Technology-aided assessment of functionally relevant sensorimotor impairments in arm and hand of post-stroke individuals

Table 1 Characterization of impairments and activity limitations

	Percentage of subjects with disability
	Most affected side	Less affected side
	n = 20	n = 22
Conventional scales: impairments
FMA-UE	100.0%	50.0%
MAS	75.0%	9.1%
EmNSA	70.0%	18.2%
Conventional scales: activity
BBT	90.0%	54.5%
ARAT	70.0%	4.5%
NHPT	70.0%	9.1%
VPIT: impairments in activity context
Log jerk transport	45.0%	8.2%
Log jerk return	35.0%	9.1%
SPARC return	30.0%	9.1%
Path length ratio transport	45.0%	4.5%
Path length ratio return	35.0%	13.6%
Velocity max. return	50.0%	31.8%
Jerk peg approach	30.0%	0.0%
Grip force rate num. peaks transport	50.0%	22.7%
Grip force rate SPARC transport	10.0%	9.1%
Grip force rate SPARC hole approach	45.0%	4.5%

MAS: Modified Ashworth Scale; NHPT: Nine Hole Peg Test; EmNSA: Erasmus modifications to the Nottingham Sensory Assessment; BBT: Box and Block Test; ARAT: Action Research Arm Test; FMA-UE: Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity.
Conventional assessments and the VPIT were used to define the presence of sensorimotor impairments and activity limitations. For the VPIT, NHPT, and BBT, abnormal behavior was defined if task performance was outside the 95^th-percentile of a normative reference population. According to the ARAT, activity limitations were present if the score was below 55 [13]. All other conventional scales indicated the presence of impairments if the full score was not reached. Only participants with all conventional scales available were used. In total, 90% and 50% of all individuals showed impairment in at least one VPIT metric with the most affected and less affected side, respectively

ISSN: 1743-0003