Objective: To investigate whether practising reaching for virtual moving targets would improve motor performance in people with Parkinson’s disease.
Design: Randomized pretest–posttest control group design.
Setting: A virtual reality laboratory in a university setting.
Participants: Thirty-three adults with Parkinson’s disease.
Interventions: The virtual reality training required 60 trials of reaching for fast-moving virtual balls with the dominant hand. The control group had 60 practice trials turning pegs with their non-dominant hand.
Main outcome measures: Pretest and posttest required reaching with the dominant hand to grasp real stationary balls and balls moving at different speeds down a ramp. Success rates and kinematic data (movement time, peak velocity and percentage of movement time for acceleration phase) from pretest and posttest were recorded to determine the immediate transfer effects.
Results: Compared with the control group, the virtual reality training group became faster (F = 9.08, P = 0.005) and more forceful (F = 9.36, P = 0.005) when reaching for real stationary balls. However, there was no significant difference in success rate or movement kinematics between the two groups when reaching for real moving balls.
Conclusion: A short virtual reality training programme improved the movement speed of discrete aiming tasks when participants reached for real stationary objects. However, the transfer effect was minimal when reaching for real moving objects.
MuslimovicDPostBSpeelmanJDSchmandBde HaanRJ. CARPA Study Group. Determinants of disability and quality of life in mild to moderate Parkinson disease. Neurology2008; 70: 2241–2247.
3.
CunningtonRIansekRBradshawJLPhillipsJG. Movement-related potentials in Parkinson’s disease: Presence and predictability of temporal and spatial cues. Brain1995; 118: 935–950.
4.
JahanshahiMJenkinsHBrownRGMarsdenCDPassinghamREBrooksDJ. Self-initiated versus externally triggered movements: I. An investigation using measurement of regional cerebral blood flow with PET and movement-related potentials in normal and Parkinson’s disease subjects. Brain1995; 118: 913–933.
5.
RogersMAPhillipsJGBradshawJLIansekRJonesD. Provision of external cues and movement sequencing in Parkinson’s disease. Motor Control1998; 2: 125–132.
6.
FreemanJSCodyFWSchadyW. The influence of external timing cues upon the rhythm of voluntary movements in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1993; 56: 1078–1084.
7.
MorrisMEIansekR. Characteristics of motor disturbance in Parkinson’s disease and strategies for movement rehabilitation. Hum Mov Sci1996; 15: 649–669.
8.
GeorgiouNBradshawJLIansekRPhillipsJGMattingleyJBBradshawJA. Reduction in external cues and movement sequencing in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1994; 57: 368–370.
9.
MaHITromblyCATickle-DegnenLWagenaarRC. Effect of one single auditory cue on movement kinematics in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Am J Phys Med Rehabil2004; 83: 530–536.
10.
NowakDATischSHarizMLimousinPTopkaHRothwellJC. Sensory timing cues improve akinesia of grasping movements in Parkinson’s disease: a comparison to the effects of subthalamic nucleus stimulation. Mov Disord2006; 21: 166–172.
11.
SchenkTBaurBSteudeUBotzelK. Effects of deep brain stimulation on prehensile movements in PD patients are less pronounced when external timing cues are provided. Neuropsychologia2003; 41: 783–794.
12.
MajsakMJKaminskiTGentileAMFlanaganJR. The reaching movements of patients with Parkinson’s disease under self-determined maximal speed and visually cued conditions. Brain1998; 121: 755–766.
13.
MajsakMJKaminskiTGentileAMGordonAM. Effects of a moving target versus a temporal constraint on reach and grasp in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Exp Neurol2008; 210: 479–488.
14.
BehrmanALCauraughJHLightKE. Practice as an intervention to improve speeded motor performance and motor learning in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Sci2000; 174: 127–136.
15.
KeshnerEA. Virtual reality and physical rehabilitation: a new toy or a new research and rehabilitation tool?J Neuroeng Rehabil2004; 1: 8–9.
16.
WeissPLRandDKatzNKizonyR. Video capture virtual reality as a flexible and effective rehabilitation tool. J Neuroeng Rehabil2004; 1: 12–33.
17.
HoldenMK. Virtual environments for motor rehabilitation: review. Cyberpsychol Behav2005; 8: 187–211.
