請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/27211
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 毛慧芬 | |
dc.contributor.author | Yi-Miau Chen | en |
dc.contributor.author | 陳怡妙 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-12T17:58:03Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2011-02-20 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2008-02-20 | |
dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2008-01-29 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Alberts, J.L., Saling, M., Stelmach, G.E.,(2002). Alterations in transport path differentially affect temporal and spatial movement parameters. Exp Brain Res 43, 417–425.
ArchambaultP, Pigeon P, Feldman AG, Levin MF. (1999) Recruitment and sequencing of different degrees of freedom during pointing movements involving the trunk in healthy and hemiparetic subjects. Exp Brain Res 126:55-67. Beer RF, Dewald JP, Rymer WZ. (2000) Deficits in the coordination of multijoint arm movements in patients with hemiparesis: evidence for disturbed control of limb dynamics. Exp Brain Res 131: 305-19. Castiello U, Bennett K, Chambers H (1998) Reach to grasp: the response to a simultaneous perturbation of object position and size. Exp Brain Res 120:31–40 Chieffi S, Gentilucci M. (1993) Coordination between the transport and the grasp components during prehension movements. Exp Brain Res 94:471–477 Cohen, J. (1988) statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Daley K, Mayo N, Danys I. (1997) The Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM): refining and validating the content. Physiother Can. 49:269–278. Desmurget M, Prablanc C, Arzi M, Rossetti Y, Paulignan Y, Urquizar C. (1996) Integrated control of hand transport and orientation during prehension movements. Exp Brain Res 110:265–278 Fasilo, S. E., Trombly, C.A., Tickle- Degnen, L., Verfaellie, M. H. (2002) Effect of instructions on functional reach in persons with and without cerebrovascular accident. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56(4), 380-390. Gowland C, deBruin H, Basmajian JV, Plews N, Burcea I.(1992) Agonist and antagonist activity during voluntary upper-limb movement in patients with stroke . Phys Ther 72, 624-33. Haggard P, Wing AM. (1991) Remote responses to perturbation in human prehension. Neurosci Lett 122:103–108 Haggard P, Wing AM. (1995) Coordinated responses following mechanical perturbation of the arm during prehension. Exp Brain Res 102:483–494 Haggard P, Wing A. (1998) Coordination of hand aperture with the spatial path of hand transport. Exp Brain Res 118:286– 292 Higgins J, Salbach NM,Wod-Dauphinee S, Richards CL, Cote R, Mayo NE. (2006) The effect of a task-oriented intervention on arm function in people with stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation 20: 296-/310 Hoff B, Arbib MA. (1993) Models of trajectory formation and temporal interaction of reach and grasp. J Mot Behav 25:175– 192 Howard, L. A., & Tipper, S. P. (1997) Hand deviations away from visual cues: Indirect evidence for inhibition. Experimental Brain Research, 113, 144–152. Humphreys G.W., & Edwards M.G. (2004) Automatic obstacle avoidance and parietal cortex. Nature Neuroscience 7, 693. Jakobson LS, Goodale MA. (1991) Factors affecting higher-order movement planning: a kinematic analysis of human prehension. Exp Brain Res 86:199–208 Jeannerod M. (1981) Intersegmental coordination during reaching at natural visual objects. In: Long J, Baddley A (eds) Attention and performance IX. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 153-168 Jeannerod M. (1984) The timing of natural prehension movements. J Mot Behav 16:235-254 Krebs HI, Aisen ML, Volpe BT, Hogan N. (1999) Quantization of continuous arm movements in humans with brain injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci 96:4645-9. Levin MF. (1996) Interjoint coordination during pointing movements is disrupted in spastic hemiparesis. Brain 119:281-93. Lum PS, Burgar CG, Kenney D, Van der Loos HF.(1999) Quantification of force abnormalities during passive and active-assisted upper limb reaching movements in post-stroke hemiparesis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 46:652-62. Magill, R.A. (2004) Motor learning and control: Concepts and applications (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Ahmed S et al .(1999) Disablement following stroke. Disabil Rehabil 21: 258-/68. Michaelsen SM, Jacobs S, Roby-Brami A , Levin MF.(2004 ) Compensation for distal impairments of grasping in adults with hemiparesis. Exp Brain Res 157: 162–173 Newell KM, Valvano J.