No abstract

No abstract

The structure of joint angle variability and its changes with practice were investigated using the uncontrolled manifold (UCM) computational approach. Subjects performed fast and accurate bimanual pointing movements in 3D space, trying to match the tip of a pointer, held in the right hand, with the tip of one of three different targets, held in the left hand during a pre-test, several practice sessions and a post-test. The prediction of the UCM approach about the structuring of joint angle variance for selective stabilization of important task variables was tested with respect to selective stabilization of time series of the vectorial distance between the pointer and aimed target tips (bimanual control hypothesis) and with respect to selective stabilization of the endpoint trajectory of each arm (unimanual control hypothesis). The components of the total joint angle variance not affecting (V(COMP)) and affecting (V(UN)) the value of a selected task variable were computed for each 10% of the normalized movement time. The ratio of these two components R(V)=V(COMP)/V(UN) served as a quantitative index of selective stabilization. Both the bimanual and unimanual control hypotheses were supported, however the R(V) values for the bimanual hypothesis were significantly higher than those for the unimanual hypothesis applied to the left and right arm both prior to and after practice. This suggests that the CNS stabilizes the relative trajectory of one endpoint with respect to the other more than it stabilizes the trajectories of each of the endpoints in the external space. Practice-associated improvement in both movement speed and accuracy was accompanied by counter-intuitive lack of changes in R(V). Both V(COMP) and V(UN) variance components decreased such that their ratio remained constant prior to and after practice. We conclude that the UCM approach offers a unique and under-explored opportunity to track changes in the organization of multi-effector systems with practice and allows quantitative assessment of the degree of stabilization of selected performance variables.

BackgroundAssessment of sensorimotor function is useful for classification and treatment evaluation of neck pain disorders. Several studies have investigated various aspects of cervical motor functions. Most of these have involved slow or self-paced movements, while few have investigated fast cervical movements. Moreover, the reliability of assessment of fast cervical axial rotation has, to our knowledge, not been evaluated before.MethodsCervical kinematics was assessed during fast axial head rotations in 118 women with chronic nonspecific neck pain (NS) and compared to 49 healthy controls (CON). The relationship between cervical kinematics and symptoms, self-rated functioning and fear of movement was evaluated in the NS group. A sub-sample of 16 NS and 16 CON was re-tested after one week to assess the reliability of kinematic variables. Six cervical kinematic variables were calculated: peak speed, range of movement, conjunct movements and three variables related to the shape of the speed profile.ResultsTogether, peak speed and conjunct movements had a sensitivity of 76% and a specificity of 78% in discriminating between NS and CON, of which the major part could be attributed to peak speed (NS: 226 ± 88 °/s and CON: 348 ± 92 °/s, p < 0.01). Peak speed was slower in NS compared to healthy controls and even slower in NS with comorbidity of low-back pain. Associations were found between reduced peak speed and self-rated difficulties with running, performing head movements, car driving, sleeping and pain. Peak speed showed reasonably high reliability, while the reliability for conjunct movements was poor.ConclusionsPeak speed of fast cervical axial rotations is reduced in people with chronic neck pain, and even further reduced in subjects with concomitant low back pain. Fast cervical rotation test seems to be a reliable and valid tool for assessment of neck pain disorders on group level, while a rather large between subject variation and overlap between groups calls for caution in the interpretation of individual assessments.