18.
MartinOJulianBBoissieuxLGascuelJDPrablancC. Evaluating online control of goal-directed arm movement while standing in virtual visual environment. JVisualization Computer Animation2003; 14: 253–260.
19.
ViauAFeldmanAGMcFadyenBJLevinMF. Reaching in reality and virtual reality: a comparison of movement kinematics in healthy subjects and in adults with hemiparesis. J Neuroeng Rehabil2004; 1: 11–17.
20.
KrebsHIHoganNHeningWAdamovichSVPoiznerH. Procedural motor learning in Parkinson’s disease. Exp Brain Res2001; 141: 425–437.
21.
MessierJAdamovichSJackDHeningWSageJPoiznerH. Visuomotor learning in immersive 3D virtual reality in Parkinson’s disease and in aging. Exp Brain Res2007; 179: 457–474.
22.
HoehnMMYahrMD. Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality. Neurology1967; 17: 427–442.
23.
FolsteinMFFolsteinSEMcHughPR. ‘Mini-mental state’. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res1975; 12: 189–198.
24.
Wang C-Y, Hwang W-J, Fang J-J, Sheu C-F, Leong I-F, Ma H-I. Comparison of virtual reality vs. physical reality on movement characteristics of persons with Parkinson’s disease: Effects of moving targets. Arch Phys Med Rehabil in press.
25.
MaH-IHwangW-JChen-SeaM-JSheuC-F. Handle size as a task constraint in spoon-use movement in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Clin Rehabil2008; 22: 520–528.
26.
NelsonWL. Physical principles for economies of skilled movements. Biol Cybern1983; 46: 135–147.
27.
FlowersK. Ballistic and corrective movements on an aiming task: intention tremor and parkinsonian movement disorders compared. Neurology1975; 25: 413–421.
28.
MaHIHwangWJLinKC. The effects of two different auditory stimuli on functional arm movement in persons with Parkinson’s disease: a dual-task paradigm. Clin Rehabil2009; 23: 229–237.
29.
PhillipsJGBradshawJLChiuEBradshawJA. Characteristics of handwriting of patients with Huntington’s disease. Mov Disord1994; 9: 521–530.
30.
ArbibMA. Schemas for the temporal organization of behaviour. Hum Neurobiol1985; 4: 63–72.
31.
MaHIHwangWJTsaiPLHsuYW. The effect of eating utensil weight on functional arm movement in people with Parkinson’s disease: a controlled clinical trial. Clin Rehabil2009; 23: 1086–1092.
32.
CohenJ. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, second edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988, .
33.
PlatzTBrownRGMarsdenCD. Training improves the speed of aimed movements in Parkinson’s disease. Brain1998; 121: 505–514.
34.
MasonAHCarnahanH. Target viewing time and velocity effects on prehension. Exp Brain Res1999; 127: 83–94.
35.
GentileAM. Skill acquisition: Action, movement, and neuromotor processes. In: CarrJHShepherdRB (eds) Movement science: Foundations for physical therapy in rehabilitation. Rockville, MD: Aspen, 1987, 93–154.
36.
LinCHSullivanKJWuADKantakSWinsteinCJ. Effect of task practice order on motor skill learning in adults with Parkinson disease: a pilot study. Phys Ther2007; 87: 1120–1131.
37.
AdamovichSVFluetGGMathaiAQiuQLewisJMeriansAS. Design of a complex virtual reality simulation to train finger motion for persons with hemiparesis: a proof of concept study. J Neuroeng Rehabil2009; 6: 28–28.
38.
MeriansASTunikEFluetGGQiuQAdamovichSV. Innovative approaches to the rehabilitation of upper extremity hemiparesis using virtual environments. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med2009; 45: 123–133.
39.
QiuQRamirezDASalehS. The New Jersey Institute of Technology Robot-Assisted Virtual Rehabilitation (NJIT-RAVR) system for children with cerebral palsy: a feasibility study. J Neuroeng Rehabil2009; 6: 40–40.
40.
MahnckeHWBronstoneAMerzenichMM. Brain plasticity and functional losses in the aged: scientific bases for a novel intervention. Prog Brain Res2006; 157: 81–109.
41.
Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice, third edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Pearson Education, 2009.
