Sensory Discrimination of Children with Cerebral Palsy: Pressure/Pain Thresholds on the Foot

Abstract

The pressure/pain thresholds (p/pT) of 30 normal children and 30 cerebral palsied (CP) children were compared. Three measurements of p/pT were taken on each of five areas of the plantar surface of the foot. Rank-order correlations between these areas were all significant. In each group, the heel was the least sensitive and the mid-arch was the most sensitive, except in the CP walkers where the first metatarsal was the least sensitive. On the five areas of the foot tested, the CP non-walkers had lower thresholds than the normals, and the normals had lower thresholds than the CP walkers on four of the areas. When the difference was considered, significant differences were found between the CP non-walkers and the CP walkers on the big toe, the first metatarsal, and the fifth metatarsal. The ratio for non-walkers also differed from that of normals on the big toe and the first metatarsal. The variability is large in both groups, but the normal group was more variable than the CP group. There was a trial effect which showed highest thresholds on the third trial in the normal group and on the second trial in the CP group. The two groups differed when compared on the basis of p/pT. These differences should be studied further. The meaning of these data should be reconsidered when analysis of data on other sensory tests on the same children have been completed. A first step in developing a reliable quantitative method for use in comparing thresholds of either areas of the foot or of groups of Ss has been taken. Thus, clinical judgments need no longer be the standard employed in making such comparisons.

Tactile Assessment in Children with Cerebral Palsy: A Clinimetric Review

“…In order to avoid confusion, evaluation of graphaesthesia and MFP was limited to studies using the SIPT, rather than the earlier test version known as the Southern California Sensory Integration Test (SCSIT) (Ayres, 1972). Nineteen tests were excluded because of inconsistency in methodology and a lack of clinimetric data, including 11 tests of stereognosis (Bolanos, Bleck, Firestone, & Young, 1989;Carlson & Brooks, 2009;Goldner & Ferlic, 1966;Guzzetta et al, 2007;Hohman, Baker, & Reed, 1958;Krumlinde-Sundholm & Eliasson, 2002;Tachdjian & Minear, 1958;Van Heest et al, 1993;Wilson & Wilson, 1967;Wilton, 2003;Yekutiel, Jariwala, & Stretch, 1994), four tests of texture discrimination (Bleyenheuft, Wilmotte, & Thonnard, 2010;Hohman et al, 1958;Sanger & Kukke, 2007;Wingert, Burford, Sinclair, Brunstrom, & Damiano, 2008), two of graphaesthesia (Guzzetta et al, 2007;Russo, Miller, Haan, Cameron, & Crotty, 2008), and four of localization or DS (Hohman et al, 1958;Smith, Walker, & Myers, 1988;Weidenbacker, 1962). The Tactile Behavior Observation Scale (Clayton, 2004) was excluded, as it examines behavioral responses to tactile stimuli and not registration or perception directly.…”

Somatosensory deficits and neural correlates in cerebral palsy: a scoping review

“…A total of 9766 records were retrieved (including additional records identified through other sources). After discarding duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 4882 references were screened; 114 full‐text articles were assessed for eligibility and 66 were excluded because they were not original research 29–47 ( n =19), they did not assess somatosensory processing 48–65 ( n =18), they did not include a control group 66–81 ( n =16), they were not in English or French and they could not be translated using free online tools 82–88 ( n =7), they did not include individuals diagnosed with CP 89–91 ( n =3), or their full text was not available 92–94 ( n =3, all published before 1960). Therefore, 48 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this scoping review (Fig.…”