(1998) Therapeutic intervention as a constraint in learning and relearning movement skills. Stand J Occup Ther 5:51-7. Lezak, M.D. (1983) Neurological assessment (2nd ed.). New York Oxford : Oxford University Press. Nakayama H, Horgensen HS, Faaschou HO, Olsen TS. (1994) Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75: 394-/98. Nakayama H, Jorgensen HS, Raaschou HO, Olsen, TS. (1994). Compensation in recovery of upper extremity function after stroke: The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil ; 75: 852-/57. Neistadt, M.E. and Crepeau, E.B. (1998) Occupational therapy (9 th ed.) Lippincott – Raven Publishers. Oudejans RRD, Michaels CF, Bakker FC. Dolne MA.(1996) The relevance of action in perceiving affordances: Perception of catchableness of fly balls. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 22:879-91. Parker V, Wade D, Hewer R. (1986).Loss of arm function after stroke: Measurement, frequency, and recovery. Int Rehabil Med ; 8: 69. Paulignan, Y., MacKenzie, C., Marteniuk, R., & Jeannerod, M. (1991) Selective perturbation of visual input during prehension movements. 1. The effects of changing object position. Experimental Brain Research, 83, 502–512. Reinkensmeyer DJ, Dewald JP, Rymer WZ. (1999) Guidance-based quantification of arm impairment following brain injury: a pilot study. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 7:1-11. Roby-Brami A, Fuchs S, Mokhtari M, Brussel B. (1997). Reaching and grasping strategies in hemiparetic patients. Mot Control ;1: 72-91. Roby-Brami A, Bennis N, Mokhtari M, Baraduc P. (2000) Hand orientation for grasping depends on the direction of the reaching movement. Brain Res 869:121–129. Roby-Brami A, Bennis N, Jacobs S, Levin MF. (2003a) Hand orientation for grasping and upper-limb joint rotation patterns in healthy subjects and hemiparetic stroke patients. Brain Res 969:217–229. Roby-Brami A, Feydy A, Combeaud M, Biryukova EV, Bussel B, Levin MF. (2003b) Motor compensation and recovery for reaching in stroke patients. Acta Neurol Scand 107:369–381 Rosenbaum, D.A., Meulenbroek, R.G.J., Vaughan, J., & Jansen, C. (2001) Posture-based motion planning: Applications to grasping. Psychological review,108,709-734. Sabes, P. N., & Jordan, M. I. (1997) Obstacle avoidance and a perturbation sensitivity model for motor planning. Journal of Neuroscience,17, 7119–7128. Saling M, Alberts JL, Bloedel JR, Stelmach GE. (1998) Reach to- grasp movements during obstacle avoidance. Exp Brain Res 118, 251–258. Schindler, I., Rice, N. J., Mcintosh, R. D., Rossetti, Y., Vighetto, A., & Milner, A. D. (2004) Automatic avoidance of obstacles is a dorsal stream function: evidence from optic ataxia. Nat. Neurosci. 7,779-784. Schmidt, R.A, Lee, T.D. (2005) Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (4th ed.). Champaign, III: Human Kinetics. Smeets J.B.J, Brenner E. (1999) A new view on grasping. Mot Control 3:237-271. Smeets J.B.J, Brenne E. (2002) Does a complex model help to understand grasping? Exp Brain Res 144:132-135. Sulter, G., Steen, C., Keyser, J.D. (1999) Use of the Barthel Index and Modified Rankin Scale in Acute Stroke Trials. Stroke;30:1538-1541. Timmann D, Stelmach GE, Bloedel JR. (1996) Grasping component alterations and limb transport. Exp Brain Res 108:486– 492. Tresilian, J. R. (1998) Attention in action or obstruction in movement? A kinematic analysis of avoidance behavior in prehension. Experimental Brain Research, 120, 352–368. Tresilian, J.R., Mon-Williams, M., Coppard, V.L., & Carson, R.G. (2005) Developmental Changes in the Response to Obstacles During Prehension. Journal of Motor Behavior, Vol. 37, No. 2, 103–110. Trombly CA. (1992) Deficits of reaching in subjects with left hemiparesis: a pilot study. Am J Occup Ther 46:887-97. Trombly CA. (1993) Observations of improvement of reaching in five subjects with left hemiparesis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry ;56:40-5. Wang J, Stelmach GE. (1998) Coordination among body segments during reach-to-grasp action involving the trunk. Exp Brain Res 123:346–350. Wang J, Stelmach GE. (2001) Spatial and temporal control of trunk-assisted prehensile actions. Exp Brain Res 136:231–40. Wing AM, Lough S, Turton A, Fraser C, Jenner JR. (1990) Recovery of elbow function in voluntary positioning of the hand following hemiplegia due to stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry ; 53:126-34. World Health Organization. Global burden of stroke. In The atlas of heart disease and stroke. Accessed February 2005, from http://www.who.int/ ardiovascular_diseases/en/cvd_atlas15_burden_ stroke.pdf2 Wu, C.Y., Trombly, C. A., Lin, K. C., & Tickle-Degnen, L. (2000) A kinematic study of contextual effects on reaching performance in persons with and without stroke: influences of object availability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil ;81(1),95-101. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/27211 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 中風患者伸臂取物的動作機轉及有效之復健治療模式常被廣泛研究,然當取物環境中有障礙物存在時,如何影響其動作表現,卻少有相關文獻探討,且大多僅針對伸手及物,而未探討取回的動作。本研究的目的為運用運動學分析來了解中風患者因應障礙物之伸臂與取回物品動作之控制與機轉。
