Knowing how impaired manual dexterity and finger proprioception affect upper limb activity capacity is important for delineating targeted post-stroke interventions for upper limb recovery.
Objectives
To investigate whether impaired manual dexterity and finger proprioception explain variance in post-stroke activity capacity, and whether they explain more variance than conventional clinical assessments of upper limb sensorimotor impairments.
Methods
Activity capacity and hand sensorimotor impairments were assessed using clinical measures in N = 42 late subacute/chronic hemiparetic stroke patients. Dexterity was evaluated using the Dextrain Manipulandum to quantify accuracy of visuomotor finger force-tracking (N = 36), timing of rhythmic tapping (N = 36), and finger individuation (N = 24), as well as proprioception (N = 27). Stepwise multivariate and hierarchical linear regression models were used to identify impairments best explaining activity capacity.
Results
Dexterity and proprioceptive components significantly increased the variance explained in activity capacity: (i) Box and Block Test was best explained by baseline tonic force during force-tracking and tapping frequency (adjusted R2 = .51); (ii) Motor Activity Log was best explained by success rate in finger individuation (adjusted R2 = .46); (iii) Action Research Arm Test was best explained by release of finger force and proprioceptive measures (improved reaction time related to use of proprioception; adjusted R2 = .52); and (iv) Moberg Pick-Up test was best explained by proprioceptive function (adjusted R2 = .18). Models excluding dexterity and proprioception variables explained up to 19% less variance.
Conclusions
Manual dexterity and finger proprioception explain unique variance in activity capacity not captured by conventional impairment measures and should be assessed when considering the underlying causes of post-stroke activity capacity limitations.
KwakkelGKollenBJvan der GrondJPrevoAJH. Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke. 2003;34(9):2181-2186. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000087172.16305.CD
2.
PennatiGVPlantinJCarmentL, et al. Recovery and prediction of dynamic precision grip force control after stroke. Stroke. 2020;51(3):944-951. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.026205
3.
LemonRN.Descending pathways in motor control. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2008;31:195-218. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.31.060407.125547
4.
YongJMacDermidJCPackhamTBobosPRichardsonJMollS.Performance-based outcome measures of dexterity and hand function in person with hands and wrist injuries: a scoping review of measured constructs. J Hand Ther. 2022;35(2):200-214. doi:10.1016/j.jht.2021.04.017
5.
LindbergPGFeydyAMaierMA.White matter organization in cervical spinal cord relates differently to age and control of grip force in healthy subjects. J Neurosci. 2010;30(11):4102-4109. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5529-09.2010
6.
ReppBHSuYH.Sensorimotor synchronization: a review of recent research (2006-2012). Psychon Bull Rev. 2013;20(3):403-452. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0371-2
7.
Häger-RossCSchieberMH.Quantifying the independence of human finger movements: comparisons of digits, hands, and movement frequencies. J Neurosci. 2000;20(22):8542-8550. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.20-22-08542.2000
8.
LangCESchieberMH.Human finger independence: limitations due to passive mechanical coupling versus active neuromuscular control. J Neurophysiol. 2004;92(5):2802-2810. doi:10.1152/jn.00480.2004
9.
AndresFGGerloffC.Coherence of sequential movements and motor learning. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1999;16(6):520-527. doi:10.1097/00004691-199911000-00004
10.
CatalanMJHondaMWeeksRACohenLGHallettM.The functional neuroanatomy of simple and complex sequential finger movements: a PET study. Brain. 1998;121(Pt 2):253-264. doi:10.1093/brain/121.2.253
11.
TérémetzMColleFHamdounSMaierMALindbergPG.A novel method for the quantification of key components of manual dexterity after stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015;12:64. doi:10.1186/s12984-015-0054-0
12.
GerardinERegnierMDricotL, et al. Dexterity in the acute phase of stroke: impairments and neural substrates. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2024;38(3):229-239.
13.
KwakkelGvan WegenEEHBurridgeJH, et al.; ADVISORY group. Standardized measurement of quality of upper limb movement after stroke: consensus-based core recommendations from the second stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019;33(11):951-958. doi: 10.1177/1545968319886477.
14.
KessnerSSBingelUThomallaG.Somatosensory deficits after stroke: a scoping review. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2016;23(2):136-146. doi:10.1080/10749357.2015.1116822
15.
ConnellLALincolnNBRadfordKA.Somatosensory impairment after stroke: frequency of different deficits and their recovery. Clin Rehabil. 2008;22(8):758-767. doi:10.1177/0269215508090674
16.
