|Device use, locomotor training and the presence of arm swing during treadmill walking after spinal cord injury.|
|Jump to Full Text|
|PMID: 20938449 Owner: NLM Status: MEDLINE|
|STUDY DESIGN: Observational, cross-sectional study from a convenience sample with pretest/posttest data from a sample subset.
OBJECTIVES: Determine the presence of walking-related arm swing after spinal cord injury (SCI), its associated factors and whether arm swing may change after locomotor training (LT).
SETTING: Malcom Randall VAMC and University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
METHODS: Arm movement was assessed during treadmill stepping, pre-LT, in 30 individuals with motor incomplete SCI (iSCI, American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grade C/D, as defined by the International Standards for Neurological Classifications of SCI, with neurological level of impairment at or below C4). Partial body weight support and manual-trainer assistance were provided, as needed, to achieve stepping and allow arm swing. Arm swing presence was compared on the basis of cervical versus thoracic neurological levels of impairment and device type. Leg and arm strength and walking independence were compared between individuals with and without arm swing. Arm swing was reevaluated post-LT in the 21 out of 30 individuals who underwent LT.
RESULTS: Of 30 individuals with iSCI, 12 demonstrated arm swing during treadmill stepping, pre-LT. Arm movement was associated with device type, lower extremity motor scores and walking independence. Among the 21 individuals who received LT, only 5 demonstrated arm swing pre-LT. Of the 16 individuals lacking arm swing pre-LT, 8 integrated arm swing post-LT.
CONCLUSION: Devices routinely used for walking post-iSCI appeared associated with arm swing. Post-LT, arm swing presence increased. Therefore, arm swing may be experience dependent. Daily neuromuscular experiences provided to the arms may produce training effects, thereby altering arm swing expression.
|N J Tester; D R Howland; K V Day; S P Suter; A Cantrell; A L Behrman|
Related Documents :
|11359379 - Influence of body water distribution on skin thickness: measurements using high-frequen...
22998349 - The effect of a familiarisation period on subsequent strength gain.
3082779 - Faster kinetics of vo2 during arm exercise with circulatory occlusion of the legs.
4640949 - Free fatty acid metabolism of leg muscles during exercise in patients with obliterative...
7615919 - Nursing care of elders with leg edema.
903909 - Training induced adaptation of skeletal muscle and metabolism during submaximal exercise.
10191969 - The role of exercise-based prognosticating algorithms in the selection of patients for ...
22314739 - Atrial fibrillation, physical activity and endurance training.
24684719 - Maternal blood pressure and heart rate response to pelvic floor muscle training during ...
|Type: Comparative Study; Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. Date: 2010-10-12|
|Title: Spinal cord Volume: 49 ISSN: 1476-5624 ISO Abbreviation: Spinal Cord Publication Date: 2011 Mar|
|Created Date: 2011-03-04 Completed Date: 2012-02-13 Revised Date: 2014-09-24|
Medline Journal Info:
|Nlm Unique ID: 9609749 Medline TA: Spinal Cord Country: England|
|Languages: eng Pagination: 451-6 Citation Subset: IM|
|APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex|
Arm / innervation, physiology*
Exercise Test / instrumentation*, methods
Exercise Therapy / instrumentation*, methods
Gait Disorders, Neurologic / diagnosis, physiopathology, rehabilitation*
Paralysis / diagnosis, physiopathology, rehabilitation*
Spinal Cord Injuries / diagnosis, physiopathology, rehabilitation*
Walking / physiology
|K01 HD001348-01/HD/NICHD NIH HHS; K01 HD013480/HD/NICHD NIH HHS; T32 HD043730/HD/NICHD NIH HHS; T32 HD043730/HD/NICHD NIH HHS; T32 HD043730-01/HD/NICHD NIH HHS|
Journal ID (nlm-journal-id): 9609749
Journal ID (pubmed-jr-id): 20400
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Spinal Cord
License:Users may view, print, copy, download and text and data- mine the content in such documents, for the purposes of academic research, subject always to the full Conditions of use: http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/license.html#terms
nihms-submitted publication date: Day: 25 Month: 8 Year: 2010
Electronic publication date: Day: 12 Month: 10 Year: 2010
Print publication date: Month: 3 Year: 2011
pmc-release publication date: Day: 1 Month: 9 Year: 2011
Volume: 49 Issue: 3
First Page: 451 Last Page: 456
PubMed Id: 20938449
T32 HD043730-01 ||HD
K01 HD001348-01 ||HD
National Institute of Child Health & Human Development : NICHD
|Device use, locomotor training, and the presence of arm swing during treadmill walking post-spinal cord injury|
|Nicole J. Tester12|
|Dena R. Howland134|
|Kristin V. Day12|
|Sarah P. Suter125|
|Andrea L. Behrman124|
1Brain Rehabilitation Research Center, Malcom Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, FL
2Department of Physical Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
3Department of Neuroscience, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
4McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
5Department of Rehabilitation Services, Shands Hospital at the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
6Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
|Authors' Academic Qualifications: Nicole J. Tester, PhD, is a Research Health Scientist at the Brain Rehabilitation Research Center, Malcom Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) and a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Physical Therapy at the University of Florida.
