Robotically quantifying finger and ankle proprioception: Role of range, speed, anticipatory errors, and learning.
Robotically quantifying finger and ankle proprioception: Role of range, speed, anticipatory errors, and learning.
复制标题
机器人量化手指和脚踝本体感觉：范围、速度、预期错误和学习的作用。
DOI：
10.1109/embc40787.2023.10340566
复制
发表时间：
2023
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Farrens,AndriaJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Johnson,ChristopherA;Reinsdorf,DylanS;Reinkensmeyer,DavidJ;Farrens,AndriaJ
本体感觉在运动控制和卒中康复中起着关键作用。机器人设备正越来越多地被用于改善本体感觉评估，但缺乏关于测试范围、速度和先前暴露等可编程因素如何影响测试的知识。从生理学的角度来看，这些因素可能会调节肢体本体感受器的敏感性，从而在不加以控制的情况下影响评估结果。为了确定这些因素的相对影响，我们研究了交叉本体感觉评估，这是一种最近开发的机器人评估，要求参与者在机器人被动移动时指示两个关节何时经过对方。我们为手指和脚踝实施了新型机器人的交叉，并对年轻的未受损参与者进行了单次测试(N=16)和纵向测试(N=5，在3-10周的15-30次测试中)。在单节测试中，我们发现本体感觉敏锐度对手指比对脚踝更好(p<；0.01)。对于双侧肢体，接近活动范围末端的敏锐度有所提高，这可能是由于负荷和关节感受器的更多参与所致。由于预期误差较大，动作较慢的人视力较差。这些结果显示了为本体感觉测试选择的范围和速度如何影响本体感觉敏锐度，并强调了低速时预期误差的增强作用。本体感觉敏锐度的改善不能在一次测试中检测到，但在多次测试中敏感度有所改善(p<；0.01)。这一结果表明，至少在几天内多次接触会影响视力。临床相关性-适当的感觉评估应该考虑范围和速度，这可以通过利用机器人技术来实现。本体感觉敏锐度可以通过重复测试来提高，这一观察结果也与本体感觉康复有关。
Proprioception plays a key role in motor control and stroke recovery. Robotic devices are increasingly being used to improve proprioceptive assessments, but there is a lack of knowledge about how programmable factors such as testing range, speed, and prior exposure affect tests. From a physiological standpoint, such factors may regulate the sensitivity of limb proprioceptors, thereby influencing assessment results when not controlled for. To determine the relative influence of such factors, we studied the Crisscross proprioceptive assessment, a recently developed robotic assessment that requires participants to indicate when two joints pass by each other as they are moved passively by the robot. We implemented Crisscross with novel robots for the fingers and ankles and tested young unimpaired participants in single sessions (N = 16) and longitudinally (N = 5, across 15-30 sessions over 3-10 weeks). In single-session testing, we found that proprioceptive acuity was better for the fingers than the ankle (p < 0.01). For both limbs, acuity improved near the ends of the range of motion, which may be due to greater involvement of load and joint receptors. Acuity was poorer for slower movements due to greater anticipatory errors. These results show how the range and speed selected for a proprioceptive test affect proprioceptive acuity and highlight the heightened role of anticipatory errors at slow speeds. Improvements in proprioceptive acuity were not detectable in a single session, but acuity improved across multiple testing sessions (p < 0.01). This result shows that multiple prior exposure over at least several days can affect acuity.Clinical Relevance— Proprioceptive assessments should account for range and speed, which could be enabled by leveraging robotics technology. Proprioceptive acuity can be improved through repeated testing, an observation that is relevant to proprioceptive rehabilitation as well.