Robotic Assessments of Proprioception and the Impact of Age

We examined different methods of robotic proprioception assessment and provided comparison with the wrist position sense test gold standard assessment. The aim is to determine which of the assessments are the most reliable and would be acceptable for clinical evaluation. 31 children between six and sixteen participated in a pilot assessment trial and completed all four of the assessments. The assessments included the manual and robotic versions of the wrist position sense test, the joint position matching assessment and the psychometric threshold determination assessment. There was not a significant difference between the manual and robotic wrist position sense tests but there were significant differences with the other assessments. The study also examined the effect of age on the different assessments and found that three of the assessments, excluding the joint position matching assessment, can differentiate between children of different ages. This study concludes that the significant differences between the assessments indicates that proprioception in the wrist is complex and multifaceted. Further studies will likely need to include multiple assessments to gain a more complete understanding of proprioception.

[1]  L. Carey,et al.  Does somatosensation change with age in children and adolescents? A systematic review. , 2016, Child: care, health and development.

[2]  M. García-Pérez,et al.  Sampling Plans for Fitting the Psychometric Function , 2005, The Spanish Journal of Psychology.

[3]  Assessing body sensations in children: Intra-rater reliability of assessment and effects of age , 2018, British Journal of Occupational Therapy.

[4]  Scott M. Lephart,et al.  Proprioception and neuromuscular control in joint stability , 2000 .

[5]  Daniel J Goble,et al.  Deficits in the ability to use proprioceptive feedback in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy , 2009, International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation.

[6]  J. Konczak,et al.  Robot-Aided Assessment of Wrist Proprioception , 2015, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[7]  Daniel J Goble,et al.  Development of upper limb proprioceptive accuracy in children and adolescents. , 2005, Human movement science.

[8]  Olivier Lambercy,et al.  Reliable and Rapid Robotic Assessment of Wrist Proprioception Using a Gauge Position Matching Paradigm , 2016, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[9]  V. Squeri,et al.  Proprioceptive assessment of the wrist joint across both joint degrees of freedom , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR).

[10]  L. Carey,et al.  Clinical acceptability of the sense_assess© kids: Children and youth perspectives , 2018, Australian occupational therapy journal.

[11]  E. Hagert,et al.  Proprioception of the wrist joint: a review of current concepts and possible implications on the rehabilitation of the wrist. , 2010, Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists.

[12]  M. García-Pérez,et al.  Forced-choice staircases with fixed step sizes: asymptotic and small-sample properties , 1998, Vision Research.

[13]  L. Carey,et al.  Impaired limb position sense after stroke: a quantitative test for clinical use. , 1996, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[14]  Leslie G. Portney Dpt PhD Fapta,et al.  Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice , 2015 .

[15]  Leeanne Carey,et al.  SENSe: Study of the Effectiveness of Neurorehabilitation on Sensation , 2011, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.