Automated Evaluation of Upper-Limb Motor Function Impairment Using Fugl-Meyer Assessment

Measurement of recovery after stroke is becoming increasingly important with the advent of new treatment options under investigation in stroke rehabilitation research. The Fugl-Meyer scale was developed as the first quantitative evaluative instrument for measuring sensorimotor stroke recovery, based on Twitchell and Brunnstrom's concept of sequential stages of motor return in the hemiplegic stroke patient. The Fugl-Meyer is a well-designed, feasible and efficient clinical examination method that has been tested widely in the stroke population. Its primary value is the 100-point motor domain, which has received the most extensive evaluation. Excellent interrater and intrarater reliability and construct validity have been demonstrated, and preliminary evidence suggests that the Fugl-Meyer assessment is responsive to change. Limitations of the motor domain include a ceiling effect, omission of some potentially relevant items, and weighting of the arm more than the leg. Further study should test performance of this scale in specific subgroups of stroke patients and better define its criterion validity, sensitivity to change, and minimal clinically important difference. Based on the available evidence, the Fugl-Meyer motor scale is recommended highly as a clinical and research tool for evaluating changes in motor impairment following stroke.

To test the clinical counterpart of the learned nonuse theory, 25 chronic hemiplegic stroke and head-injured patients with minimal to moderate upper extremity extensor muscle function were required to keep their uninvolved upper extremities within a hand-enclosed sling during waking hours over a 2-week interval. During this forced use period and for 1 year thereafter, changes in force or time-based measures among 21 functional tasks were compared to values at the sixth baseline session, a preintervention time when relearning had plateaued. Significant (P less than 0.05, Friedman's repeated measures followed by Tukey multiple comparison tests) changes were seen in 19 of the 21 tasks with most persisting at the 1-year follow-up. There were no apparent differences between right- and left-sided involvement or between stroke versus head injury clients (Mann-Whitney procedure). Ratings for quality of movement scored from videotapes presented in random order showed no change over time. These data suggest that learned nonuse does occur in select neurological patients and that this behavior can be reversed through application of a forced use paradigm.

Background The introduction of low cost optical 3D motion tracking sensors provides new options for effective quantification of motor dysfunction. Objective The present study aimed to evaluate the Kinect V2 sensor against a gold standard motion capture system with respect to accuracy of tracked landmark movements and accuracy and repeatability of derived clinical parameters. Methods Nineteen healthy subjects were concurrently recorded with a Kinect V2 sensor and an optical motion tracking system (Vicon). Six different movement tasks were recorded with 3D full-body kinematics from both systems. Tasks included walking in different conditions, balance and adaptive postural control. After temporal and spatial alignment, agreement of movements signals was described by Pearson’s correlation coefficient and signal to noise ratios per dimension. From these movement signals, 45 clinical parameters were calculated, including ranges of motions, torso sway, movement velocities and cadence. Accuracy of parameters was described as absolute agreement, consistency agreement and limits of agreement. Intra-session reliability of 3 to 5 measurement repetitions was described as repeatability coefficient and standard error of measurement for each system. Results Accuracy of Kinect V2 landmark movements was moderate to excellent and depended on movement dimension, landmark location and performed task. Signal to noise ratio provided information about Kinect V2 landmark stability and indicated larger noise behaviour in feet and ankles. Most of the derived clinical parameters showed good to excellent absolute agreement (30 parameters showed ICC(3,1) > 0.7) and consistency (38 parameters showed r > 0.7) between both systems. Conclusion Given that this system is low-cost, portable and does not require any sensors to be attached to the body, it could provide numerous advantages when compared to established marker- or wearable sensor based system. The Kinect V2 has the potential to be used as a reliable and valid clinical measurement tool.