1988
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1988.tb14637.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Deficits Forces the Production of Grip Down Syndrome

Abstract: Summary Down syndrome (DS) and control individuals were examined as to their ability to adapt grip forces to changes in the properties of lifted objects. The DS group generated substantially greater grip forces than the controls in all tests and failed to adapt normally to changes in the frictional properties of the objects. Their greater grip forces were not due to greater slipperiness of the skin of their fingers. These results are consistent with other findings of subtle deficits in DS individuals' use of s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
19
0
3

Year Published

1992
1992
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
4
19
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous studies showed that postural sway in subjects with somatosensory loss was significantly larger than normal on a firm surface but not on the sway-referenced surfaced, suggesting that sway-referencing disrupts somatosensory information for postural control already disrupted by neuropathy (Horak et al 2002). Our findings support the hypothesis of somatosensory deficits defended by such authors as Cole, Abbs & Turner (1988) showing that individuals with DS failed to modulate the grip force when were asked to lift one object with different surfaces and Brandt & Rosen (1995) showing low amplitudes for sensory nerve action potential following stimulation of the thumbs suggesting impaired peripherical somatosensory functions. Other possible explanation is a delay in central processing the afferent and efferent information at the cerebellum level because the cerebellum weight has been reported to be lower (Bellugi et al, 1990).…”
Section: Sensory Contribution To Postural Controlsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…Previous studies showed that postural sway in subjects with somatosensory loss was significantly larger than normal on a firm surface but not on the sway-referenced surfaced, suggesting that sway-referencing disrupts somatosensory information for postural control already disrupted by neuropathy (Horak et al 2002). Our findings support the hypothesis of somatosensory deficits defended by such authors as Cole, Abbs & Turner (1988) showing that individuals with DS failed to modulate the grip force when were asked to lift one object with different surfaces and Brandt & Rosen (1995) showing low amplitudes for sensory nerve action potential following stimulation of the thumbs suggesting impaired peripherical somatosensory functions. Other possible explanation is a delay in central processing the afferent and efferent information at the cerebellum level because the cerebellum weight has been reported to be lower (Bellugi et al, 1990).…”
Section: Sensory Contribution To Postural Controlsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…Compared to unaffected subjects, DS patients show lower levels of strength [12]; this is probably partly due to the action of factors such as number and type of muscle fibers, because the percentage of fast fibers in DS individuals is smaller than in people without disabilities [13]. DS patients are also less able than normal individuals to adapt their motor action to the circumstances and to generate greater strength when necessary [14]. These characteristics affect their general mobility and increase the difficulty they experience in performing coordinated movements and maintaining equilibrium [4,15].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…With fewer functioning motor units active during force generation, each motor unit will have a higher firing rate and thus a proportionally greater impact on overall force output (23,64). Persons with DS typically exhibits 30 -40% lower levels of strength compared with their peers with mental retardation and Ͻ50% of the expected strength levels of their nondisabled peers (4,10,12,24,25,39). These low levels of muscle strength are present in childhood and persist into adulthood (27).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%