Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 90, Issue 3 , Pages 447-453, March 2009

Joint-Position Sense and Kinesthesia in Cerebral Palsy

Presented to the Annual American Academy of Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine, September 13–16, 2006, Boston, MA.

  • Jason R. Wingert, PhD, MPT

      Affiliations

    • Department of Health and Wellness, University of North Carolina at Asheville, Asheville, NC
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to Jason R. Wingert, PhD, MPT, Dept of Health and Wellness, WHC CPO #2730, UNC Asheville, One University Heights, Asheville, NC 28804
    • ,
  • Harold Burton, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Departments of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
    • ,
  • Robert J. Sinclair, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Departments of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
    • ,
  • Janice E. Brunstrom, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
    • ,
  • Diane L. Damiano, PhD, PT

      Affiliations

    • Rehabilitation Medicine Department, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

Article Outline

Abstract 

Wingert JR, Burton H, Sinclair RJ, Brunstrom JE, Damiano DL. Joint-position sense and kinesthesia in cerebral palsy.

Objectives

To examine joint-position sense and kinesthesia in all extremities in participants with diplegic or hemiplegic cerebral palsy (CP).

Design

Survey of joint-position sense and kinesthesia differences between aged-matched controls and 2 groups with CP.

Setting

University movement assessment laboratory.

Participants

Population-based sample of participants with CP, diplegia (n=21), hemiplegia (n=17), and age-matched volunteers (n=21) without neurologic disease.

Interventions

Not applicable.

Main Outcome Measures

Joint-position sense and kinesthesia were measured in the transverse plane (forearm pronation/supination and hip internal/external rotation) using a custom-built device. For joint-position sense, participants actively rotated the tested limb to align the distal end with 10 target positions first with the limb and targets visible to assess their ability to perform the task motorically. The task was then repeated with vision of the limb occluded, with targets remaining visible. Joint-position sense error was determined by the magnitude and direction of the rotation errors for each limb in the vision and no vision conditions. Kinesthesia was evaluated by the ability to detect passive limb rotation without vision.

Results

No group differences were detected in the vision condition. Indicative of joint-position sense deficits, a significant increase in errors was found in the no vision condition in all limbs except the dominant upper limb for both groups with CP. Joint-position sense errors were systematically biased toward the direction of internal rotation. Kinesthesia deficits were evident on the nondominant upper limb in diplegia and hemiplegia, and bilaterally in the lower limbs in hemiplegia. In hemiplegia, joint-position sense and kinesthesia deficits were noted on the dominant limbs, but were significantly worse on the nondominant limbs.

Conclusions

These results indicate that people with CP have proprioception deficits in all limbs.

Key Words: Cerebral palsy, Proprioception, Rehabilitation, Sensation

List of Abbreviations: CP, cerebral palsy, GMFCS, Gross Motor Function Classification System, MACS, Manual Ability Classification System

 

PROPRIOCEPTION IS A COMPLEX somatosensory modality that uses inputs from muscle, joint, and cutaneous afferent fibers, and consists of 2 components: the sense of limb movement (kinesthesia) and static limb position (joint-position sense).1 People with CP have well documented balance impairments2 and tend to rely disproportionately on visual input to maintain posture and to position their limbs during gait, which may reflect deficits in proprioception.3 Few studies have examined proprioception in CP, and none have differentiated and examined both joint-position sense and kinesthesia. Most studies evaluated proprioception in participants with hemiplegia,4 some reported combined data from various subtypes and severities of CP, and few examined proprioception in those with diplegia, despite the similar prevalence of both clinical conditions.5 Consequently, it is difficult to associate specific deficits with different subtypes of CP or to distinguish between effects on joint-position sense compared with kinesthesia.

