Predicting Upcoming Events Occurring in the Space Surrounding the Hand

Plasticity of face-hand sensorimotor circuits after a traumatic brachial plexus injury

Background

Interactions between the somatosensory and motor cortices are of fundamental importance for motor control. Although physically distant, face and hand representations are side by side in the sensorimotor cortex and interact functionally. Traumatic brachial plexus injury (TBPI) interferes with upper limb sensorimotor function, causes bilateral cortical reorganization, and is associated with chronic pain. Thus, TBPI may affect sensorimotor interactions between face and hand representations.

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate changes in hand-hand and face-hand sensorimotor integration in TBPI patients using an afferent inhibition (AI) paradigm.

Method

The experimental design consisted of electrical stimulation (ES) applied to the hand or face followed by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to the primary motor cortex to activate a hand muscle representation. In the AI paradigm, the motor evoked potential (MEP) in a target muscle is significantly reduced when preceded by an ES at short-latency (SAI) or long-latency (LAI) interstimulus intervals. We tested 18 healthy adults (control group, CG), evaluated on the dominant upper limb, and nine TBPI patients, evaluated on the injured or the uninjured limb. A detailed clinical evaluation complemented the physiological investigation.

Results

Although hand-hand SAI was present in both the CG and the TBPI groups, hand-hand LAI was present in the CG only. Moreover, less AI was observed in TBPI patients than the CG both for face-hand SAI and LAI.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that sensorimotor integration involving both hand and face sensorimotor representations is affected by TBPI.

Upper limb joint coordination preserves hand kinematics after a traumatic brachial plexus injury

Background

Traumatic brachial plexus injury (TBPI) causes a sensorimotor deficit in upper limb (UL) movements.

Objective

Our aim was to investigate the arm–forearm coordination of both the injured and uninjured UL of TBPI subjects.

Methods

TBPI participants (n = 13) and controls (n = 10) matched in age, gender, and anthropometric characteristics were recruited. Kinematics from the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and index finger markers were collected, while upstanding participants transported a cup to their mouth and returned the UL to a starting position. The UL coordination was measured through the relative phase (RP) between arm and forearm phase angles and analyzed as a function of the hand kinematics.

Results

For all participants, the hand transport had a shorter time to peak velocity (p < 0.01) compared to the return. Also, for the control and the uninjured TBPI UL, the RP showed a coordination pattern that favored forearm movements in the peak velocity of the transport phase (p < 0.001). TBPI participants' injured UL showed a longer movement duration in comparison to controls (p < 0.05), but no differences in peak velocity, time to peak velocity, and trajectory length, indicating preserved hand kinematics. The RP of the injured UL revealed altered coordination in favor of arm movements compared to controls and the uninjured UL (p < 0.001). Finally, TBPI participants' uninjured UL showed altered control of arm and forearm phase angles during the deceleration of hand movements compared to controls (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

These results suggest that UL coordination is reorganized after a TBPI so as to preserve hand kinematics.

Kinematic Changes in the Uninjured Limb After a Traumatic Brachial Plexus Injury

Background: Traumatic brachial plexus injury (TBPI) typically causes sensory, motor and autonomic deficits of the affected upper limb. Recent studies have suggested that a unilateral TBPI can also affect the cortical representations associated to the uninjured limb.

Objective: To investigate the kinematic features of the uninjured upper limb in participants with TBPI.

Methods: Eleven participants with unilateral TBPI and twelve healthy controls matched in gender, age and anthropometric characteristics were recruited. Kinematic parameters collected from the index finger marker were measured while participants performed a free-endpoint whole-body reaching task and a cup-to-mouth task with the uninjured upper limb in a standing position.

Results: For the whole-body reaching task, lower time to peak velocity (p = 0.01), lower peak of velocity (p = 0.003), greater movement duration (p = 0.04) and shorter trajectory length (p = 0.01) were observed in the TBPI group compared to the control group. For the cup-to-mouth task, only a lower time to peak velocity was found for the TBPI group compared to the control group (p = 0.02). Interestingly, no differences between groups were observed for the finger endpoint height parameter in either of the tasks. Taken together, these results suggest that TBPI leads to a higher cost for motor planning when it comes to movements of the uninjured limb as compared to healthy participants. This cost is even higher in a task with a greater postural balance challenge.

Conclusion: This study expands the current knowledge on bilateral sensorimotor alterations after unilateral TBPI and should guide rehabilitation after a peripheral injury.