Mindy F. Levin

The origin and use of positional frames of reference in motor control

A hypothesis about sensorimotor integration (the λ model) is described and applied to movement control and kinesthesia. The central idea is that the nervous system organizes positional frames of reference for the sensorimotor apparatus and produces active movements by shifting the frames in terms of spatial coordinates. Kinematic and electromyographic patterns are not programmed, but emerge from the dynamic interaction among the system s components, including external forces within the designated frame of reference. Motoneuronal threshold properties and proprioceptive inputs to motoneurons may be cardinal components of the physiological mechanism that produces positional frames of reference. The hypothesis that intentional movements are produced by shifting the frame of reference is extended to multi-muscle and multi-degrees-of-freedom systems with a solution of the redundancy problem that allows the control of a joint alone or in combination with other joints to produce any desired limb configuration and movement trajectory. The model also implies that for each motor behavior, the nervous system uses a strategy that minimizes the number of changeable control variables and keeps the parameters of these changes invariant. Examples are provided of simulated kinematic and electromyographic signals from single- and multi-joint arm movements produced by suggested patterns of control variables. Empirical support is provided and additional tests of the model are suggested. The model is contrasted with others based on the ideas of programming of motoneuronal activity, muscle forces, stiffness, or movement kinematics.

What Do Motor “Recovery” and “Compensation” Mean in Patients Following Stroke?

There is a lack of consistency among researchers and clinicians in the use of terminology that describes changes in motor ability following neurological injury. Specifically, the terms and definitions of motor compensation and motor recovery have been used in different ways, which is a potential barrier to interdisciplinary communication. This Point of View describes the problem and offers a solution in the form of definitions of compensation and recovery at the neuronal, motor performance, and functional levels within the framework of the International Classification of Functioning model.

Virtual Reality in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review of its Effectiveness for Upper Limb Motor Recovery

Abstract Purpose: It is estimated that 50% to 75% of individuals who experience a stroke have persistent impairment of the affected upper limb (UL). There is a need to identify the best training strategies for retraining motor function of the UL. One intervention showing promise is virtual reality (VR), using either immersive or nonimmersive technology. Before recommending VR for use in clinical practice, it is important to understand the evidence regarding its effectiveness. Method: Two questions about the effectiveness of VR for UL rehabilitation in stroke were posed: (1) Is the use of immersive VR more effective than conventional therapy or no therapy in the rehabilitation of the UL in patients with hemiplegia? (2) Is the use of nonimmersive VR more effective than conventional therapy or no therapy in the rehabilitation of the UL in patients with hemiplegia? Results: There is level 1b evidence suggesting an advantage to training in immersive VR environments versus no therapy in UL rehabilitation, and level 5 evidence for training in immersive VR versus conventional therapy. There is level 4 evidence showing conflicting results for training in nonimmersive VR versus no therapy, and level 2b evidence for training in nonimmersive VR versus conventional therapy. Conclusion: The current evidence on the effectiveness of using VR in the rehabilitation of the UL in patients with stroke is limited but sufficiently encouraging to justify additional clinical trials in this population.

Task-Specific Training With Trunk Restraint on Arm Recovery in Stroke Randomized Control Trial

Background and Purpose— Task-specific training improves functional outcomes after stroke. However, gains may be accompanied by increases in movements compensating for motor impairments. We hypothesized that restriction of compensatory trunk movements may encourage recovery of premorbid movement patterns leading to better functional outcomes. The goal was to determine whether task-specific training with trunk-restraint (TR) produces greater improvements in arm impairment and function than training without TR in patients with chronic hemiparesis. Methods— Double-blind randomized control trial of a therapist-supervised home program (3 times per week, 5 weeks) in 30 patients with chronic hemiparesis stratified by arm impairment level (Fugl-Meyer) was performed. Intervention group (TR group) received progressive object-related reach-to-grasp training with prevention of trunk movements. Control group (C) practiced tasks without TR. Main outcome measures were upper limb impairment (Fugl-Meyer Arm Section) and function (TEMPA) and movement kinematics (trunk displacement, elbow extension; Optotrak, 10 trials) of a reach-to-grasp movement. Evaluations were repeated before, immediately after, and 1 month postintervention by blind evaluators. Results— TR training led to greater improvements in impairment and function compared with C. Improvements were accompanied by increased active joint range and were greater in initially more severe patients. In these patients, TR decreased trunk movement and increased elbow extension, whereas C had opposite effects (increased compensatory movements). In TR, changes in arm function were correlated with changes in arm and trunk kinematics. Conclusions— Treatment should be tailored to arm impairment severity with particular attention to controlling excessive trunk movements if the goal is to improve arm movement quality and function.