Methods used in prior studies of proprioception in CP primarily were clinically based, typically yielded nominal data, and often did not include a control or comparison group. Only 1 study assessed joint-position sense, where participants matched elbow joint position to a remembered position.6 Kinesthesia, studied to a greater extent than joint-position sense, has typically been assessed by having participants determine the direction of a passively moved limb (eg, “Did your toe move up or down?”) without controlling for force of cutaneous contact or limb movement displacement and velocity.4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 In hemiplegia, kinesthesia impairments on the nondominant upper limb have been demonstrated consistently, most often in comparison to the contralateral dominant limb, with limited data describing kinesthesia on the dominant or nondominant limbs compared with controls.7, 12, 15 Some studies of diplegia found upper-limb kinesthesia deficits,8, 16 but others noted largely intact kinesthesia in these limbs.10 Most studies in CP assessed kinesthesia of the index finger or elbow, and only 2 studies reported significant deficits in lower-limb joint proprioception in diplegia.10, 11

We assessed joint-position and kinesthesia in the upper and lower limbs bilaterally using a more sensitive parametric testing protocol in participants with hemiplegic and diplegic CP and an age-matched group without disability. Joint-position sense and kinesthesia were measured in the transverse plane (forearm pronation/supination and hip internal/external rotation), where rotational abnormalities are commonly seen. No prior study in this population has investigated proprioception in the transverse plane or proprioception of large joints such as the hips. We hypothesized that participants with CP would show diminished joint-position sense and kinesthesia in their more impaired limbs (eg, the lower limbs in diplegia and the side of involvement in hemiplegia) compared with controls, and would demonstrate abnormal but less severely diminished proprioception in unaffected or less impaired limbs.

Back to Article Outline

Methods 

Participants 

Fifty-nine people participated in this study. The sample included 21 participants with spastic diplegia (mean age ± SD, 14y10mo±7y; age range, 7y4mo–34y3mo; 10 male subjects), 17 participants with hemiplegia (mean age ± SD, 13y11mo±5y6mo; age range, 8y7mo–26y6mo; 6 male subjects), and 21 age-matched control subjects (mean age ± SD, 14y10mo±5y1mo; age range, 7y6mo–24y4mo; 11 male subjects) without neurologic or orthopedic disabilities. All participants ambulated independently, and participants with CP were either level I or II on the GMFCS17 and MACS.18 Additionally, school-age participants were in grade levels appropriate within 2 years of their age, all those over 21 years were in or had completed college, and all participants reliably followed instructions.

All participants age 17 years or younger provided informed assent following guidelines approved by the Human Studies Committee of Washington University, and their parent or legal guardian provided informed consent; all participants age 18 years or older provided informed consent. Responses to a modified Edinburgh Handedness Inventory19 indicated the proportion of right upper-extremity dominance for each participant (a score of 100 indicates complete right upper-extremity dominance, and a score of 0 indicates complete left upper-extremity dominance). (The modified Edinburgh Handedness Inventory determines the proportion of upper-extremity usage during the following tasks: writing, drawing, throwing, scissoring, brushing teeth, knife and spoon use, upper hand on broom, striking match, and opening a box lid.) Leg dominance was assumed to be ipsilateral to upper-extremity dominance.

Proprioception Protocol 

A custom-built device allowed rotation around the axis of a semigoniometer and thereby measured hip and forearm orientation angles in the transverse plane (fig 1), more specifically hip internal and external rotation and forearm pronation and supination. During testing, the foot and lower calf or hand and forearm were placed in a foam lined holder that accommodated variable limb sizes and biomechanical alignment differences with adjustable padding and Velcro straps. Tactile cues were minimized with secure positioning and smooth axial rotation through a square mounted-flanged ball bearing.

Joint-Position Sense 

Joint-position sense was assessed by having participants actively point with a specified part of their foot or hand to each of 10 target angles along the semigoniometer axis. These target angles were randomly selected prior to the beginning of the experiment. All participants received the same 10 target angles, presented in a random order without replacement. The range of excursion within which the target angles were located was predetermined through pilot testing to be within the available active range for most participants with mild CP (ie, 60° arc for the forearm and 35° for the hip). Targets were large numbers at every 10° increment or hash marks at every degree located on both sides of the goniometer and were plainly visible to all participants (see fig 1). The target number was both stated and pointed to by the tester. The orientation angle of the leg or arm was approximated to the nearest degree; the measurement error for approximation of the limb was not directly assessed. A single tester completed all assessments.

