Linked Life Data

7957728

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/7957728

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
3
pubmed:dateCreated
1994-12-19
pubmed:abstractText
In this study we investigated the role of proprioception in the control of prehension movements, with particular reference to the grasp component. Grasp and transport kinematics were studied in a peripherally deafferented patient and in five healthy subjects. Two experiments were carried out: the prehension experiment and the grasp perturbation experiment. In the prehension experiment both the patient and the control subjects were required to reach and grasp three objects of different size, located at three different distances, both with and without visual feedback. In the grasp perturbation experiment a mechanical perturbation was applied to the fingers during prehension movements, again executed with and without visual feedback. In the prehension experiment temporal parameters of the patient's movements were generally slowed, with greater variability on some measures. However, over the first phase of the movement the pattern of the patient's hand opening and transport acceleration, scaled to object size and distance, was the same as that of controls, both with and without visual feedback. On the contrary, during the final phase of the movement (the finger closure phase and deceleration) the patient's performance differed significantly from the controls. These phases were abnormally lengthened and frequent movement adjustments were observed. In the grasp perturbation experiment the patient was not able to compensate for the perturbations applied to the fingers, even with visual feedback. The data allowed us to investigate also the respective contribution of proprioception and of vision of the hand in the control of prehension. We compared prehension kinematics in two conditions: (a) with visual but no proprioceptive feedback (in the patient) and (b) with proprioceptive but no visual feedback (in the controls). In both experiments proprioceptive control was more efficient than visual control. The results of this study are interpreted in favour of the strict dependence of prehension control on proprioception. The first phase of the movement, however, can be appropriately planned and executed without the necessity of either proprioceptive or visual information about the hand.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:issn
0014-4819
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
99
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
483-500
pubmed:dateRevised
2009-11-11
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1994
pubmed:articleTitle
The role of proprioception in the control of prehension movements: a kinematic study in a peripherally deafferented patient and in normal subjects.
pubmed:affiliation
Institute of Human Physiology, University of Parma, Italy.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Clinical Trial