Relative independence of upper limb position sense and reaching in children with hemiparetic perinatal stroke

Table 4 Clinical characteristics of participants based on robotic performance

	Pass Both Robotic Tasks	Pass PM, Fail VGR	Fail PM, Pass VGR	Fail Both Robotic Tasks
Number of participants	17	15	7	9
TLT [0, 1, 2, 3]	[12, 5, 0, 0]	[9, 5, 0, 1]	[6, 1, 0, 0]	[5, 4, 0, 0]
Position Sense [0, 1] Thumb Wrist	[2, 15] [1, 16]	[5, 9]^b [3, 11]^b	[2, 5] [2, 5]	[3, 6] [2, 7]
Combined clinical sensory [0, 1]	[7, 10]	[8, 6]^b	[2, 5]	[6, 3]
MACS [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]	[6, 5, 0, 0, 0]^a	[2, 9, 0, 0, 0]^c	[3, 2, 0, 0, 0]^d	[1, 5, 0, 0, 0]^e
PPB	7.4 ± 4.7 (0–14)	1.9 ± 2.8 (0–9)	2.3 ± 3.3 (0–10)	1.6 ± 2.8 (0–9)

Overall, 17 participants passed both robotic tasks, 15 passed PM and failed VGR, 7 failed PM and passed VGR, and 9 failed both robotic tasks. Results from the Thumb Localization Test (TLT), position sense, combined clinical sensory (TLT and wrist/thumb position sense), and Manual Abilities Classification System (MACS) are shown as the number of subjects who obtained a given score (square brackets). Purdue Pegboard scores are shown as a mean ± standard deviation, with a range of scores shown in brackets. Abbreviations: position-matching (PM), visually guided reaching (VGR), Thumb Localization Test (TL), Manual Abilities Classification System (MACS), Purdue Pegboard (PPB). Missing data from ^a6, ^b1, ^c5, ^d2, and ^e3 participants

ISSN: 1743-0003