A Novel Device for the Measurement of Functional Finger Pinch Movement Discrimination

Abstract

Proprioception provides feedback that is vitally important for motor control. A deficiency in joint proprioception is thought to be associated with various upper limb rheumatological disorders. Currently, there is a lack of a portable device that could be used for measuring functional proprioception at the fingertips in the field. Therefore, a novel portable device for measuring pinch movement discrimination between index finger and thumb of either hand was constructed. This device is manually operated and requires the subject to make an absolute judgment of a joint position, choosing which one of five pre-experienced positions is being presented to them, with trials given in a random order. The 5 physical differences used were between 1.22 and 2.42cms. Reliability analysis was performed over a 7-day interval, with 8 healthy young adult volunteers. The discrimination scores, measured as the Area Under the Curve (AUC), for the group showed a mean (SD) of 0.794 (0.544) and 0.794 (0.549) on days 1 and 8, respectively. The day 1 and 8 reliability assessed with the interclass correlation coefficient ICC(3,1) was 0.85. Nondominant hands showed better pinch discrimination on the two days, with AUC values of 0.800 and 0.810 compared with 0.788 and 0.778, but these differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05). No difference in pinch movement discrimination was found between sexes. The ease of use and portability of the novel device for measuring functional proprioception at the fingertips described in this note make it ideal for measuring hand functional proprioception as part of clinical and epidemiological studies. The mid-range AUC discrimination scores found with healthy young adults mean that factors thought to diminish (eg. hand injury) or improve (eg. having expert finger skills) discrimination could be detected with the device.

Proprioceptive performance of bilateral upper and lower limb joints: side-general and site-specific effects

“…However, the results of the present study are contrary to studies that did not show proprioceptive asymmetry between joints on the right and left sides of the body (Roy and MacKenzie 1978; Waddington and Adams 1999a; Bullock-Saxton et al 2001; Naughton et al 2002; Han et al 2011). The lack of asymmetry in proprioceptive matching tasks has been largely attributed to differences in methodology, since active generation of target position in a criterion movement, for subsequent reproduction, has been thought to provide movement-related information that may enhance the matching performance of the preferred limb joint (Goble et al 2006).…”

“…For each test, a purpose-built AMEDA, used in previous studies, was employed at four body sites: the ankle (Waddington and Adams 1999b; Waddington et al 1999; Symes et al 2010), knee (Waddington and Adams 1999a; Waddington et al 2000), shoulder (Naughton et al 2005; Vulcetic et al 2008) and fingers (Han et al 2011) (Fig. 1a).…”

“…The procedures for AMEDA testing of active movements of ankle inversion, knee flexion, shoulder flexion and finger pinch discrimination have been described previously (Waddington et al 2000; Naughton et al 2005; Symes et al 2010; Han et al 2011). In brief, the AMEDA tests employed in the present study required participants to make active movements of ankle inversion, knee flexion, shoulder flexion or finger pinch to a physical stop, which can be varied, and the participant provided an absolute judgement of movement extent on return to the starting neutral position.…”

“…Therefore, the current study set out to maximize ecological validity, but also to control important experimental variables, so that individuals could integrate all normally available proprioceptive information from different receptors, such as cutaneous receptors, joint receptors and muscle spindles at different joints, during task performance. We employed a battery of versions of the active movement extent discrimination apparatus (AMEDA) (Waddington and Adams 1999b; Waddington et al 2000; Naughton et al 2005; Symes et al 2010; Han et al 2011) that all involve active movements, made under normal weight-bearing conditions, without physical constraints, and all permit general vision while obscuring vision of the target position. In addition, the nature of AMEDA tasks ensures that information about both limb movement extent and end position is available on every trial, and this combination allows for better performance than that which is seen with extent information alone (Magill and Parks 1983).…”

Effect of Cold on Proprioception and Cognitive Function in Elite Alpine Skiers

“…Participants were facing a white wall and could not see the apparatus. High Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) of 0.85 and 0.89 [15] have been previously reported for such active movement discrimination procedures [16]. The average absolute error was computed in degree.…”