Quantifying Arm Nonuse in Individuals Poststroke

Background. Arm nonuse, defined as the difference between what the individual can do when constrained to use the paretic arm and what the individual does when given a free choice to use either arm, has not yet been quantified in individuals poststroke. Objectives. (1) To quantify nonuse poststroke and (2) to develop and test a novel, simple, objective, reliable, and valid instrument, the Bilateral Arm Reaching Test (BART), to quantify arm use and nonuse poststroke. Methods. First, we quantify nonuse with the Quality of Movement (QOM) subscale of the Actual Amount of Use Test (AAUT) by subtracting the AAUT QOM score in the spontaneous use condition from the AAUT QOM score in a subsequent constrained use condition. Second, we quantify arm use and nonuse with BART by comparing reaching performance to visual targets projected over a 2D horizontal hemi–work space in a spontaneous-use condition (in which participants are free to use either arm at each trial) with reaching performance in a constrained-use condition. Results. All participants (N = 24) with chronic stroke and with mild to moderate impairment exhibited nonuse with the AAUT QOM. Nonuse with BART had excellent test-retest reliability and good external validity. Conclusions. BART is the first instrument that can be used repeatedly and practically in the clinic to quantify the effects of neurorehabilitation on arm use and nonuse and in the laboratory for advancing theoretical knowledge about the recovery of arm use and the development of nonuse and “learned nonuse” after stroke.

[1]  R. C. Oldfield The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[2]  A. Fugl-Meyer,et al.  The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. , 1975, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[3]  J. Stewart,et al.  Stroke recovery: he can but does he? , 1979, Rheumatology and rehabilitation.

[4]  R. Stout,et al.  ALBERT'S TEST: A NEGLECTED TEST OF PERCEPTUAL NEGLECT , 1986, The Lancet.

[5]  D. Wade,et al.  Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. , 1992, Current opinion in neurology and neurosurgery.

[6]  N. Miller,et al.  An operant approach to rehabilitation medicine: overcoming learned nonuse by shaping. , 1994, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[7]  Ruud G. J. Meulenbroek,et al.  The coordination of reaching and grasping in spastic hemiparesis , 2000 .

[8]  Annette Sterr,et al.  Neurobehavioral aspects of recovery: assessment of the learned nonuse phenomenon in hemiparetic adolescents. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[9]  S. Wood-Dauphinée,et al.  Activity, participation, and quality of life 6 months poststroke. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[10]  J. P. Miller,et al.  Methods for a Multisite Randomized Trial to Investigate the Effect of Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy in Improving Upper Extremity Function among Adults Recovering from a Cerebrovascular Stroke , 2003, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[11]  Gitendra Uswatte,et al.  Constraint-induced movement therapy: bridging from the primate laboratory to the stroke rehabilitation laboratory. , 2003, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[12]  B. Bussel,et al.  Motor compensation and recovery for reaching in stroke patients , 2003, Acta neurologica Scandinavica.

[13]  S. Studenski,et al.  Randomized clinical trial of therapeutic exercise in subacute stroke. , 2003, Stroke.

[14]  Gitendra Uswatte,et al.  Implications of the learned nonuse formulation for measuring rehabilitation outcomes : Lessons from Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy , 2005 .

[15]  B. Dobkin Clinical practice. Rehabilitation after stroke. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  B. Dobkin Rehabilitation after Stroke , 2005 .

[17]  Alan Sunderland,et al.  Neuroplasticity, learning and recovery after stroke: A critical evaluation of constraint-induced therapy , 2005, Neuropsychological rehabilitation.

[18]  P A Thompson,et al.  The Motor Activity Log-28 , 2006, Neurology.

[19]  E. Taub,et al.  The learned nonuse phenomenon: implications for rehabilitation. , 2006, Europa medicophysica.

[20]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  Stroke Rehabilitation Reaches a Threshold , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[21]  Nicolas Schweighofer,et al.  An Adaptive Automated Robotic Task-Practice System for Rehabilitation of Arm Functions After Stroke , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[22]  J. Adair,et al.  Arm Use After Left or Right Hemiparesis Is Influenced by Hand Preference , 2009, Stroke.

[23]  Nicolas Schweighofer,et al.  A Functional Threshold for Long-Term Use of Hand and Arm Function Can Be Determined: Predictions From a Computational Model and Supporting Data From the Extremity Constraint-Induced Therapy Evaluation (EXCITE) Trial , 2009, Physical Therapy.

[24]  James Gordon,et al.  Feasibility of the adaptive and automatic presentation of tasks (ADAPT) system for rehabilitation of upper extremity function post-stroke , 2011, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[25]  Emily Brown,et al.  Hand preference after stroke: The development and initial evaluation of a new performance-based measure , 2011 .

[26]  Elaine Strachota,et al.  Quantifying learned non-use after stroke using unilateral and bilateral steering tasks , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.

[27]  Nicolas Schweighofer,et al.  Use It and Improve It or Lose It: Interactions between Arm Function and Use in Humans Post-stroke , 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[28]  C. Winstein,et al.  Minimal Detectable Change of the Actual Amount of Use Test and the Motor Activity Log , 2012, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.