SullivanJEHedmanLD.Sensory dysfunction following stroke: incidence, significance, examination, and intervention. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2008;15(3):200-217. doi:10.1310/tsr1503-200
17.
PlantinJVerneauMGodboltAK, et al. Recovery and prediction of bimanual hand use after stroke. Neurology. 2021;97(7):e706-e719. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000012366
18.
ProskeUGandeviaSC.The proprioceptive senses: their roles in signaling body shape, body position and movement, and muscle force. Physiol Rev. 2012;92(4):1651-1697. doi:10.1152/physrev.00048.2011
19.
SemrauJAHerterTMScottSHDukelowSP.Examining differences in patterns of sensory and motor recovery after stroke with robotics. Stroke. 2015;46(12):3459-3469. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.010750
20.
YuGHLeeJSKimSKChaTH.Effects of interactive metronome training on upper extremity function, ADL and QOL in stroke patients. NeuroRehabilitation. 2017;41(1):161-168. doi:10.3233/NRE-171468
21.
GermanottaMGowerVPapadopoulouD, et al. Reliability, validity and discriminant ability of a robotic device for finger training in patients with subacute stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020;17(1):1. doi:10.1186/s12984-019-0634-5
22.
ZbytniewskaMKanzlerCMJordanL, et al. Reliable and valid robot-assisted assessments of hand proprioceptive, motor and sensorimotor impairments after stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021;18(1):115. doi:10.1186/s12984-021-00904-5
23.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. World Health Organization; 2001.
24.
SantistebanLTérémetzMBletonJPBaronJCMaierMALindbergPG.Upper limb outcome measures used in stroke rehabilitation studies: a systematic literature review. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0154792.
25.
KamperDGFischerHCCruzEGRymerWZ.Weakness is the primary contributor to finger impairment in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(9):1262-1269. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2006.05.013
26.
HarrisJEEngJJ.Paretic upper-limb strength best explains arm activity in people with stroke. Phys Ther. 2007;87(1):88-97. doi:10.2522/ptj.20060065
27.
PlantinJGodboltAKPennatiGV, et al. Motor inhibition and its contribution to recovery of dexterous hand use after stroke. Brain Commun. 2022;4(5):fcac241. doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcac241
28.
SmaniaNPaolucciSTinazziM, et al. Active finger extension: a simple movement predicting recovery of arm function in patients with acute stroke. Stroke. 2007;38(3):1088-1090. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000258077.88064.a3
29.
TérémetzMHamdounSColleF, et al. Efficacy of interactive manual dexterity training after stroke: a pilot single-blinded randomized controlled trial. J NeuroEng Rehabil. 2023;20(1):93. doi:10.1186/s12984-023-01213-9
30.
FolsteinMFRobinsLNHelzerJE.The mini-mental state examination. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1983;40(7):812. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1983.01790060110016
31.
CuschieriS.The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019;13(5):31. doi:10.4103/sia.sia_543_18
32.
ShiraniANewtonBDOkudaDT.Finger tapping impairments are highly sensitive for evaluating upper motor neuron lesions. BMC Neurol. 2017;17(1):55. doi:10.1186/s12883-017-0829-y
33.
SudaMKawakamiMOkuyamaK, et al. Validity and reliability of the Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament test and the thumb localizing test in patients with stroke. Front Neurol. 2021;11:625917. doi:10.3389/fneur.2020.625917
34.
MathiowetzVVollandGKashmanNWeberK.Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther. 1985;39(6):386-391. doi:10.5014/ajot.39.6.386
35.
AshfordSSladeMMalapradeFTurner-StokesL.Evaluation of functional outcome measures for the hemiparetic upper limb: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(10):787-795. doi:10.2340/16501977-0276
36.
PlatzTPinkowskiCvan WijckFKimIHdi BellaPJohnsonG.Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multicentre study. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19(4):404-411. doi:10.1191/0269215505cr832oa
37.
AmirjaniNAshworthNLGordonTEdwardsDCChanKM.Normative values and the effects of age, gender, and handedness on the Moberg Pick-Up Test. Muscle Nerve. 2007;35(6):788-792. doi:10.1002/mus.20750
38.
CordoPJHornJLKünsterDCherryABrattAGurfinkelV.Contributions of skin and muscle afferent input to movement sense in the human hand. J Neurophysiol. 2011;105(4):1879-1888. doi:10.1152/jn.00201.2010
39.