Dena R. Howland, OT, PhD, is a Research Neurobiologist at the Brain Rehabilitation Research Center, Malcom Randall VAMC and an Associate Professor in the Department of Neuroscience and McKnight Brain Institute at the University of Florida.
Kristin V. Day, PhD, MPT, NCS, is affiliated with the Department of Physical Therapy at the University of Florida and the Brain Rehabilitation Research Center at the Malcom Randall VAMC.
Sarah P. Suter, MPT, is a Research Physical Therapist at the Malcom Randall VAMC's Brain Rehabilitation Research Center and the University of Florida's Department of Physical Therapy. She also is a physical therapist in the Department of Rehabilitation Services at Shands Hospital at the University of Florida.
Amy Cantrell, PhD, is a Research Assistant Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatics at the University of Florida.
Andrea L. Behrman, PT, PhD, FAPTA, is a Research Scientist at the Brain Rehabilitation Research Center, Malcom Randall VAMC and an Associate Professor in the Department of Physical Therapy and McKnight Brain Institute at the University of Florida.
Correspondence: Corresponding Author: Nicole J. Tester, Ph.D. 1601 SW Archer Rd. Malcom Randall VAMC Brain Rehabilitation Research Center Mail Stop 151A Gainesville, FL 32608 firstname.lastname@example.org Telephone: 352-376-1611, x7507 Fax: 352-271-4536
Arm swing is a natural feature of human locomotion. Although walking can be accomplished without arm swing, coordinated arm movement naturally emerges in neurologically-intact individuals.1 Though the precise role of walking-related arm swing is unknown, possible benefits include reductions in center of mass vertical excursions and vertical ground reaction moments and increases in metabolic efficiency.2 Regardless of its role, arm swing likely is supported by neuronal circuitry linking spinal centers innervating the arms and legs3 and may be guided by cortical control.4
Electrophysiological studies investigating interlimb reflexes suggest that pathways which connect spinal cord areas innervating the upper and lower extremities exist in neurologically-intact humans and some humans with spinal cord injury (SCI).5, 6 An important first step in elucidating interactions between the arms and the legs during walking and the functional role of associated pathways is to understand the impact of spinal injury on walking-related arm swing and determine the influences of environment and/or experience on arm swing post-injury. Additionally, determining whether arm swing may be associated with clinical scores reflecting volitional strength and/or assistance required for walking may provide insight into ways to predict the presence of, or identify the potential for recovering, arm swing. Since a primary goal after SCI often is to retrain walking, it also is important to determine whether current rehabilitation approaches affect upper extremity movement during walking. These vantages are of particular interest based on our understanding that 1) repetitive sensory experiences can shape motor learning and enhance activity-dependent neural plasticity and 2) augmenting sensory input provided to the spinal cord when descending supraspinal input is diminished can enhance task-specific training outcomes.7 Additionally, some evidence suggests integration of the upper extremities can influence lower extremity motor output.8–10 Therefore, rehabilitation and/or daily activities may impact walking-related arm movement, which in turn, could influence walking recovery after SCI. The purpose of this study was to determine: 1) the presence of walking-related arm swing after motor incomplete SCI (iSCI), 2) factors associated with arm swing (i.e. neurological level of impairment, voluntary leg and arm strength, assistive device, and walking independence) and 3) whether locomotor training (LT) which provides intense stepping practice in a treadmill environment with partial body weight support (BWS) and manual assistance without the constraint of assistive devices may influence arm swing.