Testing of upper and lower extremities involved 2 conditions. In the vision condition, participants saw both the target location and their foot or hand; in the no vision condition, the limb was obscured by an opaque curtain and only targets on the goniometer were visible, requiring somatosensory input for limb guidance to complete the task. Participants performed the vision condition first to facilitate instruction and assess their motor abilities with respect to performing the task. The vision condition was followed by the no vision condition to assess joint-position sense impairments.

When testing forearm rotation, participants sat upright at a table directly in front of the goniometer. The tested arm was unrestrained and positioned comfortably in approximately 90° of elbow flexion. In the vision condition for the upper extremity, the pointing reference used to align with the target was the center of the padded handle, which was gripped lightly by the participant and perpendicular to the axis of rotation (see fig 1A). When testing the leg, participants sat in a semireclined position with the back supported, a hip angle of approximately 45° of flexion, and knee in full extension. In the vision condition, the pointing reference used to align with the target was a small marker placed on the dorsal surface of the midline of the second toe (see fig 1B). In the no vision condition, target alignment was made without sight of the pointing reference and associated limb, which was covered by a curtain. For each limb and both conditions, the magnitude (degrees) and direction (internal/external rotation or pronation/supination) of error between performance and target location were recorded for each trial to the nearest degree.

Kinesthesia 

The same goniometer and limb positioning device was used to evaluate kinesthesia, but vision of the limbs was obscured during all trials. Participants immediately reported movement direction on detecting passive rotation of approximately 0.5°/s with a maximum displacement of 4°. Movement was imposed passively using a control rod attached to the back of the goniometer. Direction was pseudorandomly selected per trial, with half of the trials moving in one direction and half in the other direction. Performance accuracy was the number of correct responses in 10 trials for each limb.

Statistical Analyses 

Post hoc 1-tailed Mann-Whitney U tests examined pairwise differences within and between groups for the joint-position sense and kinesthesia tasks. (The Mann-Whitney U test was used because variances were unequal across groups.) Groups with diplegia and hemiplegia were each compared with controls but not with each other. Mann-Whitney U P values were Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons on the basis of 6 comparisons a task.

Back to Article Outline

Results 

Deficits in joint-position sense and kinesthesia were found in both subtypes of CP, most notably on the nondominant limbs. Within-group and between-group differences are described separately for groups with diplegia and hemiplegia.

Diplegia Compared With Controls 

The group with diplegia and the control group had comparable joint-position sense error distributions in all limbs when allowed to use vision (fig 2; see table 1C, columns CD-DD and CN-DN). Within-group comparisons for both diplegia and controls in the vision condition revealed that the nondominant lower extremity had significantly larger mean joint-position sense error compared with the dominant side (see fig 2B). Comparable performance in the vision trials between groups critically indicates that the motor disability in diplegia did not impair performance on this task with any limb. In contrast, with exclusive reliance on somatosensory input in the no vision trials, the group with diplegia made significantly larger joint-position sense errors than controls in both lower limbs (see fig 2B; see table 1D, columns CD-DD and CN-DN) and the nondominant upper limb (see fig 2A; see table 1D, column CN-DN). Additionally, the distribution and mean joint-position error in those with diplegia was biased internally, in the direction of pronation for the nondominant forearm and hip internal rotation for both legs (see fig 2). In the no vision trials with the dominant upper limb, errors were larger, but not significantly, in diplegia compared with controls (see fig 2A; see table 1D, column CD-DD).

  • View full-size image.
  • Fig 2. 

    Box-and-whisker plots of group magnitude (in degrees) and direction of joint-position sense error. Ten targets were used for each limb and participant. The 4 plots indicate findings for (A) upper and (B) lower, nondominant and dominant limbs, for controls (black), diplegia (grey), and hemiplegia (white) on the vision and no vision condition trials. The vertical green bars within the boxes mark group medians, and the red crosses mark group means. The boxes represent the first and third quartiles of the data, and the error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals around the median. The negative abscissa represents pronation for arms and hip internal rotation for legs, and the positive represents supination and hip external rotation. The P value is shown where group differences were significant.

