Comparison of upper extremity motor recovery of stroke patients with actual physical activity in their daily lives measured with accelerometers

Journal of Physical Therapy Science

Volumn 26, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 1009-1011

  Shim, Sunhwa ^a   Kim, Hee ^a   Jung, Jinhwa ^b  

^a Yonsei University   (South Korea)

^b Semyung University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Accelerometers; Physical activity; Rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905112551     PISSN: 09155287     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1589/jpts.26.1009     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Mercier L, Audet T, Hébert R, et al.: Impact of motor, cognitive, and perceptual disorders on ability to perform activities of daily living after stroke. Stroke, 2001, 32: 2602-2608.[Medline] [CrossRef]
2. Kwakkel G, Kollen B: Predicting improvement in the upper paretic limb after stroke: a longitudinal prospective study. Restor Neurol Neurosci, 2007, 25: 453-460.[Medline]
3. Wang TN, Lin KC, Wu CY, et al.: Validity, responsiveness, and clinically important difference of the ABILHAND questionnaire in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2011, 92: 1086-1091.[Medline] [Cross- Ref]
4. World Health Organization: 2001. Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health. International classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/training/icfbeginnersguide. pdf.
5. Uswatte G, Taub E: Implications of the learned nonuse formulation for measuring rehabilitation outcomes: lessons from constraint-induced movement therapy. Rehabil Psychol, 2005, 50: 34-42. [CrossRef]
6. Vega-González A, Granat MH: Continuous monitoring of upper-limb activity in a free-living environment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2005, 86: 541-548.[Medline] [CrossRef]
7. Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D, et al.: The Motor Activity Log-28: assessing daily use of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. Neurology, 2006, 67: 1189-1194.[Medline] [CrossRef]
8. Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D, et al.: Reliability and validity of the upper- extremity Motor Activity Log-14 for measuring real-world arm use. Stroke, 2005, 36: 2493-2496.[Medline] [CrossRef]
9. Esliger DW, Tremblay MS: Technical reliability assessment of three accelerometer models in a mechanical setup. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2006, 38: 2173-2181.[Medline] [CrossRef]
10. Taub E, Uswatte G, Mark VW, et al.: The learned nonuse phenomenon: implications for rehabilitation. Eura Medicophys, 2006, 42: 241-256.[Medline]
11. Birkenmeier RL, Prager EM, Lang CE: Translating animal doses of taskspecific training to people with chronic stroke in 1-hour therapy sessions: a proof-of-concept study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 2010, 24: 620-635.[Medline] [CrossRef]
12. Byl NN, Pitsch EA, Abrams GM: Functional outcomes can vary by dose: learning-based sensorimotor training for patients stable poststroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 2008, 22: 494-504.[Medline] [CrossRef]
13. de Niet M, Bussmann JB, Ribbers GM, et al.: The stroke upper-limb activity monitor: its sensitivity to measure hemiplegic upper-limb activity during daily life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2007, 88: 1121-1126.[Medline] [CrossRef]
14. Rand D, Eng JJ: Disparity between functional recovery and daily use of the upper and lower extremities during subacute stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 2012, 26: 76-84.[Medline] [CrossRef]
15. Fong KN, Lo PC, Yu YS, et al.: Effects of sensory cueing on voluntary arm use for patients with chronic stroke: a preliminary study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2011, 92: 15-23.[Medline] [CrossRef]
16. Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, et al.: Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Participation. Disabil Rehabil, 2005, 27: 507-528.[Medline] [CrossRef]