Thirty individuals (mean ± standard deviation, 40 ± 14 yrs, 23 ± 18 mos post-injury, 8 females) with motor iSCI (American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS)11 grade C/D, as defined by the International Standards for Neurological Classifications of SCI (ISNCSCI) with neurological level of impairment at or below C4) were recruited from a sample of convenience. Enrolled participants were blinded to the study's purpose. Clinical scores (reported as mean ± standard deviation/median (interquartile (IQ) range)) from the sample were: 41 ± 9/43 (36–50), ISNCSCI upper extremity motor scores (UEMS, max = 50);11 36 ± 10/39 (31–44), ISNCSCI lower extremity motor scores (LEMS, max = 50)11; and 12 ± 5/13 (8–15), Walking Index for SCI II (WISCI II, max = 20) scores.12 All participants were able to flex their shoulders at least 90°. Institutional and federal regulations concerning ethical use of human volunteers were followed.
Some devices like crutches and canes allow arm swing during stepping, while other devices such as walkers do not. To remove the confound of arm loading, arm movement was evaluated in the treadmill environment with vertical BWS. Since some subjects could not step independently, manual assistance at the legs was provided as needed, and speed was adjusted to create a permissive stepping environment enabling individuals to step on the treadmill without their usual assistive devices. Instructional cues relating to arm movement were not provided during any walking evaluations. Arm movement was defined as present (versus absent) when gleno-humeral movement in the sagittal plane was detected and dissociated from upper trunk and shoulder rotation. Four individuals dichotomized arm movement across participants using 3-dimensional joint kinematics (Vicon; Oxford, UK), when available. Not all enrolled participants underwent angular kinematic evaluation, and therefore, some assessments of arm movement were conducted via frame-by-frame video analysis. Bias was minimized by blinding assessors from participant identity and demographics.
Neurological level of impairment and upper and lower extremity voluntary strength were evaluated using the ISNCSCI AIS.11 Individuals were categorized as full-time walkers, part-time walkers, or non-walkers (wheelchair users). For individuals classified as part- or full-time walkers, the device used most frequently for walking at home or in the community was determined. Walking independence was assessed using the WISCI II12 which identifies the need for assistive devices, bracing, and manual assistance during a short overground walk. Licensed physical therapists completed clinical assessments.
Twenty-one of the thirty individuals (39 ± 15 yrs, 23 ± 19 mos post-injury, 7 females) also were enrolled in a 9 week manual-assisted LT program (5×/wk).13 Clinical scores from these 21 individuals were: 39 ± 9/38 (35–48), UEMS;11 35 ± 10/37 (29–44), LEMS;11 and 11 ± 5/12 (8–14), WISCI II.12 Briefly, training consisted of 20–30 minutes of treadmill stepping practice using partial BWS. Trainers provided manual assistance at the pelvis, trunk, and lower extremities, as needed. Upright posture, loading through the lower extremities, appropriate weight shift, and stepping coordination were emphasized to approximate normal walking speeds during stepping practice (0.8–1.2 m/s). As independence increased, trainers reduced their assistance, BWS was decreased, and/or treadmill speeds were increased. During LT, parallel bars were not used; and coordinated, reciprocal arm movement was encouraged. Subjects held horizontal poles moved by trainers and/or were given verbal cues to promote arm swing during some sessions. Subjects were weaned from assistance as independent arm swing emerged. Following the LT program, arm movement was re-assessed on the treadmill.