研究方法:有7位高功能慢性中風患者同意參與此研究。受試者採坐姿,將目標物放在一個手臂長距離的桌上,共有兩種情境,一為障礙物置於手臂長65%處,障礙高度設定為上臂長30%及障礙高度為0%的控制情境。受試者執行伸手跨越障礙物,並將目標物拿回近身體桌面上的位置。利用動作分析系統(Vicon 512, Oxford Metrics Group, U. K.)紀錄伸臂取物動作過程。利用配對-t檢定及效應值來比較健側手與患側手伸臂取物及拿回動作,在障礙物高度為上臂長0%與30%情境下之各種運動學參數,包括動作距離、最大速度、達最大瞬間速度所花時間達整個運動時間的比例、手指最大張口角度、手指最大張口角度發生時間比例、動作時間、動作單位、伸臂跨過障礙物時的手腕距障礙物的高度與取回時物品距障礙物的高度等參數。 研究結果:比較健側手與患側手在障礙情境下的表現,發現兩者的運動學參數皆因障礙物存在而改變。患側手在伸臂過程中移動軌跡較短,手指最大張口角度發生的時間點較早與手腕距障礙物的高度較低。在取物回來的過程中,運動時間較長,速度較慢與物品距障礙物的高度較高,顯示兩者在執行因應障礙物取物動作時的動作控制可能不同。可能暗示患側手較缺乏因應障礙調整伸臂動作的彈性,但在將物品取回的過程中,會將手抬的較高,以因應其避免碰觸障礙物以達成取物的目標。另個別分析健側手及患側手在障礙物高度為上臂長0%與30%情境下,運動學參數的變化,結果顯示健側手的動作表現差異性較大,而患側手的動作表現差異較不顯著。 結論:高功能慢性中風患者的患側動作功能障礙,無法從臨床的動作評估中看出。但在障礙物干擾情境下,仍可發現其動作表現比健側手差,且在取回物品的動作差異更加明顯。這可能暗示障礙物與目標物品的存在,都會使動作控制變的較複雜,患側手的動作控制缺失會因而更明顯。在臨床上給予治療建議時,應提供目標導向的活動及提高活動的複雜性以訓練患側手的動作控制。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Objective: The reaching movement of stroke patient has been studied widely in order to understand the mechanism and effective treatment approach. To our knowledge, no prior study has disclosed how the obstacles near the target affect the motor performance of reaching. Besides, most studies explored only the reaching movement without the bring back component. The purposes of this study were to investigate the motor performance of U/E according to the obstacle while reaching for grasping and retracting for placing an object in stroke patients.
Research method: Our study enrolled 7 highly functioning participants with chronic stroke. All participants seated and were asked for reaching the target and then bring it back to put on the table. Obstacle with its height equal to 30% of upper arm length was placed at about 65% of the full arm length. Another condition was to put the obstacle with height of 0 as controlled. Kinematic data were measured using a 6-camera motion analysis system (Vicon 512, Oxford Metrics Group, U. K.). The following parameters were compared between the unaffected and affected upper limb of the stroke participants including reaction time, movement time, transport path, peak velocity (PV), percentage of movement where PV occurs, maximum grip aperture, percentage of reaching time where maximum grip aperture occurs, wrist–obstacle clearance, movement unit, object pick up time, object–obstacle clearance and object placing time in reach to grasp movement and retraction movement in control and obstacle crossing condition, Paired t-test (α=0.05) was used and the effect size was also calculated. Results: In the obstacle crossing condition, the performances of the kinematic parameters of unaffected and affected upper limbs were both changed by the obstacle. Shorter transport path, smaller percentage of reaching time where maximum grip aperture angle occurs and lower wrist clearance in reach to grasp, whereas longer movement time, slower average speed and higher object clearance in retraction movement were found in affected than in unaffected side. The result might imply that the motor control of affected and unaffected upper limb was different in the obstacle crossing condition. When kinematic parameters of both unaffected and affected upper limb were analyzed in conditions with obstacle height of 0% & 30%, significant differences were found in the unaffected upper limb but not the affected side. The result maybe imply that the affected upper limb lacking the flexibility to adjust the arm movement according to the obstacle height, but when carried an object, it moved higher to prevent hitting the obstacle. Conclusions: The subjects in this study were with highly motor function and invisible motor deficit observed through clinical evaluation, but when asked them to carry an object crossing an obstacle without hitting it, the motor differences between the unaffected and affected upper limb emerged. The existed of an obstacle as well as an object increased the complexity and demand of the task, the moving body needed to adapt the motor control of reaching hand in order to achieve the task goal, by the way, the motor deficit of the stroke patients would be amplify by the obstacle. When providing the treatment programs to the highly functioning patients with chronic stroke, more complicated and goal directed tasks should be used to treat the motor control of affected upper limb in clinical settings. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-12T17:58:03Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-97-R94429001-1.pdf: 769565 bytes, checksum: 7c939fa1c85236419951db5d7e8cba60 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Acknowledgements…………………………………………………….…………………..... i
