Case report of modified Box and Blocks test with motion capture to measure prosthetic function

Hebert, Jacqueline S.; Lewicke, Justin

doi:10.1682/jrrd.2011.10.0207

Cited by 63 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, ACMC assesses how the prosthesis is normally used to assist the sound hand to perform bimanual activities. It has been reported that prosthesis users prefer to be assessed in their usual way of using the prosthesis [47], and consistent results are observed if they are allowed to perform the activities in their usual way [43]. Both assessment procedures are useful for different purposes, and it is important for clinicians to be aware of the different assessment procedures before they evaluate their clients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Test-retest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0

Lindner¹,

Langius‐Eklöf

Hermansson

2014

J Rehabil Res Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control (ACMC) is an observation-based tool that evaluates ability to control a myoelectric prosthetic hand. Validity evidence led to ACMC version 2.0, but the test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change (MDC) of the ACMC have never been evaluated. Investigation of rater agreements in this version was also needed because it has new definitions in certain rating categories and items. Upper-limb prosthesis users (n = 25, 15 congenital, 10 acquired; mean age 27.5 yr) performed one standardized activity twice, 2 to 5 wk apart. Activity performances were videorecorded and assessed by two ACMC raters. Data were analyzed by weighted kappa, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman method. For test-retest reliability, weighted kappa agreements were fair to excellent (0.52 to 1.00), ICC 2,1 was 0.94, and one user was located outside the limits of agreement in the Bland-Altman plot. MDC 95 was less than or equal to 0.55 logits (1 rater) and 0.69 logits (2 raters). For interrater reliability, weighted kappa agreements were fair to excellent in both sessions (0.44 to 1.00), and ICC 2,1 was 0.95 (test) and 0.92 (retest). Intrarater agreement (rater 1) was also excellent (ICC 3,1 0.98). Evidence regarding the reliability of the ACMC is satisfactory and MDC 95 can be used to indicate change.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Test-retest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0

Lindner¹,

Langius‐Eklöf

Hermansson

2014

J Rehabil Res Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ten studies of varying quality and design (Table 4) suggest that, depending on functional needs, control scheme familiarity, and user preference, either BP with a conventional hook or MYO prostheses are advantageous compared with each other or other alternatives [9][10]17,21,24,29,[38][39][43][44]. The range of study designs supporting this statement includes expert opinion, observational, and experimental designs.…”

Section: Body-powered Upper-limb Prosthesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses: Systematic literature review

Carey

Lura

Highsmith³

et al. 2015

J Rehabil Res Dev

181

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The choice of a myoelectric or body-powered upper-limb prosthesis can be determined using factors including control, function, feedback, cosmesis, and rejection. Although body-powered and myoelectric control strategies offer unique functions, many prosthesis users must choose one. A systematic review was conducted to determine differences between myoelectric and body-powered prostheses to inform evidence-based clinical practice regarding prescription of these devices and training of users. A search of 9 databases identified 462 unique publications. Ultimately, 31 of them were included and 11 empirical evidence statements were developed. Conflicting evidence has been found in terms of the relative functional performance of body-powered and myoelectric prostheses. Body-powered prostheses have been shown to have advantages in durability, training time, frequency of adjustment, maintenance, and feedback; however, they could still benefit from improvements of control. Myoelectric prostheses have been shown to improve cosmesis and phantom-limb pain and are more accepted for light-intensity work. Currently, evidence is insufficient to conclude that either system provides a significant general advantage. Prosthetic selection should be based on a patient's individual needs and include personal preferences, prosthetic experience, and functional needs. This work demonstrates that there is a lack of empirical evidence regarding functional differences in upper-limb prostheses.

show abstract

“…For this reason, we previously used a modified version of the Box and Blocks (BB) test with motion capture to examine upper-limb prosthetic function and myoelectric control after targeted muscle reinnervation surgery [7]. We chose the BB test because it is a widely used, well-validated timed performance measure of upper-limb function [8] that requires repetitive consistent execution, with good responsiveness to change in performance [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Normative data for modified Box and Blocks test measuring upper-limb function via motion capture

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Motion analysis is an important tool for examining upper-limb function. Based on previous work demonstrating a modified Box and Blocks (BB) test with motion capture to assess prosthetic performance, we collected data in 16 nondisabled participants to establish normative kinematics for this test. Four motions of the modified BB test were analyzed to establish kinematic data for upper-limb and trunk motion. The test was repeated for right and left arms in standing and seated positions. Data were compared using a nonparametric Friedman test. No differences were found between right-and lefthand performance other than for task completion time. Small but significant differences were found for standing and seated performance, with slightly greater ranges in standing for axial trunk rotation, medial-lateral sternum displacement, and anterior-posterior hand displacement. The kinematic trajectories, however, were very consistent. The consistency in our nondisabled data suggests that normative kinematic trajectories can be defined for this task. This motion capture procedure may add to the understanding of movement in upper-limb impairment and may be useful for measuring the effect of interventions to improve upper-limb function.

show abstract

Case report of modified Box and Blocks test with motion capture to measure prosthetic function

Cited by 63 publications

References 23 publications

Test-retest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0

Test-retest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0

Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses: Systematic literature review

Normative data for modified Box and Blocks test measuring upper-limb function via motion capture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About