Data were analyzed with SPSS v16.0 (Chicago, IL) and Minitab v15 (State College, PA). Two binomial proportions tests were used to compare the presence of arm swing based on cervical versus thoracic neurological levels of impairment and the customary assistive device used for community ambulation (wheelchairs, rolling platform walkers, or rolling walkers which restrict arm swing versus crutches, canes, or no assistive devices which allow arm swing). Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare 1) UEMS,11 2) LEMS,11 and 3) WISCI-II scores12 among groups with and without arm swing. To determine the effects of LT on individuals without arm swing, pre- versus post-training analyses were conducted on the 16 individuals without arm swing at baseline (pre-LT). Exact p-values using a binomial distribution were obtained with the McNemar test. Lastly, among participants who did not exhibit arm swing at baseline, a Wilcoxon-signed rank test examined whether arm swing observed post-LT may be associated with changes in customary assistive devices used for community ambulation pre- versus post-LT. Assistive devices were ranked based on the amount of assistance provided. The median of the ranks pre-versus post-LT were compared separately for those individuals that did and did not recover arm swing post-LT.
Of the 30 individuals with iSCI evaluated prior to LT, only 12/30 (40%) demonstrated walking-related arm movements. Though this natural feature of locomotion typically is present in the neurologically-intact population at walking speeds ranging from 0.2 m/s and beyond,1 it was absent in 18/30 (60%) of our iSCI participant pool. In individuals not demonstrating arm movement, the arms often remained flexed at the elbows in a rigid and stationary position during stepping (Figure 1).
The difference between arm swing presence among individuals with cervical versus thoracic neurological levels of impairment was −12.5% (Table 1, p=0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) −57% to 32%) and not statistically significant. In addition, differences in UEMS (Mann Whitney U, p=0.19) were not detected among individuals with and without arm swing. However, differences in LEMS were detected among these two groups (Mann Whitney U, p=0.048).
The difference between the presence of arm swing among individuals using assistive devices promoting versus restricting reciprocal arm swing was significant at −38% (Table 2, p=0.04, 95% CI −74% to −2%). This suggests individuals using no device, a cane, or crutches were more likely to demonstrate arm movement during treadmill stepping than individuals who use wheelchairs, rolling platform walkers, or walkers for community ambulation. Differences in WISCI-II scores also were detected among individuals with and without arm swing (Mann Whitney U, p=0.008).
Prior to LT, only 5/21 individuals demonstrated arm swing during stepping and 16/21 did not. Of these 16 individuals initially lacking arm swing pre-LT, 8 independently integrated arm swing post-LT. Statistical analyses assessing pre- versus post-LT differences targeted these 16 individuals that did not incorporate arm swing pre-LT. Pre- versus post-LT differences in proportions of individuals eliciting arm swing were significant at 38% (Table 3, p=0.008, 95% CI 10% to 38%). Only 3/8 individuals that did not develop arm swing post-LT changed to a less restrictive device, compared to 5/8 individuals that developed arm swing post-LT (Table 4). Medians based on ranks reflecting the amount of assistance assistive devices provide pre- versus post-LT were compared. Median differences for those not integrating arm swing following LT were not significantly different (Wilcoxon signed rank rest, p=0.10); while median differences were statistically significant for individuals integrating arm swing post-LT (Wilcoxon signed rank rest, p=0.04).
Arm swing during treadmill stepping was completely absent in a majority (60%) of participants with iSCI. To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine arm swing in individuals with iSCI. Previous reports indicate arm swing often is diminished or absent in individuals with other types of central nervous system damage, such as stroke or Parkinson's disease.14, 15 Collectively, these results suggest arm swing may be influenced, at least in part, by diverse levels (supraspinal versus spinal) of the neural axis.
Interestingly, significant differences among individuals with and without arm swing were detected in LEMS, but not UEMS or neurological level of impairment (cervical/thoracic). While walking-related arm swing can be influenced by the cortex,4 it is not considered a voluntary behavior and therefore may be unaffected by upper extremity strength. More likely, arm swing is influenced by spinal cord areas innervating the arms and legs and the functional integrity of the connecting pathways. Typically, those with a higher LEMS have greater neural sparing which might translate to less disruption of intraspinal connections between these spinal areas. Alternatively, individuals with higher LEMSs may be higher functioning walkers, and therefore more likely to demonstrate walking-related arm movement.