Table 1. Joint-Position Sense Errors
GroupMeans ± SD
CDCNDDDNHDHN
A. Vision
Upper limb−0.18±3.37−0.87±4.10−0.41±4.91−1.42±5.28−0.17±4.12−0.85±4.52
Lower limb0.11±1.72−0.42±1.48−0.11±2.70−0.85±2.66−0.02±1.65−0.81±3.21
B. No vision
Upper limb0.64±6.50−1.15±6.98−0.51±8.96−3.53±9.86−0.54±7.15−3.40±10.93
Lower limb−0.13±4.94−2.08±4.83−1.64±8.89−6.09±10.80−4.67±13.90−6.49±11.35
GroupMean Difference ± SD
CD-DDCN-DNDD-DNCD-HDCN-HNHD-HN
C. Vision
Upper limb0.233±3.570.55±3.331.01±1.93−0.02±2.36−0.02±1.900.69±1.86
Mann-Whitney UP=1.000P=1.000P=.265P=1.000P=1.000P=.983
Lower limb0.22±2.080.43±2.220.73±0.410.13±0.470.39±2.850.78±2.75
Mann-Whitney UP=1.000P=.133P=.002P=1.000P=1.000P=.055
D. No vision
Upper limb1.16±7.482.39±8.603.02±4.121.18±2.992.25±8.412.86±8.26
Mann-Whitney UP=.724P=.005P<.001P=.652P=.114P=.020
Lower limb1.51±7.404.01±9.664.45±6.134.53±12.994.41±10.261.82±8.03
Mann-Whitney UP=.017P<.001P<.001P<.001P<.001P=.999

NOTE. Mann-Whitney U P values were adjusted with the Bonferroni correction for 6 comparisons and are in boldface where differences between group means were significant.

Abbreviations: CD, control, dominant side; CN, control, nondominant side; DD, diplegia, dominant side; DN, diplegia, nondominant side; HD, hemiplegia, dominant side; HN, hemiplegia, nondominant side.

Compared with the vision condition, the group with diplegia had significantly greater joint-position sense errors in the no vision condition in the nondominant upper limb (mean difference, –2.11±11.18°, P=.006) and both lower limbs (dominant: mean difference, –1.53±9.29°, P<.001; nondominant: mean difference, –5.24±11.12°, P<.001). For the control group, only the nondominant lower limb had significantly larger errors across conditions (mean difference, –1.66±5.05°, P<.001). Within diplegia, both nondominant limbs had significantly larger joint-position sense error than their respective dominant limbs in the no vision condition (see fig 2; see table 1D, see column DD-DN).

On the kinesthesia test, the group with diplegia detected passive movements of all limbs less accurately than controls (figs 3; table 2A, columns CD, CN, DD, DN; table 2B, columns CD-DD and CN-DN). However, this difference was significant only for both upper limbs (see fig 3A; see table 2B, columns CD-DD and CN-DN), and approached significance for the nondominant lower limb (see table 2B, column CN-DN). Absence of a significant difference, especially in the nondominant lower limb, possibly reflected greater variation across participants with diplegia, with the performance of some participants overlapping that of controls.

  • View full-size image.
  • Fig 3. 

    Bar graphs of accuracy (mean and SD) in detecting passive limb movements by group for (A) upper and (B) lower and for dominant (filled) and nondominant (cross-hatched) limbs in controls (black), diplegia (dark grey), and hemiplegia (light grey). *P<.05.

Table 2. Kinesthesia Performance Accuracy
A. GroupMeans ± SD
CDCNDDDNHDHN
Upper limb97.62±6.2598.09±5.1282.38±22.3481.91±18.3482.86±28.4066.43±33.42
Lower limb99.52±2.1898.57±4.7890.48±22.2488.09±21.5989.41±15.1970.59±29.04
B. GroupMean Difference ± SD
CD-DDCN-DNDD-DNCD-HDCN-HNHD-HN
Upper limb15.24±21.4516.19±17.611.05±12.76014.76±27.7131.67±33.0316.43±17.62
Mann-Whitney UP=.016P<.001P=1.000P=.236P<.001P=.271
Lower limb9.04±22.1310.48±21.062.38±5.3510.11±15.0427.98±28.6518.82±24.75
Mann-Whitney UP=.162P=.061P=1.000P=.004P<.001P=.130

NOTE. Mann-Whitney U P values were adjusted with the Bonferroni correction for 6 comparisons and are in boldface where differences between group means were significant.

