Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAbdollahi, Farnaz
dc.contributor.authorKenyon, Robert V.
dc.contributor.authorPatton, James L.
dc.date.accessioned2014-02-05T22:01:06Z
dc.date.available2014-02-05T22:01:06Z
dc.date.issued2013-07
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationAbdollahi, F., Kenyon, R. V. and Patton, J. L. Mirror versus parallel bimanual reaching. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation. 2013. 10. DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-10-71en_US
dc.identifier.issn1743-0003
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10027/11149
dc.description© 2013 Abdollahi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2013 by BioMed Central, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitationen_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: In spite of their importance to everyday function, tasks that require both hands to work together such as lifting and carrying large objects have not been well studied and the full potential of how new technology might facilitate recovery remains unknown. Methods: To help identify the best modes for self-teleoperated bimanual training, we used an advanced haptic/graphic environment to compare several modes of practice. In a 2-by-2 study, we compared mirror vs. parallel reaching movements, and also compared veridical display to one that transforms the right hand’s cursor to the opposite side, reducing the area that the visual system has to monitor. Twenty healthy, right-handed subjects (5 in each group) practiced 200 movements. We hypothesized that parallel reaching movements would be the best performing, and attending to one visual area would reduce the task difficulty. Results: The two-way comparison revealed that mirror movement times took an average 1.24 s longer to complete than parallel. Surprisingly, subjects’ movement times moving to one target (attending to one visual area) also took an average of 1.66 s longer than subjects moving to two targets. For both hands, there was also a significant interaction effect, revealing the lowest errors for parallel movements moving to two targets (p < 0.001). This was the only group that began and maintained low errors throughout training. Conclusion: Combined with other evidence, these results suggest that the most intuitive reaching performance can be observed with parallel movements with a veridical display (moving to two separate targets). These results point to the expected levels of challenge for these bimanual training modes, which could be used to advise therapy choices in self-neurorehabilitation.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under grant 1 R01 NS053606 and the National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) RERC H133E0700 13.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_US
dc.subjectBimanual trainingen_US
dc.subjectBimanual coordinationen_US
dc.subjectUpper limben_US
dc.subjectself-telerehabilitationen_US
dc.titleMirror versus parallel bimanual reachingen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record