Repetitive sensory experiences can shape motor learning and enhance activity-dependent plasticity in the neuromuscular system.7 Significant associations between arm movement and both WISCI-II scores and assistive devices were detected. This suggests that the experience of load-bearing through the upper extremities, which often is encouraged by assistive devices used during rehabilitation and activities related to daily living, may promote or contribute to the absence of walking-related arm swing post-injury. Moreover, some LT programs have utilized parallel bars.13, 16 In these instances, weight again is loaded through the upper extremities,17 thereby diminishing arm swing and altering the input integrated and interpreted by the spinal cord. Alternatively, during LT, a harness and overhead body weight support system can provide vertical unloading through the trunk, giving the arms freedom to move. In this study, arm swing was practiced during the course of LT with partial BWS, thereby altering the daily experiences provided to the arms. As a result, the coordinated arm swing experience during stepping practice contributed to the ensemble of sensorimotor cues promoting independent arm swing on the treadmill. It is unknown whether arm swing would have emerged without this practice. Regardless, training experience provided to the arms through specific use or practice is likely to have an impact at the neural level, which may manifest behaviorally as a presence or lack of arm swing, depending on the specific experience.
Reports in the literature suggest arm swing may confer a biomechanical advantage during walking. In particular, arm swing appears to contribute to maintaining postural control and stability, independent of neural control, by reducing the reaction moment about the vertical axis of the foot.18,19 Furthermore, arm swing has been described as movement which is powered predominately by the legs during walking, via elastic linkages between the legs, trunk, and arms.20 These elastic interactions are thought to exist in order to help reduce and maintain a reasonable amount of torso and head rotation with the arms acting as mass dampers.20 Therefore, it is possible that arm swing is altered following iSCI, in part, because of biomechanical changes in walking that may occur after injury. Regardless of the basis for arm swing and whether it is biomechanically and/or neurally based, the biomechanical advantages that appear to result from walking-related arm swing suggest that the proprioceptive input provided to the arms during swing may be very important and relevant to walking recovery and retraining post-iSCI.
Specific experiences achieved by incorporating arm swing practice during interventions like LT may increase the likelihood that arm swing will emerge during walking recovery. However, integrating arm swing may promote greater efficiency during walking. For example, preventing arm swing or swinging the arms in an opposite-to-normal phase requires 12% and 26% more metabolic energy, respectively, compared to swinging the arms naturally during locomotion.2 Therefore, incorporating speed-appropriate patterns of arm swing during gait retraining may reduce energy expenditure during walking. In addition, active integration of the arms during a task in which the lower extremities move rhythmically and reciprocally can enhance muscle activity in the legs.8–10, 15, 16, 21 In healthy controls and individuals with Parkinson's disease or stroke, incorporating arm swing during recumbent stepping or walking can alter or improve lower extremity muscle activation during stepping.8, 10, 15 Additionally, Behrman and Harkema (2000) suggest integrating arm swing during LT may improve lower extremity muscle recruitment following iSCI.21 This concept also is supported by Visintin and Barbeau's work (1994). Eliminating load-bearing through the arms and increasing loading through the legs during treadmill stepping with partial BWS elicited more rhythmical, symmetrical, and reciprocal gait patterns with increased lower extremity muscle activation.16 While integrating upper extremity effort during recumbent stepping did not increase lower limb muscle activation in individuals with iSCI,22 incorporating passive arm movements during passively imposed leg movements increased plantarflexor activity throughout the backward swing phase using a stand gliding apparatus.9 Thus, task-specificity of the sensorimotor experience (e.g. upright load-bearing) may be critical for arm movements to facilitate leg activation.
While no differences in arm swing presence were observed based on neurological levels of impairment (cervical/thoracic), only 6/30 individuals assessed had thoracic injuries. A sample of more evenly distributed groups may be warranted to verify these results and their interpretation. In addition, the extent of tissue damage in the spinal cord may be an important consideration and one potential confound. Since all individuals in this study had incomplete injuries, areas where propriospinal fibers project may have been disrupted differentially. Furthermore, investigating arm swing in individuals with injuries between, above, or below cervical and lumbar enlargements might be particularly interesting, based on Dietz's report (1999) suggesting individuals with more rostral lesions show more normal lower extremity locomotor patterns.23
The presence of walking-related arm swing appears altered following iSCI. While some individuals in this study demonstrated arm swing during treadmill stepping; pre-LT, the majority did not. One factor which may contribute to the presence of arm swing after injury is the exposure to specific experiences that vary arm position, load-bearing, and use during walking. In this study, we observed associations between the presence of arm swing and assistive device use and locomotor training. This study illustrates the differential impact that injury, experience, and practice may have on walking-related arm movement. Rehabilitation efforts therefore may benefit from highlighting arm swing as an important component or consideration following spinal cord injury.
