Exercise intensity of the upper limb can be enhanced using a virtual rehabilitation system.

PURPOSE: Motor recovery of the upper limb (UL) is related to exercise intensity, defined as movement repetitions divided by minutes in active therapy, and task difficulty. However, the degree to which UL training in virtual reality (VR) applications deliver intense and challenging exercise and whether these factors are considered in different centres for people with different sensorimotor impairment levels is not evidenced. We determined if (1) a VR programme can deliver high UL exercise intensity in people with sub-acute stroke across different environments and (2) exercise intensity and difficulty differed among patients with different levels of UL sensorimotor impairment. METHODS: Participants with sub-acute stroke (<6 months) with Fugl-Meyer scores ranging from 14 to 57, completed 10 ∼ 50-min UL training sessions using three unilateral and one bilateral VR activity over 2 weeks in centres located in three countries. Training time, number of movement repetitions, and success rates were extracted from game activity logs. Exercise intensity was calculated for each participant, related to UL impairment, and compared between centres. RESULTS: Exercise intensity was high and was progressed similarly in all centres. Participants had most difficulty with bilateral and lateral reaching activities. Exercise intensity was not, while success rate of only one unilateral activity was related to UL severity. CONCLUSION: The level of intensity attained with this VR exercise programme was higher than that reported in current stroke therapy practice. Although progression through different activity levels was similar between centres, clearer guidelines for exercise progression should be provided by the VR application.Implications for rehabilitationVR rehabilitation systems can be used to deliver intensive exercise programmes.VR rehabilitation systems need to be designed with measurable progressions through difficulty levels.

Construct Validity of the Upper-Limb Interlimb Coordination Test in Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Coordination impairments are under-evaluated in patients with stroke due to the lack of validated assessments resulting in an unclear relationship between coordination deficits and functional limitations. OBJECTIVE: Determine the construct validity of the new clinical upper-limb (UL) Interlimb Coordination test (ILC2) in individuals with chronic stroke. METHODS: Thirteen individuals with stroke, ≥40 years, with ≥30° isolated supination of the more-affected (MAff) arm, who could understand instructions and 13 healthy controls of similar age participated in a cross-sectional study. Participants performed synchronous bilateral anti-phase forearm rotations for 10 seconds in 4 conditions: self-paced internally-paced (IP1), fast internally-paced (IP2), slow externally-paced (EP1), and fast externally-paced (EP2). Primary (continuous relative phase-CRP, cross-correlation, lag) and secondary outcome measures (UL and trunk kinematics) were compared between groups. RESULTS: Participants with stroke made slower UL movements than controls in all conditions, except EP1. Cross-correlation coefficients were lower (i.e., closer to 0) in stroke in IP1, but CRP and lag were similar between groups. In IP1 and matched-speed conditions (IP1 for healthy and IP2 for stroke), stroke participants used compensatory trunk and shoulder movements. The synchronicity sub-scale and total scores of ILC2 were related to temporal coordination in IP2. Interlimb Coordination test total score was related to greater shoulder rotation of the MAff arm. Interlimb Coordination test scores were not related to clinical scores. CONCLUSION: Interlimb Coordination test is a valid clinical measure that may be used to objectively assess UL interlimb coordination in individuals with chronic stroke. Further reliability testing is needed to determine the clinical utility of the scale.

Development of a Comprehensive Outcome Measure for Motor Coordination, Step 2: Reliability and Construct Validity in Chronic Stroke Patients.

BACKGROUND: A comprehensive scale assessing motor coordination of multiple body segments was developed using a 3-phase content validation process. The Comprehensive Coordination Scale (CCS) evaluates motor coordination defined as the ability to produce context-dependent movements of multiple effectors in both spatial and temporal domains. The scale assesses motor coordination in individuals with neurological injuries at 2 levels of movement description: the motor performance level describes end point movements (ie, hand, foot), and the movement quality level describes limb joints/trunk movements contributing to end point movement. OBJECTIVE: To determine measurement properties of the scale in people with chronic stroke. METHODS: Standardized approaches determined the internal consistency (factor loadings), intrarater and interrater reliability (interclass correlation coefficient), measurement error (SEM; minimal detectable change [MDC]), construct validity, and interpretability (ie, ceiling and floor effects) of the CCS. RESULTS: Data from 30 patients with chronic stroke were used for the analysis. The internal consistency of the scale was high (0.94), and the scale consisted of separate factors characterizing end point motor performance and movement quality. Intrarater (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97-0.97) and interrater (ICC=0.76-0.98) reliability of the whole scale and subscales were good to excellent. The CCS had an SEM of 1.80 points (total score = 69 points) and an MDC95 of 4.98 points. The CCS total score was related to Fugl-Meyer Assessment total and motor scores and had no ceiling or floor effects. CONCLUSIONS: The CCS scale has strong measurement properties and may be a useful measure of spatial and temporal coordination deficits in chronic stroke survivors.

Development of a Comprehensive Outcome Measure for Motor Coordination; Step 1: Three-Phase Content Validity Process.

BACKGROUND: Motor coordination, the ability to produce context-dependent organized movements in spatial and temporal domains, is impaired after neurological injuries. Outcome measures assessing coordination mostly quantify endpoint performance variables (ie, temporal qualities of whole arm movement) but not movement quality (ie, trunk and arm joint displacements). OBJECTIVE: To develop an outcome measure to assess coordination of multiple body segments at both endpoint trajectory and movement quality levels, based on observational kinematics, in adults with neurological injuries. METHODS: A 3-phase study was used to develop the Comprehensive Coordination Scale (CCS): instrument development, Delphi process, and focus group meeting. The CCS was constructed from common tests used in clinical practice and research. Rating scales for different behavioral elements were developed to guide analysis. For content validation, 8 experts (ie, neurological clinicians/researchers) answered questionnaires about relevance, comprehension, and feasibility of each test and rating scale. A focus group conducted with 6 of 8 experts obtained consensus on rating scale and instruction wording, and identified gaps. Three additional experts reviewed the revised CCS content to obtain a final version. RESULTS: Experts identified a gap regarding assessment of hand/finger coordination. The CCS final version is composed of 6 complementary tests of coordination: finger-to-nose, arm-trunk, finger, lower extremity, and 2- and 4-limb interlimb coordination. Constructs include spatial and temporal variables totaling 69 points. Higher scores indicate better performance. CONCLUSIONS: The CCS may be an important, understandable and feasible outcome measure to assess spatial and temporal coordination. CCS measurement properties are presented in the companion article.