Abbreviations: CD, control, dominant side; CN, control, nondominant side; DD, diplegia, dominant side; DN, diplegia, nondominant side; HD, hemiplegia, dominant side; HN, hemiplegia, nondominant side.

Hemiplegia Compared With Controls 

The group with hemiplegia and the control group had comparable joint-position error distributions in all limbs when allowed to use vision (see fig 2; see table 1C, columns CD-HD and CN-HN). Comparable group performance in the vision condition indicates that movement disabilities in hemiplegia did not contribute to proprioception deficits. In contrast, with exclusive reliance on somatosensory input in the no vision trials (see fig 2B), the group with hemiplegia made significantly larger joint-position sense errors than controls with both lower limbs (see table 1D, columns CD-HD and CN-HN). For both upper limbs, mean errors in hemiplegia were larger than in controls in the no vision trials (see fig 2A), although these differences were not significant. Similar to the diplegia group, the distribution and mean joint-position error was in the direction of pronation for the nondominant forearm and hip internal rotation for both legs (see fig 2).

Additionally, the group with hemiplegia had significantly greater joint-position sense errors in the no vision condition compared with the vision condition in both lower limbs (dominant: mean difference, –4.65±13.99°, P<.001; nondominant: mean difference, –5.68±11.79°, P<.001), and this difference approached significance in the nondominant upper limb (mean difference, –2.55±11.83°, P<.059).

The group with hemiplegia performed the kinesthesia task significantly less accurately than controls with the nondominant arm and both legs (see fig 3; see table 2B, columns CD-HD and CN-HN). Mean accuracy was diminished, though not significantly, even with the dominant forearm (see fig 3A). However, this difference was not significant, likely the result of greater variability in accuracy in hemiplegia.

Subsequent post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests assessed performance accuracy differences between older and younger participants in each group. Mann-Whitney U tests found no effect of age after stratification by age into groups less than 13 years and 13 years and older.

Back to Article Outline

Discussion 

Pervasive proprioception deficits in all limbs except the dominant upper extremity were found in participants with diplegia or hemiplegia with relatively mild motor involvement (GMFCS and MACS levels I or II). The nondominant upper limb in both groups with CP had a joint-position sense error greater than double the error magnitude of controls, and both lower limbs in CP had more than a 3-fold greater error magnitude compared with controls (see table 1). Significant proprioception deficits were observed in those limbs that previously might be considered less involved such as the upper extremities of participants with diplegia and the dominant upper and lower extremities of those with hemiplegia. A recent study of participants with mild diplegia or hemiplegia also exhibited tactile sensory deficits in both hands.20 Taken together, the distribution of tactile deficits and the proprioception deficits shown here indicates that CP involves generalized somatosensory deficits. Such behavioral evidence of generalized somatosensory deficits corroborates recent diffusion tensor imaging in participants with diplegic CP showing severely damaged thalamocortical projections to the somatosensory cortex, with less frequent damage to the corticospinal tracts.21 Therefore, the proprioception deficits observed here most probably result from primary central nervous system lesions in CP that affect all known proprioceptive inputs to the cortex arising from muscle spindles, Golgi tendon organs, and the array of sensory afferent innervation of the joints and skin. Unknown, however, is the extent to which secondary effects related to decreased or abnormal limb use also contribute to somatosensory deficits. For example, muscle spindles, potentially altered from spasticity or muscle-tendon shortening, may contribute to proprioception errors, especially the bias toward internal errors noted here, because spastic muscle fibers have been shown to be stiffer and sarcomeres shorter than normal.22 Further research directed at determining the precise etiology of proprioception deficits and the systematic directional bias of errors needs to be conducted.