FN2Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
FN3The contents of this article do not represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.
The authors would like to thank the Locomotor Lab trainers and staff for their assistance with the data collections and LT. In particular, we would like to acknowledge Emily Fox, MHS, DPT, NCS for her contributions in the analyses; and Laura Fuller; Jeff Fox; Luther Gill, DPT; Sheryl Flynn, PhD, PT; Preeti Nair, PhD, PT; and Chetan Phadke, PhD, PT for their help with training and data collections. This research was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of RR&D Service and RR&D Center Support, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, and NIH NICHD-NCMRR K01 HD013480. In addition, previous training support was provided by NIH T32 HD043730.
|1.||Craik R,Herman R,Finley F. Herman R,Grillner S,Stein P,Stuart DAdvances in Behavioral BiologyHuman solutions for locomotion: interlimb coordination 1976:51–64.Plenum Press; New York:|
|2.||Collins SH,Adamczyk PG,Kuo AD. Dynamic arm swinging in human walkingProc Biol Sci Oct;2009 276(1673):3679–88. [pmid: 19640879]|
|3.||Zehr EP,Hundza SR,Vasudevan EV. The quadrupedal nature of human bipedal locomotionExerc Sport Sci Rev Apr;2009 37(2):102–8. [pmid: 19305202]|
|4.||Barthelemy D,Nielsen JB. Corticospinal contribution to arm muscle activity during human walkingThe Journal of Physiology Mar;2010 588(Pt 6):967–79. [pmid: 20123782]|
|5.||Zehr EP,Collins DF,Chua R. Human interlimb reflexes evoked by electrical stimulation of cutaneous nerves innervating the hand and footExp Brain Res Oct;2001 140(4):495–504. [pmid: 11685403]|
|6.||Calancie B,Alexeeva N,Broton JG,Molano MR. Interlimb reflex activity after spinal cord injury in man: strengthening response patterns are consistent with ongoing synaptic plasticityClin Neurophysiol Jan;2005 116(1):75–86. [pmid: 15589186]|
|7.||Edgerton VR,Tillakaratne NJ,Bigbee AJ,de Leon RD,Roy RR. Plasticity of the spinal neural circuitry after injuryAnnu Rev Neurosci 2004;27:145–67. [pmid: 15217329]|
|8.||Huang HJ,Ferris DP. Neural coupling between upper and lower limbs during recumbent steppingJ Appl Physiol Oct;2004 97(4):1299–308. [pmid: 15180979]|
|9.||Kawashima N,Nozaki D,Abe MO,Nakazawa K. Shaping appropriate locomotive motor output through interlimb neural pathway within spinal cord in humansJ Neurophysiol Jun;2008 99(6):2946–55. [pmid: 18450579]|
|10.||Stephenson JL,De Serres SJ,Lamontagne A. The effect of arm movements on the lower limb during gait after a strokeGait Posture Jan;2010 31(1):109–15. [pmid: 19854654]|
|11.||American Spinal Injury AssociationAmerican Spinal Injury Association: International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury. American Spinal Injury Association; revised 2002|
|12.||Dittuno PL,Ditunno JF Jr.. Walking index for spinal cord injury (WISCI II): scale revisionSpinal Cord Dec;2001 39(12):654–6. [pmid: 11781863]|
|13.||Behrman AL,Lawless-Dixon AR,Davis SB,Bowden MG,Nair P,Phadke C,et al. Locomotor training progression and outcomes after incomplete spinal cord injuryPhys Ther Dec;2005 85(12):1356–71. [pmid: 16305274]|
|14.||Ford MP,Wagenaar RC,Newell KM. The effects of auditory rhythms and instruction on walking patterns in individuals post strokeGait Posture Jun;2007 26(1):150–5. [pmid: 16996270]|
