Reaching in reality and virtual reality: a comparison of movement kinematics in healthy subjects and in adults with hemiparesis

BackgroundVirtual reality (VR) is an innovative tool for sensorimotor rehabilitation increasingly being employed in clinical and community settings. Despite the growing interest in VR, few studies have determined the validity of movements made in VR environments with respect to real physical environments. The goal of this study was to compare movements done in physical and virtual environments in adults with motor deficits to those in healthy individuals.MethodsThe participants were 8 healthy adults and 7 adults with mild left hemiparesis due to stroke. Kinematics of functional arm movements involving reaching, grasping and releasing made in physical and virtual environments were analyzed in two phases: 1) reaching and grasping the ball and 2) ball transport and release. The virtual environment included interaction with an object on a 2D computer screen and haptic force feedback from a virtual ball. Temporal and spatial parameters of reaching and grasping were determined for each phase.ResultsIndividuals in both groups were able to reach, grasp, transport, place and release the virtual and real ball using similar movement strategies. In healthy subjects, reaching and grasping movements in both environments were similar but these subjects used less wrist extension and more elbow extension to place the ball on the virtual vertical surface. Participants with hemiparesis made slower movements in both environments compared to healthy subjects and during transport and placing of the ball, trajectories were more curved and interjoint coordination was altered. Despite these differences, patients with hemiparesis also tended to use less wrist extension during the whole movement and more elbow extension at the end of the placing phase.ConclusionDifferences in movements made by healthy subjects in the two environments may be explained by the use of a 2D instead of a 3D virtual environment and the absence of haptic feedback from the VR target. Despite these differences, our findings suggest that both healthy subjects and individuals with motor deficits used similar movement strategies when grasping and placing a ball in the two reality conditions. This suggests that training of arm movements in VR environments may be a valid approach to the rehabilitation of patients with motor disorders.

[1]  P. Pigeon,et al.  Recruitment and sequencing of different degrees of freedom during pointing movements involving the trunk in healthy and hemiparetic subjects , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[2]  G. Stelmach,et al.  Trunk-Assisted Prehension: Specification of Body Segments With Imposed Temporal Constraints , 2000, Journal of motor behavior.

[3]  K. Mauritz,et al.  Repetitive training of isolated movements improves the outcome of motor rehabilitation of the centrally paretic hand , 1995, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

[4]  E Bizzi,et al.  Augmented Feedback Presented in a Virtual Environment Accelerates Learning of a Difficult Motor Task. , 1997, Journal of motor behavior.

[5]  M. Levin,et al.  Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[6]  Mark F Bradshaw,et al.  The role of binocular information in the 'on-line' control of prehension. , 2003, Spatial vision.

[7]  G Riva,et al.  Virtual reality in telemedicine. , 2000, Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[8]  M. Levin,et al.  Short-Term Effects of Practice With Trunk Restraint on Reaching Movements in Patients With Chronic Stroke: A Controlled Trial , 2004, Stroke.

[9]  S. Adamovich,et al.  Virtual reality-augmented rehabilitation for patients following stroke. , 2002, Physical therapy.

[10]  Shawn Marshall,et al.  Experimental Studies of Virtual Reality-Delivered Compared to Conventional Exercise Programs for Rehabilitation , 2003, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[11]  M. Levin Interjoint coordination during pointing movements is disrupted in spastic hemiparesis. , 1996, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[12]  Albert Rizzo,et al.  A SWOT Analysis of the Field of Virtual Rehabilitation and Therapy. , 2005 .

[13]  G C DeAngelis,et al.  The physiology of stereopsis. , 2001, Annual review of neuroscience.

[14]  P. Stratford,et al.  Measuring Physical Impairment and Disability With the Chedoke‐McMaster Stroke Assessment , 1993, Stroke.

[15]  G. Kwakkel,et al.  Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: a randomised trial , 1999, The Lancet.

[16]  Mark S. Redfern,et al.  The Potential Use of Virtual Reality in Vestibular Rehabilitation: Preliminary Findings with the BNAVE , 2002 .

[17]  M. Holden,et al.  Virtual Environment Training: A New Tool for Neurorehabilitation , 2002 .

[18]  Judith E. Deutsch,et al.  Haptics and Virtual Reality Used to Increase Strength and Improve Function in Chronic Individuals Post‐stroke: Two Case Reports , 2002 .

[19]  R. Nudo,et al.  Reorganization of movement representations in primary motor cortex following focal ischemic infarcts in adult squirrel monkeys. , 1996, Journal of neurophysiology.

[20]  P N Wilson,et al.  Uses of virtual reality in clinical training: developing the spatial skills of children with mobility impairments. , 1998, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[21]  M. Wong,et al.  Effects of Task Goal and Personal Preference on Seated Reaching Kinematics After Stroke , 2001, Stroke.