We analyzed proprioception deficits with respect to limb dominance as defined from responses to a modified Edinburgh Handedness Inventory19 for upper-extremity dominance and then projected this categorization to the ipsilateral leg. We are aware of no similar validated assessment for leg dominance. Additionally, as part of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory, participants were asked to name the leg they typically use for kicking, which has been used as an indicator of leg dominance in those without disability, and which always corresponded to the side of hand dominance in our sample. However, the act of kicking with 1 leg requires balancing on the opposite leg, so balance difficulties in CP could lead to balancing on the more functional limb and kicking with the more affected leg. Nonetheless, any potential incorrect categorization of lower-limb dominance did not compromise these findings because significant proprioception deficits were observed bilaterally in both patient groups. Based on observing proprioception deficits in each limb, the following discussion considers the implications of these findings for the upper and lower extremities separately.

Upper-Extremity Proprioception Deficits in CP 

Proprioceptive deficits in the upper limbs of participants with CP were greater on the nondominant side. On the nondominant arm in diplegia and hemiplegia, selected joint-position sense errors were significantly larger, especially in pronation, and passive movements were significantly less accurately detected. Our assessments of proprioception deficits on the nondominant arm in hemiplegia are similar to those previously reported.4, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15

With 1 exception,4 prior studies of proprioception did not report deficits in the dominant arm in hemiplegia.7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 No significant dominant arm impairments for joint-position sense or detection of passive movements were found in our sample of participants with hemiplegia. In the kinesthesia task, however, mean accuracy was lower and the minimum-to-maximum range was larger even for the dominant arm in hemiplegia compared with controls. Inclusion of participants with greater motor impairment (higher GMFCS level) might reveal greater dominant arm deficits in proprioception.

Lower-Extremity Proprioception Deficits in Cerebral Palsy 

Proprioception impairment in the lower extremities can directly impact balance and gait.23 Bilateral joint-position sense deficits were found in the lower extremities in both patient groups. Because of the inclusion of the vision condition, we ascertained that differences in motor performance in the groups with CP were not the source of the observed proprioception deficits. Previous studies used simple detection of small, passive sagittal plane movements of the index finger, great toe, and knee to reveal proprioception deficits in diplegia,10, 11 but no studies described bilateral lower-extremity deficiencies in hemiplegia. In the present study, both groups had significantly increased error in rotating to target angles when vision was occluded compared with controls. Consistent with previous findings that visual input is necessary for gross motor function in CP,3 comparable errors were not observed when these participants were able to see the leg and targets simultaneously. These findings suggest that participants with CP use visual input as a compensatory mechanism for activities involving joint-position sense. Normalized motor control depends on visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive inputs. However, during visuomotor tasks, vision predominates over proprioception, especially when the 2 sources of information conflict.24

Lower-extremity proprioception was assessed in the current study in a nonweight-bearing condition. Proprioceptive deficits similar to those observed here are also likely to exist in weight-bearing activities such as standing and gait because perception of a limb's position and/or movement in space is independent of body position and input from load-bearing. Somatosensory feedback during weight-bearing activities includes multiple additional sources of afferent input, including tactile and pressure receptors. While these possibly obscure or compensate for proprioceptive deficits, they may also be similarly affected given evidence of widespread tactile impairments in the upper extremities in people with CP.20 Future evaluation of somatosensation during weight-bearing is a critical component to understanding the role of somatosensory deficits in the motor disorders related to CP.

The primary directional bias of errors when detecting joint-position in both patient groups was toward internal hip rotation. Prevalent internal rotation errors possibly reflect common lower extremity musculoskeletal alignment in participants with CP, which often includes increased internal femoral torsion and hip adduction during standing and walking compared with those without disabilities. Possibly abnormal biomechanical alignment, muscle weakness or imbalance, and/or increased muscle tone related to CP bias proprioceptive input toward internally oriented joint-position errors. Secondary muscle changes related to spasticity also might impair joint-position sense over time by shortening and stiffening muscle tissue,22, 25 altering the muscle-joint relationship26 and disrupting the sensitivity of muscle spindles, which contribute to proprioception.23 Unknown, however, is whether the extent of effects on proprioception receptors in CP is secondary to disrupted corticofugal influence on motor behavior because of injured thalamocortical projections. Thus, central nervous system somatosensory deficits might contribute to or even precede abnormal biomechanical alignment in CP. Alternatively, centrally precipitated alterations in muscle physiology plausibly cascade with secondary changes in the sensitivity of the panoply of proprioception peripheral afferents.

