Suppr超能文献

踝关节的关节位置再现和关节位置辨别无关。

Joint position reproduction and joint position discrimination at the ankle are not related.

机构信息

International Education School, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.

Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.

出版信息

Somatosens Mot Res. 2020 Jun;37(2):97-105. doi: 10.1080/08990220.2020.1746638. Epub 2020 Apr 13.

Abstract

Limited data in current literature can be found on the relation between the two commonly-used active proprioception assessment methods -active joint position reproduction (JPR) and active movement extent discrimination assessment (AMEDA). The current study compared the two active methods, JPR and AMEDA, to investigate their interrelationship over two studies that differed in task difficulty, using active ankle inversion movements made in weight-bearing to maximise ecological validity. 50 participants volunteered in this research, 20 of whom on a harder protocol and the other 30 on an easier protocol, were tested by both methods, JPR and AMEDA. Proprioceptive acuity was represented by absolute error (AE) and variable error (VE) for JPR and by AE and the area under the curve (AUC) for AMEDA. Proprioceptive acuity scores are found to be significantly correlated within test methods but not between methods for either hard or easy tasks, where JPR AE and VE scores were not correlated with either AMEDA AE or AUC. Further, proprioceptive acuity scores were significantly higher on the easy task when tested with the AMEDA method, but not with JPR method. Scores obtained from the two active movement proprioception tests, movement extent discrimination and joint position reproduction, were not significantly correlated. Taken together with previous findings, these results show that for proprioception, scores from the three classical psychophysical methods for measuring sensitivity (adjustment, limits and constant stimuli) are not correlated with each other. This suggests that each proprioception measurement system assesses a different aspect of proprioception.

摘要

目前的文献中关于两种常用的主动本体感觉评估方法——主动关节位置再现(JPR)和主动运动幅度辨别评估(AMEDA)之间的关系的数据有限。本研究通过两项研究比较了这两种主动方法,JPR 和 AMEDA,以研究它们在使用负重主动踝关节内翻运动以最大程度提高生态有效性的情况下,在任务难度上的相互关系。50 名参与者自愿参加了这项研究,其中 20 名参与者参加了更难的方案,另外 30 名参与者参加了更容易的方案,他们通过 JPR 和 AMEDA 两种方法进行了测试。本体感觉敏锐度用 JPR 的绝对误差(AE)和变量误差(VE)以及 AMEDA 的 AE 和曲线下面积(AUC)来表示。研究发现,无论任务难易,在测试方法内,本体感觉敏锐度评分均显著相关,但在方法之间不相关,在困难任务中,JPR 的 AE 和 VE 评分与 AMEDA 的 AE 或 AUC 不相关。此外,在使用 AMEDA 方法进行测试时,本体感觉敏锐度评分在简单任务中显著更高,而在 JPR 方法中则不然。两种主动运动本体感觉测试(运动幅度辨别和关节位置再现)的得分没有显著相关性。结合以往的发现,这些结果表明,对于本体感觉,用于测量敏感性(调整、极限和恒定刺激)的三种经典心理物理方法的分数彼此之间没有相关性。这表明每个本体感觉测量系统评估本体感觉的不同方面。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验