中文摘要……………………………………………………………………………….......... ii Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………... iv Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………... vii List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………x List of Figures………………………………………………………….……………………xi Chapter 1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………... 1 1.1 Background and Significance………………………………….…………..….……….1 1.2 Literature Review…………………………………………………………..…………..3 1.2.1 Systems Model of Motor Control………………………………………………..4 1.2.2 The Phases of Reach to Grasp Movement……………………………………….5 1.2.3 Movement Kinematics…………………………………………………………...6 1.2.4 Normal Object Reaching and Grasping………………………………………….8 1.2.5 Reach to Grasp in Obstacle Crossing Condition in Normal Subjects…………..12 1.2.6 The Reach to Grasp Movement in Stroke Patients………………………..........14 1.3 Purposes………………………………………………………………………………17 1.4 Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………………18 Chapter 2 Materials and Methods………………………………………………………….19 2.1 Subjects……………………………………………………………………………….19 2.1.1 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria of Subjects…………………………………...19 2.1.2 Initial Screening Process of Subjects…………………………………………...20 2.1.3 Assessment Tools Description…………………………………………………..21 2.2 Experimental Apparatus………………………………………………………………24 2.3 Experimental Procedures…………………………………………………………......25 2.4 Dependent Variables…………………………………………………………………..26 2.5 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………28 Chapter 3 Results…………………………………………………………………................30 3.1 Demographic and Neurological Characteristics of the subjects………………….......30 3.2 The Comparison of Reach-Grasp-Retract Movement of Unaffected Upper Limb Between Control (H0) and Obstacle Crossing (H30) Condition in Stroke Patients….30 3.2.1 Reach to Grasp Movement……………………………………………………...30 3.2.2 Retraction and Placing Movement……………………………………………...31 3.2.3 Relative Timing between Reach and Grasp components……………………….31 3.3 The Comparison of Reach-Grasp-Retract Movement of Affected Upper Limb Between Control (H0) and Obstacle Crossing (H30) Condition in Stroke Patients….32 3.3.1 Reach to Grasp Movement……………………………………………………...33 3.3.2 Retraction and Placing Movement……………………………………………...33 3.3.3 Relative Timing between Reach and Grasp Components………………………33 3.4 The Comparison of Reach-Grasp-Retract Movement of Unaffected Upper Limb and Affected Upper Limb in Stroke Patients in Control Condition (H0)…………………34 3.4.1 Reach to Grasp Movement……………………………………………………...34 3.4.2 Retraction and Placing Movement……………………………………………...35 3.4.3 Relative Timing between Reach and Grasp Components………………….… ..35 3.5 The Comparison of Reach-Grasp-Retract Movement of Unaffected Upper Limb and Affected Upper Limb in Stroke Patients in Obstacle Crossing Condition (H30)…….36 3.5.1 Reach to Grasp Movement……………………………………………………...36 3.5.2 Retraction and Placing Movement……………………………………………...37 3.5.3 Relative Timing between Reach and Grasp Components………………………38 Chapter 4 Discussion………………………………………………………………………...40 Chapter 5 Limitations and Recommendations of Future Study………………………….45 Chapter 6 Conclusions and Clinical Applications………………………………………....47 References……………………………………………………………………………………48 Tables………………………………………………………………………………………...56 Figures………………………………………………………………………………………..64 Appendix A Inform consent and subject’s approval form………………………………..81 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 高功能慢性中風患者因應障礙物之伸臂與取物動作運動學分析 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Kinematic Analysis of Obstacle Crossing During Reach- Grasp-Retract Movement in Highly Functioning Patients with Chronic Stroke | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 96-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.coadvisor | 呂東武 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 鄭建興,陳顥齡 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 障礙物,伸臂取物,動作控制,上肢,中風, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Obstacle,reach-grasp-retract,motor control,upper limb,stroke, | en |
dc.relation.page | 85 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2008-01-30 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 醫學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 職能治療研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 職能治療學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-97-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 751.53 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。