Motor compensation and recovery for reaching in stroke patients

Objectives – To examine the mechanisms of alternative strategies developed by stroke patients to compensate their motor impairment and their role in recovery.

Deficits in the coordination of agonist and antagonist muscles in stroke patients: implications for normal motor control

Movement impairments about a single joint in stroke patients may be related to deficits in the central regulation of stretch reflex (SR) thresholds of agonist and antagonist muscles. One boundary of the SR threshold range for elbow flexor and extensor muscles was measured in hemiparetic subjects by analysing electromyographic activity during stretching of relaxed muscles at seven different velocities. For each velocity, dynamic SR thresholds were measured as angles at which electromyographic activity appeared. These data were used to determine the sensitivity of the threshold to velocity and the static SR thresholds for flexors and extensors. In contrast to relaxed muscles in healthy subjects, static flexor and extensor thresholds lay within the physiological range in 11/12 and 4/12 subjects, respectively. This implies that, in the range between the static SR threshold and one of the physiological joint limits, relaxation of the muscle was impossible. Subjects then made slow movements against different loads to determine their ranges of active movement. Maximal flexor and extensor torques were lower in hemiparetic subjects throughout the angular range. In some subjects, ranges were found in which no active torque could be produced in either extensor or both muscle groups. These ranges were related to the boundary values of SR thresholds found during passive muscle stretch. The range in which reciprocally organized agonist and antagonist muscle activity could be generated was limited in all but one subject. When attempting to produce torque from positions outside their measured range of movement, excessive muscle coactivation occurred, typically producing no or paradoxical motion in the opposite direction. Results suggest a relationship between spasticity measured at rest and the movement deficit in stroke by demonstrating a link between motor deficits and control deficits in the central regulation of individual SR thresholds.

The role of stretch reflex threshold regulation in normal and impaired motor control

Some hypotheses suggest that stretch reflex threshold regulation may be an essential element of motor control. Disturbances in this mechanism may lead to motor dysfunction. We investigated this possibility by comparing stretch reflex threshold regulation in 11 spastic hemiparetic and 6 normal subjects. Subjects sat with their arms fully supported in a forearm and hand mold attached to a manipulandum mounted on and controlled by a torque motor. They remained completely passive while their elbow was extended from 30 degrees flexion through an arc of 100 degrees. Displacement and velocity of the forearm were measured as well as EMG signals from 2 elbow flexors and 2 elbow extensors, when the elbow flexors were stretched at each of 7 velocities. Velocities ranged from 8 to 160 degrees/s for hemiparetic subjects and from 32 to 300 degrees/s for normal subjects. Phase diagrams (velocity versus angle) were plotted and the threshold angles (lambda) for muscle activation at each velocity of stretch were used to determine the static stretch reflex threshold (lambda) and the slope (mu) of the relationship between the lambda s and velocity. Our main findings were that static and dynamic stretch reflex thresholds were decreased in spastic hemiparetic compared to normal subjects and that the thresholds depended on velocity. The static threshold value correlated with the severity of clinically measured spasticity. In addition, the range of regulation of lambda was decreased in the patients compared to normal. This may explain some of the problems of force and position regulation as well as hypertonus (and weakness) common to these patients.

Use of the trunk for reaching targets placed within and beyond the reach in adult hemiparesis

Multijoint movements such as reaching are impaired after brain lesions involving sensorimotor areas and pathways. However, the mechanisms by which such lesions affect motor control are not fully understood. Direct effects of the lesion may be partly compensated by both the system’s redundancy and its plasticity. Indeed stroke patients with limited arm movement can reach objects placed within the reach of the arm by using a compensatory strategy involving trunk recruitment. A similar strategy is observed in healthy individuals reaching for objects placed beyond the reach of the arm. Determining the control mechanism(s) governing this compensatory strategy in stroke patients was the goal of this study. Kinematics of reaching movements in hemiparetic and healthy participants to targets placed within and beyond the length of the arm were analysed. Targets were placed sagittally in front of the midline of the body. Two targets (targets 1 and 2) were within reaching distance defined as the length of the stretched arm from axilla to wrist crease. Two others were beyond arm’s reach so that one required a forward trunk inclination (target 3) and the other required body raising to a semi-standing position (target 4). Healthy participants used minimal trunk displacement for reaches to targets 1 and 2. For reaches to targets 3 and 4, trunk displacement increased with target distance. Whenever the trunk was involved, there was a stereotyped sequential recruitment of the arm and trunk in that the trunk began moving simultaneously with or before the hand and stopped moving after the end of hand movement. This suggested that the control system predicts that the trunk movement will be needed to extend the reach and includes the trunk, in an anticipatory way, into the reach. In contrast, most hemiparetic participants recruited their trunk for reaches to all four targets, even those placed close to the body. Similar to healthy individuals, the sequence of hand and trunk recruitment was stereotyped, suggesting that temporal planning aspects of the motor program underlying movement coordination were relatively unaffected. In contrast to healthy participants, the contribution of the trunk movement to the endpoint displacement was substantially higher in the hemiparetic group and occurred earlier in the reach. It is suggested that the target distance at which the trunk is integrated into the movement to extend the reach of the arm is attained around the limit of arm extension and that this limit is reduced in hemiparetic individuals.

