Use of a physiological profile to document upper limb motor impairment in ageing and in neurological conditions.

Profiling performance in the physiological domains underpinning upper limb function (such as strength, sensation, coordination) provides insight into an individual's specific impairments. This compliments the traditional medical 'diagnosis' model that is currently used in contemporary medicine. From an initial battery of 13 tests in which data were collected across the adult lifespan (n = 367, 20-95 years) and in those with neurological conditions (specifically, multiple sclerosis (n = 40), Parkinson's disease (n = 34), and stroke (n = 50)), six tests were selected to comprise a core upper limb physiological profile assessment (PPA). This comprised measures of handgrip strength, simple reaction time, finger dexterity, tactile sensation, bimanual coordination, and a functional task. Individual performance in each of these tests can be compared to a reference population score (devised from our database of healthy individuals aged under 60 years), informing the researcher or clinician how to best direct an intervention or treatment for the individual based on their specific impairment(s). Lastly, a composite score calculated from the average performance across the six tests provides a broad overview of an individual's overall upper limb function. Collectively, the upper limb PPA highlights specific impairments that are prevalent within distinct pathologies and reveals the magnitude of upper limb motor impairment specific to each condition.

Quantifying upper-limb motor impairment in people with multiple sclerosis: A physiological profiling approach.

BACKGROUND: . Upper-limb sensory and motor impairments are common in people with multiple sclerosis (MS), yet the current gold standard criteria for documenting functional impairment largely focuses on mobility, balance and postural stability. OBJECTIVE: . We aimed to determine the validity of the upper-limb Physiological Profile Assessment (PPA) in people with MS by investigating whether the included domains of muscle strength, dexterity, arm stability, position sense, skin sensation and bimanual coordination 1) are sensitive in differentiating people with MS from healthy controls and 2) correlate with a validated measure of upper-limb function and a scale for quantifying disability in MS. METHODS: . In a cross-sectional study, 40 participants with MS and 80 healthy controls completed all 13 of the upper-limb PPA tests within a single session. RESULTS: . People with MS were impaired across all physiological domains tested. Performance in 4 of the 13 tests was correlated with a validated measure of self-reported upper-limb function (Pearson's r or Spearman's rho -0.333-0.441), whereas 3 tests were associated with the degree of MS-specific disability (Spearman's rho -0.318; 0.456). CONCLUSIONS: . The upper-limb PPA offers a valid and clinically suitable assessment of upper-limb function in people with MS. Clinicians should prioritize assessments of motor speed, fine motor control and functional tasks in their assessment of upper-limb function in people with MS because these domains are the most commonly and significantly impaired.

Quantifying upper limb motor impairment in chronic stroke: a physiological profiling approach.

Upper limb motor impairments, such as muscle weakness, loss of dexterous movement, and reduced sensation, are common after a stroke. The extent and severity of these impairments differ among individuals, depending on the anatomical location and size of lesions. Identifying impairments specific to the individual is critical to optimize their functional recovery. The upper limb Physiological Profile Assessment (PPA) provides quantitative measures of key physiological domains required for adequate function in the upper limbs. The present study investigates the use of the upper limb PPA in a chronic stroke population. Fifty participants with chronic stroke completed all tests of the upper limb PPA with both their affected and less affected upper limbs. Performance in each test was compared to that of 50 age- and sex-matched control subjects with no history of a stroke. Correlations between test performance and validated measures of stroke, sensorimotor function, and disability were examined. Compared with control subjects, people with stroke demonstrated substantially impaired upper limb PPA performance for both their affected and less affected limbs. Performance in the upper limb PPA was associated with validated measures of sensorimotor function specific to the stroke population (Fugl-Meyer Assessment) and stroke-related disability (Stroke Impact Scale). The upper limb PPA shows good concurrent validity as a means to quantify upper limb function in a chronic stroke population. These tests identify domain-specific deficits and could be further tailored to an individual patient by the clinician to inform rehabilitation and track recovery.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Upper limb motor impairment is a common manifestation after stroke, compromising independence in fundamental daily activities involving the ability to reach, grasp, and manipulate objects. The upper limb Physiological Profile Assessment (PPA) offers a means of quantifying performance of the individual sensorimotor domains that are essential for upper limb function. Establishing individual performance profiles based on age- and sex-based normative scores may facilitate individualized treatment decisions by identifying the stroke patient's specific strengths and limitations.

Quantifying upper limb motor impairment in people with Parkinson's disease: a physiological profiling approach.