Lower accuracy on the joint-position compared with the kinesthesia task possibly arose from task differences in difficulty or in the amount of tactile information provided. Plausibly tactile stimulation was reduced when judging a static joint-position compared with coincident stimulation when the examiner passively moved the limb during the kinesthesia task. Tactile stimulation was minimized here by using custom fitted foam liners around the foot. However, detecting the direction of movement in the kinesthesia task was possibly easier because of retained extraneous tactile cues. Additionally, the joint-position task probably was more difficult because it involved active angular rotations that had to be precisely graded. In contrast, the dichotomous kinesthesia task required less precision when detecting external or internal rotations that were passively imposed. Another possibility for smaller group accuracy differences in the kinesthesia compared with joint-position sense task is a smaller effect size on the kinesthesia task, which necessitated a larger sample size to indicate group differences in individual limbs.

Study Limitations 

We examined proprioception abilities in people with either diplegic or hemiplegic cerebral palsy, with gross motor function at levels I or II on the GMFCS and MACS. Generalization of the results beyond the 2 CP subtypes and gross motor function levels studied should be done with caution. Furthermore, the study design was cross-sectional; therefore, conclusions about developmental age and proprioception cannot be drawn.

Back to Article Outline

Conclusions 

This study minimized confounding effects from movement limitations by studying participants with CP who have milder impairment and by comparing performance within participants on the active positioning task with and without the use of vision. This study additionally advances the study of proprioception over prior protocols by introducing a novel method of joint-position sense assessment and improving kinesthesia assessment by controlling the magnitude and area of skin contact and movement velocity and displacement.

The definitive proprioception deficits found here in participants with mild CP contrast with prior inconsistent findings that primarily used routine clinical tests. Current findings indicate the need to assess proprioception separately for each limb and to evaluate results against comparably tested, age-matched controls. Furthermore, evaluations based on bilateral limb position matching tasks are probably incomplete because deficits are often bilateral in CP, especially in the lower extremities. More accurate assessment of how participants perceive limb position and movement can be obtained by testing limbs separately. Revealed somatosensory deficits might thereby provide rehabilitation clinicians with information about factors contributing to motor impairments. Indeed, even limbs less motorically affected (eg, upper limbs in diplegia or less affected lower limb in hemiplegia) showed impaired proprioception.

Improved performance accuracy when seeing the affected limb during the tasks revealed a probable compensatory, visual adaptation to pervasive proprioception deficits in CP. Therefore, optimization of vision is essential for people with CP. Participants' vision should be engaged and relied on while learning and practicing movements. Reliance on visual compensation strategies (eg, using mirrors, video, virtual reality) is important early in the rehabilitation process until accurate perception of body movements is demonstrated. Subsequently, additional benefits might arise from having participants practice motor tasks with gradually decreasing visual input such that even diminished proprioception can be incorporated into learned movements.27 Practicing movements and proprioception tasks without vision also might improve perception as a neural recovery strategy by repeatedly engaging the somatosensory system during the activity.28

