Proprioception and its relationship with range of motion in hypermobile and normal mobile children.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES Experimental Brain Research Pub Date : 2024-10-08 DOI:10.1007/s00221-024-06937-1
Oluwakemi A Ituen, Bouwien Smits-Engelsman, Gillian Ferguson, Jacques Duysens
{"title":"Proprioception and its relationship with range of motion in hypermobile and normal mobile children.","authors":"Oluwakemi A Ituen, Bouwien Smits-Engelsman, Gillian Ferguson, Jacques Duysens","doi":"10.1007/s00221-024-06937-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To investigate differences in proprioception using four proprioceptive tests in children with and without hypermobility. Additionally, it was tested if the results on one proprioceptive test predict the results on the other tests. Of the children (8-11years), 100 were classified as normal mobile (Beighton score 0-4) and 50 as hypermobile (Beighton score 5-9). To test proprioception, in the upper extremity the unilateral and bilateral joint position reproduction tasks were used and for the lower extremity the loaded and unloaded wedges task. No differences were found in any of the proprioception tests between the two groups. Estimating the height of the wedges was easier in the loaded position (mean penalty in standing and sitting position, 4.78 and 6.19, respectively). Recalling the elbow position in the same arm resulted in smaller errors compared to tasks reproducing the position with the contralateral arm. Of the four angles used (110°, 90°, 70°, 50°), the position recall in the 90° angle had the smallest position error (1.8°). Correlations between the proprioception tests were weak (Loaded and Unloaded (r 0. 28); Uni and Bilateral (r 0.39), Upper and Lower extremity not significant). No indication of poorer proprioception was found in children with hypermobile joints compared to their normal mobile peers. Loading gives extra information that leads to fewer errors in the wedges task performed while standing, but this effect is independent of joint mobility. Proprioception test outcomes are dependent on the test used; upper extremity results do not predict lower extremity outcomes or vice versa.</p>","PeriodicalId":12268,"journal":{"name":"Experimental Brain Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental Brain Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-024-06937-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To investigate differences in proprioception using four proprioceptive tests in children with and without hypermobility. Additionally, it was tested if the results on one proprioceptive test predict the results on the other tests. Of the children (8-11years), 100 were classified as normal mobile (Beighton score 0-4) and 50 as hypermobile (Beighton score 5-9). To test proprioception, in the upper extremity the unilateral and bilateral joint position reproduction tasks were used and for the lower extremity the loaded and unloaded wedges task. No differences were found in any of the proprioception tests between the two groups. Estimating the height of the wedges was easier in the loaded position (mean penalty in standing and sitting position, 4.78 and 6.19, respectively). Recalling the elbow position in the same arm resulted in smaller errors compared to tasks reproducing the position with the contralateral arm. Of the four angles used (110°, 90°, 70°, 50°), the position recall in the 90° angle had the smallest position error (1.8°). Correlations between the proprioception tests were weak (Loaded and Unloaded (r 0. 28); Uni and Bilateral (r 0.39), Upper and Lower extremity not significant). No indication of poorer proprioception was found in children with hypermobile joints compared to their normal mobile peers. Loading gives extra information that leads to fewer errors in the wedges task performed while standing, but this effect is independent of joint mobility. Proprioception test outcomes are dependent on the test used; upper extremity results do not predict lower extremity outcomes or vice versa.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
活动过度儿童和正常活动儿童的运动感觉及其与活动范围的关系。
通过四种本体感觉测试,研究患有和不患有活动过度症的儿童在本体感觉方面的差异。此外,还测试一项本体感觉测试的结果是否能预测其他测试的结果。在 8-11 岁的儿童中,有 100 名被归类为正常活动能力(Beighton 评分 0-4 分),50 名被归类为过度活动能力(Beighton 评分 5-9 分)。为了测试本体感觉,上肢使用了单侧和双侧关节位置再现任务,下肢使用了加载和卸载楔子任务。在本体感觉测试中,两组之间没有发现任何差异。在有负荷的情况下,估计楔子的高度更容易(站立和坐姿的平均罚分分别为 4.78 和 6.19)。与用对侧手臂重现肘部位置的任务相比,用同一手臂重现肘部位置的错误较少。在使用的四个角度(110°、90°、70°、50°)中,90°角度的位置回忆的位置误差最小(1.8°)。本体感觉测试之间的相关性较弱(有载荷和无载荷(r 0.28);单侧和双侧(r 0.39);上肢和下肢不显著)。与活动能力正常的同龄人相比,没有迹象表明关节活动过度的儿童本体感觉较差。在站立时进行的楔形任务中,负重提供的额外信息可减少错误,但这种影响与关节活动度无关。本体感觉测试的结果取决于所使用的测试;上肢的结果不能预测下肢的结果,反之亦然。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
228
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Founded in 1966, Experimental Brain Research publishes original contributions on many aspects of experimental research of the central and peripheral nervous system. The focus is on molecular, physiology, behavior, neurochemistry, developmental, cellular and molecular neurobiology, and experimental pathology relevant to general problems of cerebral function. The journal publishes original papers, reviews, and mini-reviews.
期刊最新文献
The affective response to positive performance feedback is associated with motor learning. Implicit motor sequence learning using three-dimensional reaching movements with the non-dominant left arm. Proprioception and its relationship with range of motion in hypermobile and normal mobile children. Blood flow modulation to improve motor and neurophysiological outcomes in individuals with stroke: a scoping review. Disruptive compensatory mechanisms in fibromyalgia syndrome and their association with pharmacological agents.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1