BACKGROUND: Upper limb motor impairments, such as slowness of movement and difficulties executing sequential tasks, are common in people with Parkinson's disease (PD). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of the upper limb Physiological Profile Assessment (PPA) as a standard clinical assessment battery in people with PD, by determining whether the tests, which encompass muscle strength, dexterity, arm stability, position sense, skin sensation and bimanual coordination can (a) distinguish people with PD from healthy controls, (b) detect differences in upper limb test domains between "off" and "on" anti-Parkinson medication states and (c) correlate with a validated measure of upper limb function. METHODS: Thirty-four participants with PD and 68 healthy controls completed the upper limb PPA tests within a single session. RESULTS: People with PD exhibited impaired performance across most test domains. Based on validity, reliability and feasibility, six tests (handgrip strength, finger-press reaction time, 9-hole peg test, bimanual pole test, arm stability, and shirt buttoning) were identified as key tests for the assessment of upper limb function in people with PD. CONCLUSIONS: The upper limb PPA provides a valid, quick and simple means of quantifying specific upper limb impairments in people with PD. These findings indicate clinical assessments should prioritise tests of muscle strength, unilateral movement and dexterity, bimanual coordination, arm stability and functional tasks in people with PD as these domains are the most commonly and significantly impaired.

The upper limb Physiological Profile Assessment: Description, reliability, normative values and criterion validity.

A progressive decline in upper limb function is associated with ageing and disease. In this cross-sectional study we assessed the performance of 367 healthy individuals aged of 20 to 95 years across a battery of upper limb clinical tests, which we have termed the upper limb Physiological Profile Assessment (PPA). The upper limb PPA was designed to quantify the performance of the multiple physiological domains important for adequate function in the upper extremities. Included are tests of muscle strength, unilateral movement and dexterity, position sense, skin sensation, bimanual coordination, arm stability, along with a functional task. We report age and gender normative values for each test. Test-retest reliability ranged from good to excellent in all tests (intra-class correlation coefficients from 0.65 to 0.98) with the exception of position sense (0.31). Ten of the thirteen tests revealed differences in performance between males and females, twelve showed a decline in performance with increasing age, and eight discriminated between older people with and without upper limb functional impairment. Furthermore, most tests showed good external validity with respect to age, an upper limb functional test and self-reported function. This profiling approach provides a reference range for clinical groups with upper limb sensory and motor impairments and may assist in identifying undiagnosed deficits in the general population. Furthermore, the tests are sufficiently reliable to detect motor impairments in people with compromised upper limb function and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions.

Proprioceptive measurements of perceived hand position using pointing and verbal localisation tasks.

Previous studies revealed that healthy individuals consistently misjudge the size and shape of their hidden hand during a localisation task. Specifically, they overestimate the width of their hand and underestimate the length of their fingers. This would also imply that the same individuals misjudge the actual location of at least some parts of their hand during the task. Therefore, the primary aim of the current study was to determine whether healthy individuals could accurately locate the actual position of their hand when hidden from view, and whether accuracy depends on the type of localisation task used, the orientation of the hidden hand, and whether the left or right hand is tested. Sixteen healthy right-handed participants performed a hand localisation task that involved both pointing to and verbally indicating the perceived position of landmarks on their hidden hand. Hand position was consistently misjudged as closer to the wrist (proximal bias) and, to a lesser extent, away from the thumb (ulnar bias). The magnitude of these biases depended on the localisation task (pointing vs. verbal), the orientation of the hand (straight vs. rotated), and the hand tested (left vs. right). Furthermore, the proximal location bias increased in size as the duration of the experiment increased, while the magnitude of ulnar bias remained stable through the experiment. Finally, the resultant maps of perceived hand location appear to replicate the previously reported overestimation of hand width and underestimation of finger length. Once again, the magnitude of these distortions is dependent on the task, orientation, and hand tested. These findings underscore the need to control and standardise each component of the hand localisation task in future studies.

Comparison of cervical spine stiffness in individuals with chronic nonspecific neck pain and asymptomatic individuals.

STUDY DESIGN: Clinical measurement, cross-sectional. OBJECTIVE: To determine if spinal joint stiffness is different in individuals with nonspecific neck pain, and whether stiffness magnitude is associated with pain intensity and disability. BACKGROUND: Manual therapists commonly evaluate spinal joint stiffness in patients presenting with nonspecific neck pain. However, a relationship between stiffness and neck pain has not yet been demonstrated. METHODS: Spinal stiffness at C7 was objectively measured in participants with chronic nonspecific neck pain whose symptomatic spinal level was identified as C7 (n = 12) and in age- and sex-matched asymptomatic controls (n = 12). Stiffness (slope of the linear region of the force-displacement curve) was quantified using a device that applied 5 standardized mechanical force cycles to the C7 spinous process, while concurrently measuring displacement and resistance to movement. Stiffness was compared between groups using an independent t test. Spearman rho and Pearson r were used to determine the extent to which stiffness magnitude was associated with pain intensity (visual analog scale) and level of disability (Neck Disability Index), respectively, in the group with neck pain. RESULTS: Participants with nonspecific neck pain had greater spinal joint stiffness at C7 compared with asymptomatic individuals (mean difference, 1.78 N/mm; 95% confidence interval: 0.28, 3.27; P = .022). However, stiffness magnitude in the group with neck pain was not associated (P>.05) with pain intensity or level of disability. CONCLUSION: These preliminary results suggest that cervical spine stiffness may be greater in the presence of nonspecific neck pain. However, judgments regarding pain intensity and level of disability should not be inferred from examinations of spinal joint stiffness.