Waddington Gordon, Witchalls Jeremy
Research Institute for Sport and Exercise, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, Australia.
Percept Mot Skills. 2025 Jun;132(3):395-406. doi: 10.1177/00315125241304169. Epub 2024 Nov 27.
Active movement extent discrimination assessment (AMEDA) is a psychophysical task that evaluates proprioception and tactile acuity of the lower limbs, and it is a method of determining sensorimotor ability. Sensorimotor ability is the ability to judge small differences in movement tasks through the process of receiving sensory messages (sensory input) and producing a response (motor output). Participant attention lapses in prior psychophysical studies have been implicated as a cause for increased measurement variance thresholds in these types of assessments. Since minimizing the time needed for the AMEDA may help to reduce attention lapses, we compared the reliability of the 50-repetition AMEDA protocol (Group 1) with that of a 25-repetition protocol (Group 2). We assessed the split half reliability of these two approaches, using the Spearman-Brown Adjusted Pearson correlation (r). For each method, we calculated Bland-Altman Plots and Intra Class Correlation Coefficients to compare the reliability of the two data sets and determine the 95% confidence intervals. Split-half test re-test Spearman-Brown Adjusted Pearson r (r) was Group 1 = 0.83 and Group 2 = 0.85. The Bland-Altman Plots indicated only a small degree of bias from the zero-difference line, with 95% of the difference points lying within the limits of agreement. For Group 1, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) two-way, agreement was 0.83 (95% CI 0.54-0.93) and for Group 2, the ICC, two-way, agreement, was 0.85 (95% CI 0.66-0.93). The MDC90 for Group 1 was 0.082 AUC units and for Group 2, it was 0.086 AUC units. The combined data for Group 1 plus Group 2 Bland-Altman Plot indicated only a small degree of bias from the zero-difference line, with 95% of the difference points lying within the limits of agreement. The MDC90 for the combined groups was 0.08 AUC units. The multiple methods from previous research assessing test re-test reliability that we applied to our two data sets indicate that the 25-response AMEDA was a reliable system for evaluating sensorimotor function in the lower limbs and may be an alternative for the more traditional 50-response protocol in which lapses in participant attention from fatigue or other biases may be a concern. There are also practical advantages in time restricted athletic screenings to a shorter administration of this assessment.
主动运动范围辨别评估（AMEDA）是一项心理物理学任务，用于评估下肢的本体感觉和触觉敏锐度，是一种确定感觉运动能力的方法。感觉运动能力是指通过接收感觉信息（感觉输入）并产生反应（运动输出）的过程来判断运动任务中微小差异的能力。在先前的心理物理学研究中，参与者注意力不集中被认为是这类评估中测量方差阈值增加的一个原因。由于尽量减少AMEDA所需的时间可能有助于减少注意力不集中，我们比较了50次重复的AMEDA方案（第1组）和25次重复方案（第2组）的可靠性。我们使用斯皮尔曼-布朗调整后的皮尔逊相关系数（r）评估了这两种方法的折半可靠性。对于每种方法，我们计算了布兰德-奥特曼图和组内相关系数，以比较两个数据集的可靠性并确定95%置信区间。折半测试重测斯皮尔曼-布朗调整后的皮尔逊r（r）值，第1组为0.83，第2组为0.85。布兰德-奥特曼图显示与零线的偏差程度很小，95%的差异点落在一致性界限内。对于第1组，组内相关系数（ICC）双向一致性为0.83（95%CI 0.54-0.93），对于第2组，ICC双向一致性为0.85（95%CI 0.66-0.93）。第1组的MDC90为0.082 AUC单位，第2组为0.086 AUC单位。第1组加第2组的合并数据布兰德-奥特曼图显示与零线的偏差程度很小，95%的差异点落在一致性界限内。合并组的MDC90为0.08 AUC单位。我们应用于两个数据集的先前研究中评估重测可靠性的多种方法表明，25次反应的AMEDA是评估下肢感觉运动功能的可靠系统，对于更传统的50次反应方案来说可能是一种替代方案，在传统方案中，参与者因疲劳或其他偏差导致的注意力不集中可能是一个问题。在时间有限的运动筛查中，这种评估的较短施测时间也具有实际优势。
