Testing the concurrent validity of a naturalistic upper extremity reaching task

Abstract

Point-to-point reaching has been widely used to study upper extremity motor control. We have been developing a naturalistic reaching task that adds tool manipulation and object transport to this established paradigm. The purpose of this study was to determine the concurrent validity of a naturalistic reaching task in a sample of healthy adults. This task was compared to the criterion measure of standard point-to-point reaching. Twenty-eight adults performed unconstrained out-and-back movements in three different directions relative to constant start location along midline using their nondominant arm. In the naturalistic task, participants manipulated a tool to transport objects sequentially between physical targets anchored to the planar workspace. In the standard task, participants moved a digital cursor sequentially between virtual targets, veridical to the planar workspace. In both tasks, the primary measure of performance was trial time, which indicated the time to complete 15 reaches (five cycles of three reaches/target). Two other comparator tasks were also designed to test concurrent validity when components of the naturalistic task were added to the standard task. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients indicated minimal relationship between the naturalistic and standard tasks due to differences in progressive task difficulty. Accounting for this yielded a moderate linear relationship, indicating concurrent validity. The comparator tasks were also related to both the standard and naturalistic task. Thus, the principles of motor control and learning that have been established by the wealth of point-to-point reaching studies can still be applied to the naturalistic task to a certain extent.

Within-session and one-week practice effects on a motor task in amnestic mild cognitive impairment

“…Figure 1B shows a typical handpath over the course of one trial (i.e. five movements out and back to each of the three targets), which has been published and validated previously (Schaefer & Duff, 2015; Schaefer & Hengge, 2016). …”

“…To test for practice effects in this study, we used a novel upper extremity motor task that 1) has been used previously for studying motor learning in older adults (Schaefer, 2015; Schaefer, Dibble, & Duff, 2015; Schaefer & Duff, 2015; Schaefer, Patterson, & Lang, 2013); 2) has concurrent and ecological validity (Schaefer & Hengge, 2016); 3) is similar to other tasks yielding motor practice effects (Yan & Dick, 2006); and 4) is derived from standardized clinical assessments of hand function (Jebsen, Taylor, Trieschmann, Trotter, & Howard, 1969). …”

“…Each trial began when the participants picked up the spoon and ended when the last two beans were dropped into the final cup, yielding a ‘trial time’ as the measure of performance. Additional details regarding the justification, design, and validity of this task have been published previously (Schaefer & Hengge, 2016; Schaefer & Lang, 2012). Importantly, performing this task with the nondominant hand is by design to ensure that the task is under-practiced and not over-learned, particularly in older adults (Schaefer, 2015), such that participants have the potential to show practice effects without confounds of floor or ceiling effects (Suchy, Kraybill, & Franchow, 2011).…”

“…Kinematic data were collected in a previous study using an electromagnetic six degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) movement recording system (Flock of Birds®, Ascension Technology Corp, Shelburne, VT) that was integrated into Motion Monitor software (Innovative Sports Training, Chicago, IL). Kinematic data were collected for purposes of paradigm validation in Schaefer & Hengge (2016), and are therefore only provided in this study for illustration.…”

Effects of the task complexity on the performance of a Coincidence Timing Task of people with Down syndrome

“…However, previous studies addressing this issue used simple tasks, such as Gimenez and colleagues (2007) and TorrianiPasin and colleagues (2013). This issue restricts the generalization of data into complex tasks (Wulf & Shea, 2002) because these simple tasks involve a few degrees of freedom (Schaefer & Hengge, 2016) and lower cognitive requirements (Billing, 1980;Wulf & Shea, 2002).…”