Compensatory motor control after stroke: an alternative joint strategy for object-dependent shaping of hand posture.
Efficient grasping requires planned and accurate coordination of finger movements to approximate the shape of an object before contact. In healthy subjects, hand shaping is known to occur early in reach under predominantly feedforward control. In patients with hemiparesis after stroke, execution of coordinated digit motion during grasping is impaired as a result of damage to the corticospinal tract. The question addressed here is whether patients with hemiparesis are able to compensate for their execution deficit with a qualitatively different grasp strategy that still allows them to differentiate hand posture to object shape. Subjects grasped a rectangular, concave, and convex object while wearing an instrumented glove. Reach-to-grasp was divided into three phases based on wrist kinematics: reach acceleration (reach onset to peak horizontal wrist velocity), reach deceleration (peak horizontal wrist velocity to reach offset), and grasp (reach offset to lift-off). Patients showed reduced finger abduction, proximal interphalangeal joint (PIP) flexion, and metacarpophalangeal joint (MCP) extension at object grasp across all three shapes compared with controls; however, they were able to partially differentiate hand posture for the convex and concave shapes using a compensatory strategy that involved increased MCP flexion rather than the PIP flexion seen in controls. Interestingly, shape-specific hand postures did not unfold initially during reach acceleration as seen in controls, but instead evolved later during reach deceleration, which suggests increased reliance on sensory feedback. These results indicate that kinematic analysis can identify and quantify within-limb compensatory motor control strategies after stroke. From a clinical perspective, quantitative study of compensation is important to better understand the process of recovery from brain injury. From a motor control perspective, compensation can be considered a model for how joint redundancy is exploited to accomplish the task goal through redistribution of work across effectors.
Raghavan
Preeti
P
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, 1450 Madison Avenue, Box 1240, New York, NY 10029, USA. Preeti.Raghavan@nyumc.org
Santello
Marco
M
Gordon
Andrew M
AM
Krakauer
John W
JW
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D056228:Feedback, Sensory / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D005556:Form Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D006225:Hand / Q000503:physiopathology*; D018737:Hand Strength / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D007596:Joints / Q000294:innervation / Q000503:physiopathology*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011187:Posture / Q000502:physiology*; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology; D020521:Stroke / Q000473:pathology* / Q000503:physiopathology
Q J Exp Psychol A. 2004 Feb;57(2):269-96
14742177
Motor Control. 2009 Apr;13(2):197-217
19454780
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2006 Dec;20(4):444-54
17082499
J Biomech. 2002 Dec;35(12):1581-9
12445611
Exp Brain Res. 2004 Jul;157(2):162-73
14985899
J Neurosci. 1998 Dec 1;18(23):10105-15
9822764
Eur J Neurosci. 2007 May;25(10):3173-84
17561831
J Mot Behav. 1994 Dec;26(4):325-332
12719189
Disabil Rehabil. 1995 Jul;17(5):217-24
7626768
J Neurophysiol. 2006 Apr;95(4):2456-65
16381806
Brain. 2006 Jun;129(Pt 6):1415-25
16597653
Dev Med Child Neurol. 1999 Sep;41(9):597-607
10503918
Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2009 Mar 28;367(1891):1163-79
19218157
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2009 Dec;19(6):601-7
19828310
Psychopharmacol Bull. 1988;24(4):689-92
3249771
Exp Brain Res. 1993;96(1):152-62
8243577
Clin Neurophysiol. 2003 May;114(5):915-29
12738439
Phys Ther. 1987 Feb;67(2):206-7
3809245
Exp Brain Res. 2007 Jun;180(1):85-96
17256167
Neurology. 1980 May;30(5):509-17
7189256
Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Jan;14(1):31-9
20005767
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 Mar;87(3):418-29
16500179
Exp Brain Res. 2003 Jul;151(2):158-66
12783144
J Mot Behav. 1984 Sep;16(3):235-54
15151851
J Neurosci. 2002 Feb 15;22(4):1426-35
11850469
Phys Ther. 2004 Jan;84(1):8-22
14992673
J Neurophysiol. 1998 Mar;79(3):1307-20
9497412
Stroke. 2001 Jul;32(7):1635-9
11441212
Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2000 Jul;74(1):27-55
10873519
Science. 1991 Feb 22;251(4996):944-7
2000496
Behav Brain Res. 2005 Jul 1;162(1):71-82
15922067
Behav Brain Res. 1992 Sep 28;50(1-2):7-15
1449650
Exp Brain Res. 1990;79(2):431-5
2323388
J Neurosci. 2008 Feb 6;28(6):1366-73
18256256
Brain. 2005 Jan;128(Pt 1):64-74
15471902
J Neurophysiol. 2006 Jan;95(1):369-78
16207778
Brain Res. 2003 Apr 18;969(1-2):217-29
12676382
Exp Brain Res. 2005 Sep;166(1):126-36
16021431
Biol Cybern. 1999 Jul;81(1):39-60
10434390
Brain. 2000 May;123 ( Pt 5):940-53
10775539
Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113
5146491
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13-31
1135616
J Biomech. 1998 Aug;31(8):693-703
9796669
J Neurol. 2003 Jul;250(7):850-60
12883929
J Neurophysiol. 2010 Jan;103(1):108-16
19889857
Exp Brain Res. 2003 Oct;152(4):489-98
12898088