CarmentLAbdellatifALafuente-LafuenteC, et al. Manual dexterity and aging: a pilot study disentangling sensorimotor from cognitive decline. Front Neurol. 2018;9:910. doi:10.3389/fneur.2018.00910
40.
BenjaminiYHochbergY.Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Methodol). 1995;57(1):289-300. doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
41.
JohnstonRJonesKManleyD.Confounding and collinearity in regression analysis: a cautionary tale and an alternative procedure, illustrated by studies of British voting behaviour. Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1957-1976. doi:10.1007/s11135-017-0584-6
42.
StekhovenDJBühlmannP.MissForest–non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(1):112-8.
43.
NijenhuisSMPrange-LasonderGBFleurenJFWagenaarJBuurkeJHRietmanJS.Strong relations of elbow excursion and grip strength with post-stroke arm function and activities: should we aim for this in technology-supported training?J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2018;5:2055668318779301. doi:10.1177/2055668318779301
44.
BaumannSKoenekeSSchmidtCFMeyerMLutzKJanckeL.A network for audio–motor coordination in skilled pianists and non-musicians. Brain Res. 2007;1161:65-78. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.05.045
45.
BirchenallJTérémetzMRocaP, et al. Individual recovery profiles of manual dexterity, and relation to corticospinal lesion load and excitability after stroke -a longitudinal pilot study. Neurophysiol Clin. 2019;49(2):149-164. doi:10.1016/j.neucli.2018.10.065
46.
CalauttiCJonesPSNaccaratoM, et al. The relationship between motor deficit and primary motor cortex hemispheric activation balance after stroke: longitudinal fMRI study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2010;81(7):788-792. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2009.190512
47.
LangCEDeJongSLBeebeJA.Recovery of thumb and finger extension and its relation to grasp performance after stroke. J Neurophysiol. 2009;102(1):451-459. doi:10.1152/jn.91310.2008
48.
RaghavanPPetraEKrakauerJWGordonAM.Patterns of impairment in digit independence after subcortical stroke. J Neurophysiol. 2006;95(1):369-378. doi:10.1152/jn.00873.2005
49.
LangCESchieberMH.Differential impairment of individuated finger movements in humans after damage to the motor cortex or the corticospinal tract. J Neurophysiol. 2003;90(2):1160-1170. doi:10.1152/jn.00130.2003
50.
IngemansonMLRoweJRChanVWolbrechtETReinkensmeyerDJCramerSC.Somatosensory system integrity explains differences in treatment response after stroke. Neurology. 2019;92(10):e1098-e1108. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000007041
51.
WolbrechtETRoweJBChanVIngemansonMLCramerSCReinkensmeyerDJ.Finger strength, individuation, and their interaction: relationship to hand function and corticospinal tract injury after stroke. Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;129(4):797-808. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2018.01.057
52.
HuangPCHsiehYWWangCMWuCYHuangSCLinKC.Predictors of motor, daily function, and quality-of-life improvements after upper-extremity robot-assisted rehabilitation in stroke. Am J Occup Ther. 2014;68(3):325-333. doi:10.5014/ajot.2014.010546
53.
RandD.Proprioception deficits in chronic stroke-Upperextremity function and daily living. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0195043. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195043
54.
OcalNMAlacaNCanboraMK.Does upper extremity proprioceptive training have an impact on functional outcomes in chronic stroke patients?Medeni Med J. 2020;35(2):91-98. doi:10.5222/MMJ.2020.48752
55.
GhezCGordonJGhilardiMFChristakosCNCooperSE.Roles of proprioceptive input in the programming of arm trajectories. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1990;55:837-847. doi:10.1101/sqb.1990.055.01.079
56.
AsanumaHArissianK.Experiments on functional role of peripheral input to motor cortex during voluntary movements in the monkey. J Neurophysiol. 1984;52(2):212-227. doi:10.1152/jn.1984.52.2.212
57.
de Groot-DriessenDvan de SandePvan HeugtenC. Speed of finger tapping as a predictor of functional outcome after unilateral stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(1):40-44. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2005.09.022
58.
BeebeJALangCE.Relationships and responsiveness of six upper extremity function tests during the first six months of recovery after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2009;33(2):96-103. doi:10.1097/NPT.0b013e3181a33638
59.
EschmannHHérouxMECheethamJHPottsSDiongJ.Thumb and finger movement is reduced after stroke: an observational study. PLoS One. 2019;14(6):e0217969. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217969
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