Back to Article Outline

Acknowledgments 

We thank Dennis Tapella and John Kreitler at the Washington University School of Medicine Instrument Machine Shop, and Keith Smith, CO, LO, at Orthotics & Prosthetics Lab, Inc, for design and construction of the proprioception device.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Gandevia SC, Refshauge KM, Collins DF. Proprioception: peripheral inputs and perceptual interactions. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2002;508:61–68
  2. Burtner PA, Qualls C, Woollacott MH. Muscle activation characteristics of stance balance control in children with spastic cerebral palsy. Gait Posture. 1998;8:163–174
  3. Liao HF, Hwang AW. Relations of balance function and gross motor ability for children with cerebral palsy. Percept Mot Skills. 2003;96:1173–1184
  4. Cooper J, Majnemer A, Rosenblatt B, Birnbaum R. The determination of sensory deficits in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. J Child Neurol. 1995;10:300–309
  5. Himmelmann K, Hagberg G, Beckung E, Hagberg B, Uvebrant P. The changing panorama of cerebral palsy in Sweden, IX: prevalence and origin in the birth-year period 1995-1998. Acta Paediatr. 2005;94:287–294
  6. Opila-Lehman J, Short MA, Trombly CA. Kinesthetic recall of children with athetoid and spastic cerebral palsy and of non-handicapped children. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1985;27:223–230
  7. Brown JK, van Rensburg F, Walsh G, Lakie M, Wright GW. A neurological study of hand function of hemiplegic children. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1987;29:287–304
  8. Hohman LB, Baker L, Reed R. Sensory disturbances in children with infantile hemiplegia, triplegia, and quadriplegia. Am J Phys Med. 1958;37:1–6
  9. Jones B. The perception of passive joint-movements by cerebral-palsied children. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1976;18:25–30
  10. Kenney WE. Certain sensory defects in cerebral palsy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1963;(27):193–195
  11. McLaughlin JF, Felix SD, Nowbar S, Ferrel A, Bjornson K, Hays RM. Lower extremity sensory function in children with cerebral palsy. Pediatr Rehabil. 2005;8:45–52
  12. Tachdjian MO, Minear WL. Sensory disturbances in the hands of children with cerebral palsy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1958;40:85–90
  13. Tizard JP, Paine RS, Crothers B. Disturbances of sensation in children with hemiplegia. JAMA. 1954;155:628–632
  14. Uvebrant P. Hemiplegic cerebral palsy: aetiology and outcome. Acta Paediatr Scand Suppl. 1988;345:1–100
  15. Van Heest AE, House J, Putnam M. Sensibility deficiencies in the hands of children with spastic hemiplegia. J Hand Surg Am. 1993;18:278–281
  16. Jones MH. Management of hemiplegic children with peripheral sensory loss. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1960;7:765–775
  17. Palisano RJ, Hanna SE, Rosenbaum PL, et al. Validation of a model of gross motor function for children with cerebral palsy. Phys Ther. 2000;80:974–985
  18. Eliasson AC, Krumlinde-Sundholm L, Rosblad B, et al. The Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) for children with cerebral palsy: scale development and evidence of validity and reliability. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006;48:549–554
  19. Raczkowski D, Kalat JW, Nebes R. Reliability and validity of some handedness questionnaire items. Neuropsychologia. 1974;12:43–47
  20. Wingert JR, Burton H, Sinclair RJ, Brunstrom JE, Damiano DL. Tactile sensory abilities in cerebral palsy: deficits in roughness and object discrimination. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008;50:1–7
  21. Nagae LM, Hoon AH, Stashinko E, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging in children with periventricular leukomalacia: variability of injuries to white matter tracts. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28:1213–1222
  22. Friden J, Lieber RL. Spastic muscle cells are shorter and stiffer than normal cells. Muscle Nerve. 2003;27:157–164
  23. Dietz V. Proprioception and locomotor disorders. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3:781–790
  24. Jones KE, Wessberg J, Vallbo A. Proprioceptive feedback is reduced during adaptation to a visuomotor transformation: preliminary findings. Neuroreport. 2001;12:4029–4033
  25. O'Dwyer NJ, Ada L, Neilson PD. Spasticity and muscle contracture following stroke. Brain. 1996;119:1737–1749
  26. Lieber RL, Friden J. Spasticity causes a fundamental rearrangement of muscle-joint interaction. Muscle Nerve. 2002;25:265–270
  27. Rameckers EA, Smits-Engelsman BC, Duysens J. Children with spastic hemiplegia are equally able as controls in maintaining a precise percentage of maximum force without visually monitoring their performance. Neuropsychologia. 2005;43:1938–1945
  28. Behrman AL, Bowden MG, Nair PM. Neuroplasticity after spinal cord injury and training: an emerging paradigm shift in rehabilitation and walking recovery. Phys Ther. 2006;86:1406–1425

 Supported by the United Cerebral Palsy Research and Education Foundation, the Foundation for Physical Therapy Promotion of Doctoral Studies Scholarship, the Ogle family, and the National Institutes of Health (grant nos. NS054413 and NS31005).

 No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit on the authors or on any organization with which the authors are associated.

PII: S0003-9993(08)01647-X

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2008.08.217

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 90, Issue 3 , Pages 447-453, March 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution