This study aimed to investigate (a) motor planning difficulty by using a two-step test in Parkinson’s disease (PD) compared with age-matched healthy subjects and (b) the relationship between motor planning difficulty and clinical factors. The two-step test was performed by 58 patients with PD with Hoehn & Yahr (H&Y) stage I–IV and 110 age-matched healthy older adult controls. In the two-step test, the participants estimated the two-step distance with maximum effort. Subsequently, they performed the actual two-step trial to measure the actual maximum distance. We calculated the accuracy of the estimation (estimated distance minus actual distance). In both groups, subjects who estimated >5 cm were defined as the overestimation group, and those who estimated <5 cm over- and underestimation were defined as the non-overestimation group. The overestimation group consisted of 17 healthy older adults (15.5%) and 23 patients with PD (39.7%). The number of patients with PD with overestimation was significantly more than that of healthy controls by Chi-squared test. H&Y stage and the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part II and III scores in overestimation group in PD patients were significantly higher than those in overestimation group in PD patients. Moreover, multiple regression using H&Y stage and UPDRS parts II and III as independent variables showed that the UPDRS part II score was the only related factor for the estimation error distance. Estimation error distance was significant correlated with UPDRS parts II and III. Patients with PD easily have higher rates of motor-related overestimation than age-matched healthy controls. In addition, UPDRS parts II and III expressed ability of activities of daily living and motor function as influences on motor-related overestimation. Particularly, multiple regression indicated that UPDRS part II directly showed the ability of daily living as an essential factor for overestimation.

No abstract

[Purpose] This study assessed the reliability and validity of an ultrasound-based imaging method for measuring the interspinous process distance in the lumbar spine using two different index points. [Subjects and Methods] Ten healthy males were recruited. Five physical therapy students participated in this study as examiners. The L2–L3 interspinous distance was measured from the caudal end of the L2 spinous process to the cranial end of the L3 spinous process (E-E measurement) and from the top of the L2 spinous process to the top of the L3 spinous process (T-T measurement). Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to estimate the relative reliability. Validity was assessed using a model resembling the living human body. [Results] The reliability study showed no difference in intra-rater reliability between the two measurements. However, the E-E measurement showed higher inter-rater reliability than the T-T measurement (Intraclass correlation coefficients: 0.914 vs. 0.725). Moreover, the E-E measurement method had good validity (Intraclass correlation coefficients: 0.999 and 95% confidence interval for minimal detectable change: 0.29 mm). [Conclusion] These results demonstrate the high reliability and validity of ultrasound-based imaging in the quantitative assessment of lumbar interspinous process distance. Of the two methods, the E-E measurement method is recommended.