapy groups. Non-parametric partial correlations were used to investigate brain-behaviour associations with age and frame-wise displacement as nuisance regressors. Connections within the contralesional hemisphere that showed hypo-connectivity in subacute stroke patients (compared with healthy controls) showed a trend towards a more pronounced pre-to-post normalization (less hypo-connectivity) in the motor therapy group, compared with the sensorimotor therapy group (mean estimated difference = -0.155 ± 0.061; P  = 0.02). Further, the motor therapy group also tended to show a further pre-to-post increase in functional connectivity strength among connections that already showed hyper-connectivity in the stroke patients at baseline versus healthy controls (mean estimated difference = -0.144 ± 0.072; P  = 0.06). Notably, these observed increases in hyper-connectivity of the contralesional hemisphere were positively associated with improvements in functional activity ( r  = 0.48), providing indications that these patterns of hyper-connectivity are compensatory in nature. The sensorimotor and motor therapy group showed no significant differences in terms of pre-to-post changes in inter-hemispheric connectivity or ipsilesional intrahemispheric connectivity. While effects are only tentative within this preliminary sample, results suggest a possible stronger normalization of hypo-connectivity and a stronger pre-to-post increase in compensatory hyper-connectivity of the contralesional hemisphere after motor therapy compared with sensorimotor therapy. Future studies with larger patient samples are however recommended to confirm these trend-based preliminary findings., (© The Author(s) (2021). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain.)