Effect of Trunk Restraint on the Recovery of Reaching Movements in Hemiparetic Patients

Background and Purpose— Reaching movements made with the affected arm in hemiparetic patients are often accompanied by compensatory trunk or shoulder girdle movements, which extend the reach of the arm. We investigated the effects of the suppression of these compensatory movements on reaching ability in hemiparetic individuals. Methods— Eleven healthy and 11 hemiparetic individuals participated. Three-dimensional kinematic analysis was used to quantify reaches made to a close and a distant target (near the limit of arm’s length). Unrestrained reaches were compared with those in which shoulder girdle and trunk movements were restrained by a harness. Results— During unrestrained reaching, abnormal trunk recruitment and limitations in elbow and shoulder movements were correlated with the degree of clinical stroke severity (r =−0.91 to −0.96) in hemiparetic patients. During trunk restraint, ranges of elbow and shoulder joint movement increased in both groups. In addition, elbow and shoulder interjoint coordination improved. This was caused by increases in the range of joint motion as well as by a better dynamic temporal relation between joints. Conclusions— Trunk restraint allowed patients with hemiparetic stroke to make use of arm joint ranges that are present but not normally recruited during unrestrained arm-reaching tasks. Thus, the underlying “normal” patterns of movement coordination may not be entirely lost after stroke. Appropriate treatments, such as trunk restraint, may be effective in uncovering latent movement patterns to maximize arm recovery in hemiparetic patients.

Recruitment and sequencing of different degrees of freedom during pointing movements involving the trunk in healthy and hemiparetic subjects.

Abstract Previous studies have shown that in neurologically normal subjects the addition of trunk motion during a reaching task does not affect the trajectory of the arm endpoint. Typically, the trunk begins to move before the onset and continues to move after the offset of the arm endpoint displacement. This observation shows that the potential contribution of the trunk to the motion of the arm endpoint toward a target is neutralized by appropriate compensatory movements of the shoulder and elbow. We tested the hypothesis that cortical and subcortical brain lesions may disrupt the timing of trunk and arm endpoint motion in hemiparetic subjects. Eight hemiparetic and six age-matched healthy subjects were seated on a stool with the right (dominant) arm in front of them on a table. The tip of the index finger (the arm endpoint) was initially at a distance of 20 cm from the midline of the chest. Wrist, elbow, and upper body positions as well as the coordinates of the arm endpoint were recorded with a three-dimensional motion analysis system (Optotrak) by infrared light-emitting diodes placed on the tip of the finger, the styloid process of the ulna, the lateral epicondyle of the humerus, the acromion processes bilaterally, and the sternal notch. In response to a preparatory signal, subjects lifted their arm 1–2 cm above the table and in response to a ”go” signal moved their endpoint as fast as possible from a near to a far target located at a distance of 35 cm and at a 45° angle to the right or left of the sagittal midline of the trunk. After a pause (200– 500 ms) they moved the endpoint back to the near target. Pointing movements were made without trunk motion (control trials) or with a sagittal motion of the trunk produced by means of a hip flexion or extension (test trials). In one set of test trials, subjects were required to move the trunk forward while moving the arm to the target (”in-phase movements”). In the other set, subjects were required to move the trunk backward when the arm moved to the far target (”out-of-phase movements”). Compared with healthy subjects, movements in hemiparetic subjects were segmented, slower, and characterized by a greater variability and by deflection of the trajectory from a straight line. In addition, there was a moderate increase in the errors in movement direction and extent. These deficits were similar in magnitude whether or not the trunk was involved. Although hemiparetic subjects were able to compensate the influence of the trunk motion on the movement of the arm endpoint, they accomplished this by making more segmented movements than healthy subjects. In addition, they were unable to stabilize the sequence of trunk and arm endpoint movements in a set of trials. It is concluded that recruitment and sequencing of different degrees of freedom may be impaired in this population of patients. This inability may partly be responsible for other deficits observed in hemiparetic subjects, including an increase in movement segmentation and duration. The lack of stereotypic movement sequencing may imply that these subjects had deficits in learning associated with short-term memory.