|15.||Behrman AL,Teitelbaum P,Cauraugh JH. Verbal instructional sets to normalise the temporal and spatial gait variables in Parkinson's diseaseJ Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Oct;1998 65(4):580–2. [pmid: 9771792]|
|16.||Visintin M,Barbeau H. The effects of parallel bars, body weight support and speed on the modulation of the locomotor pattern of spastic paretic gait. A preliminary communicationParaplegia Aug;1994 32(8):540–53. [pmid: 7970859]|
|17.||Melis EH,Torres-Moreno R,Barbeau H,Lemaire ED. Analysis of assisted-gait characteristics in persons with incomplete spinal cord injurySpinal Cord Jun;1999 37(6):430–9. [pmid: 10432263]|
|18.||Park J. Synthesis of natural arm swing motion in human bipedal walkingJ Biomech 2008;41(7):1417–26. [pmid: 18417138]|
|19.||Li Y,Wang W,Crompton RH,Gunther MM. Free vertical moments and transverse forces in human walking and their role in relation to arm swingJ Exp Biol Jan;2001 204(Pt 1):47–58. [pmid: 11104710]|
|20.||Pontzer H,Holloway JH 4th,Raichlen DA,Lieberman DE. Control and function of arm swing in human walking and runningJ Exp Biol Feb;2009 212(Pt 4):523–34. [pmid: 19181900]|
|21.||Behrman AL,Harkema SJ. Locomotor training after human spinal cord injury: a series of case studiesPhys Ther Jul;2000 80(7):688–700. [pmid: 10869131]|
|22.||Huang HJ,Ferris DP. Upper limb effort does not increase maximal voluntary muscle activation in individuals with incomplete spinal cord injuryClin Neurophysiol Sep;2009 120(9):1741–9. [pmid: 19699677]|
|23.||Dietz V,Nakazawa K,Wirz M,Erni T. Level of spinal cord lesion determines locomotor activity in spinal manExp Brain Res Oct;1999 128(3):405–9. [pmid: 10501813]|
Presence of arm movement during walking was not associated with cervical versus thoracic neurological levels of impairment.
|Cervical (n=24)||Thoracic (n=6)|
|Arm Swing||9/24 37%||3/6 50%|
|No Arm Swing||15/24 63%||3/6 50%|
Associations between arm swing and the primary type of assistive device used for community ambulation following iSCI. Assistive devices were grouped by those which promote reciprocal arm swing during stepping (columns 5–7) versus those that do not permit reciprocal arm swing (columns 2–4).
|All Devices (n=30)||WC (n=8)||RPW (n=5)||RW (n=8)||Cane (n=4)||Crutches (n=1)||No Device (n=4)|
|Arm Swing||12/30 40%||1/8 12%||0/2 0%||5/11 45%||2/4 50%||0/1 0%||4/4 100%|
|6/21 = 29%||6/9 = 67%|
|No Arm Swing||18/30 60%||7/8 88%||2/2 100%||6/11 55%||2/4 50%||1/1 100%||0/4 0%|
|15/21 = 71%||3/9 = 33%|
WC = wheelchair, RPW = rolling platform walker, RW = rolling walker.
The presence of walking-related arm movement pre- versus post-LT.
Pre- and post-LT device use related to arm swing. Individuals who did not demonstrate arm swing either pre-LT or post-LT showed few changes in device use. However, when arm swing emerged post- LT, most individuals switched to a less restrictive device.
|Device Pre-LT||Device Post-LT|
|No Arm Swing Pre-LT; No Arm Swing Post-LT||WC||WC|
|No Arm Swing Pre-LT; Arm Swing Post-LT||Cane||No Device|
WC = wheelchair, RPW = rolling platform walker, RW = rolling walker.
Keywords: locomotion, arm swing, stepping, plasticity, motor control, spinal cord injury.
Previous Document: Neural plasticity and functional recovery of human central nervous system with special reference to ...
Next Document: Warfarin and heterotopic ossification: good, bad or ugly?