4.6 Article

Writing kinematics and pen forces in Writer's Cramp: Effects of task and clinical subtype

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 121, 期 11, 页码 1898-1907

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.04.023

关键词

Handwriting; Writer's Cramp; Focal dystonia; Kinematic analysis; Force analysis; Grip force; Pen tip force; Pen pressure

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG [HE 3592/3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Writer's Cramp (WC) is defined as a task-specific form of focal-hand-dystonia generating hypertonic muscle co-contractions resulting in impaired handwriting. Little is known about kinematic and dynamic characteristics in handwriting in the different subtypes of WC. Methods: In this study, kinematic and force analyses were used to compare handwriting capacity of 14 simple, 13 dystonic WC-patients and 14 healthy subjects. The effect of task-complexity was investigated using a simple repetitive writing-task, writing pairs of letters, a sentence and copying a text. Results: In general, patients showed significant deficits in kinematic and force parameters during writing, but no consistent differences between the two subtypes of WC were found. The complexity of writing material modulated writing parameters in all groups, but less complex material did not ameliorate the patients' deficits relative to control subjects. Conclusions: The similarity of deficits in patients with simple and dystonic WC does not support the concept of a unitary progression of deficits causing a switch from simple to dystonic WC. Dystonic WC seems to be characterized by a spread of symptoms independent of severity. Obviously, the deficits concern elementary aspects of writing and are not modulated by more complex aspects. Significance: Quantification of writing deficits by simple and short phrases with kinematic and force parameters can substantially improve the characterization of WC. (C) 2010 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据