Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28659156›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2017

The Arm Movement Detection (AMD) test: a fast robotic test of proprioceptive acuity in the arm.

Leigh Ann Mrotek, Maria Bengtson, Tina Stoeckmann, Lior Botzer, Claude P Ghez, John McGuire, Robert A Scheidt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Leigh Ann MrotekMarquette University, Biomedical Engineering 1515 W. Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, WI, 53233, USA. leigh.mrotek@marquette.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6559-934X
Maria BengtsonMarquette University, Biomedical Engineering 1515 W. Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, WI, 53233, USA.
Tina StoeckmannMarquette University, Physical Therapy P.O. Box 1881, Milwaukee, WI, 53201-1881, USA.
Lior BotzerMarquette University, Biomedical Engineering 1515 W. Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, WI, 53233, USA.
Claude P GhezColumbia University, Neuroscience Kolb Annex, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
John McGuireMedical College of Wisconsin, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 9200 W. Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA.
Robert A ScheidtMarquette University, Biomedical Engineering 1515 W. Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, WI, 53233, USA.
Marquette University · USColumbia University · USMedical College of Wisconsin · US

Funding

Control of Arm Posture and Movement Followoing StrokeR01HD053727 · NICHD · MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY · PI SCHEIDT, ROBERT A. · 2008 to 2012
$1.5M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD053727
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe examined the validity and reliability of a short robotic test of upper limb proprioception, the Arm Movement Detection (AMD) test, which yields a ratio-scaled, objective outcome measure to be used for evaluating the impact of sensory deficits on impairments of motor control, motor adaptation and functional recovery in stroke survivors.

methodsSubjects grasped the handle of a horizontal planar robot, with their arm and the robot hidden from view. The robot applied graded force perturbations, which produced small displacements of the handle. The AMD test required subjects to respond verbally to queries regarding whether or not they detected arm motions. Each participant completed ten, 60s trials; in five of the trials, force perturbations were increased in small increments until the participant detected motion while in the others, perturbations were decreased until the participant could no longer detect motion. The mean and standard deviation of the 10 movement detection thresholds were used to compute a Proprioceptive Acuity Score (PAS). Based on the sensitivity and consistency of the estimated thresholds, the PAS quantifies the likelihood that proprioception is intact. Lower PAS scores correspond to higher proprioceptive acuity. Thirty-nine participants completed the AMD test, consisting of 25 neurologically intact control participants (NIC), seven survivors of stroke with intact proprioception in the more affected limb (HSS+P), and seven survivors of stroke with impaired or absent proprioception in the more affected limb (HSS-P).

resultsSignificant group differences were found, with the NIC and HSS+P groups having lower (i.e., better) PAS scores than the HSS-P group. A subset of the participants completed the AMD test multiple times and the AMD test was found to be reliable across repetitions.

conclusionsThe AMD test required less than 15 min to complete and provided an objective, ratio-scaled measure of proprioceptive acuity in the upper limb. In the future, this test could be utilized to evaluate the contributions of sensory deficits to motor recovery following stroke.

Indexed as

MovementProprioceptionAdultAgedAlgorithmsArmFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychomotor PerformanceRecovery of FunctionReproducibility of ResultsRoboticsStroke RehabilitationSurvivorsAgingDisplacementForceProprioceptionStrokeThresholdUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID28659156
PMCPMC5490232
OpenAlexW2731391403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.