Responsiveness and validity of the Motor Activity Log in patients during the subacute phase after stroke

Hammer, Ann M.; Lindmark, Birgitta

doi:10.3109/09638280903437253

Cited by 36 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(65 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of a measure of precise movement of the digits during recovery, such as the Grasp Assessment Scale adapted for this study, not only to provide an in-depth analysis of the nature of the compensatory movement but also because quantitative measures of performance alone (e.g., latency to retrieve or number of pellets retrieved) could fail to detect the development of compensatory movements and may lead to the incorrect conclusion about the nature of recovery. This issue has also been raised in several clinical studies assessing the efficacy of tests of arm function (Hammer and Lindmark, 2010; Heller et al, 1987; Lum et al, 2009; Sunderland et al, 1999; Wade, 1989). It has been suggested that many clinical assessments of arm function provide a pass/fail or a latency score but not a detailed assessment of the nature of upper extremity movements and that future studies should include more detailed analysis of these movements (Raghavan et al, 2010; Saver, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery from ischemia in the middle-aged brain: a nonhuman primate model

Moore¹,

Killiany²,

Pessina³

et al. 2012

Neurobiology of Aging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of recovery from stroke mainly utilize rodent models and focus primarily on young subjects despite the increased prevalence of stroke with age and the fact that recovery of function is more limited in the aged brain. In the present study, a nonhuman primate model of cortical ischemia was developed to allow the comparison of impairments in young and middle-aged monkeys. Animals were pretrained on a fine motor task of the hand and digits and then underwent a surgical procedure to map and lesion the hand-digit representation in the dominant motor cortex. Animals were retested until performance returned to preoperative levels. To assess the recovery of grasp patterns, performance was videotaped and rated using a scale adapted from human occupational therapy. Results demonstrated that the impaired hand recovers to baseline in young animals in 65–80 days and in middle-aged animals in 130–150 days. However, analysis of grasp patterns revealed that neither group recover preoperative finger thumb grasp patterns, rather they develop compensatory movements.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery from ischemia in the middle-aged brain: a nonhuman primate model

Moore¹,

Killiany²,

Pessina³

et al. 2012

Neurobiology of Aging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The average time (WMFT-Time) and functional ability scores (WMFT-FAS) of the paretic arm were reported. Activities of daily living were measured with the Motor Activity Log (MAL) [45] and the ABILHAND Questionnaire [46]. The MAL is a reliable and valid 30-item measure of how patients perceive the use of their paretic UE during real-world activities.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unilateral versus bilateral robot-assisted rehabilitation on arm-trunk control and functions post stroke: a randomized controlled trial

Yang

Chen

et al. 2013

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAlthough the effects of robot-assisted arm training after stroke are promising, the relative effects of unilateral (URT) vs. bilateral (BRT) robot-assisted arm training remain uncertain. This study compared the effects of URT vs. BRT on upper extremity (UE) control, trunk compensation, and function in patients with chronic stroke.MethodThis was a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. The intervention was implemented at 4 hospitals. Fifty-three patients with stroke were randomly assigned to URT, BRT, or control treatment (CT). Each group received UE training for 90 to 105 min/day, 5 days/week, for 4 weeks. The kinematic variables for arm motor control and trunk compensation included normalized movement time, normalized movement units, and the arm-trunk contribution slope in unilateral and bilateral tasks. Motor function and daily function were measured by the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), Motor Activity Log (MAL), and ABILHAND Questionnaire.ResultsThe BRT and CT groups elicited significantly larger slope values (i.e., less trunk compensation) at the start of bilateral reaching than the URT group. URT led to significantly better effects on WMFT-Time than BRT. Differences in arm control kinematics and performance on the MAL and ABILHAND among the 3 groups were not significant.ConclusionsBRT and URT resulted in differential improvements in specific UE/trunk performance in patients with stroke. BRT elicited larger benefits than URT on reducing compensatory trunk movements at the beginning of reaching. In contrast, URT produced better improvements in UE temporal efficiency. These relative effects on movement kinematics, however, did not translate into differential benefits in daily functions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00917605.

show abstract

“…[21][22][23] The MAL is a semistructured interview that obtains information about how participants use their affected limbs during 30 important daily activities and assesses the AOU and the quality of movement (QOM) of the affected arm. [24][25][26][27] …”

Section: Secondary Outcome Measures: Clinical Measuresmentioning

confidence: 98%