Browsing by Author "McGinley, Jennifer"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    An Instrumented Pull Test to Characterize Postural Responses
    (Journal of Visualized Experiments: JoVE, 2019-04) Tan, Joy; Thevathasan, Wesley; McGinley, Jennifer; Brown, Peter; Perera, Thushara
    Impairment of postural reflexes, termed postural instability, is a common and disabling deficit in Parkinson's disease. To assess postural reflexes, clinicians typically employ the pull test to grade corrective responses to a backward perturbation at the shoulders. However, the pull test is prone to issues with reliability and scaling (score/4). Here, we present an instrumented version of the pull test to more precisely quantify postural responses. Akin to the clinical test, pulls are manually administered except pull force is also recorded. Displacements of the trunk and feet are captured by a semi-portable motion tracking system. Raw data represent distance traveled (in millimeter units), making subsequent interpretation and analysis intuitive. The instrumented pull test also detects variabilities influencing pull test administration, such as pull force, thereby identifying and quantifying potential confounds that can be accounted for by statistical techniques. The instrumented pull test could have application in studies seeking to capture early abnormalities in postural responses, track postural instability over time, and detect responses to therapy.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Neurophysiological analysis of the clinical pull test
    (American Physiological Society, 2018-08) Tan, Joy; Perera, Thushara; McGinley, Jennifer; Shivanthan, Yohanandan; Brown, Peter; Thevathasan, Wesley
    Postural reflexes are impaired in conditions such as Parkinson's disease, leading to difficulty walking and falls. In clinical practice, postural responses are assessed using the 'pull test', where an examiner tugs the pre-warned, standing patient backwards at the shoulders and grades the response. However, validity of the pull test is debated with issues including scaling and variability in administration and interpretation. It is unclear whether to assess the first trial or only subsequent repeated trials. The ecological relevance of a forewarned backwards challenge is also debated. We therefore developed an instrumented version of the pull test to characterize responses and clarify how the test should be performed and interpreted. In thirty-three healthy participants, 'pulls' were manually administered and pull force measured. Trunk and step responses were assessed with motion tracking. We probed for the StartReact phenomenon (where pre-prepared responses are released early by a startling stimulus) by delivering concurrent normal or 'startling' auditory stimuli. We found that the first pull triggers a different response, including a larger step size suggesting more destabilization. This is consistent with 'first trial effects', reported by platform translation studies, where movement execution appears confounded by startle reflex-like activity. Thus, first pull test trials have clinical relevance and should not be discarded as practice. Supportive of ecological relevance, responses to repeated pulls exhibited StartReact, as previously reported with a variety of other postural challenges including those delivered with unexpected timing and direction. Examiner pull force significantly affected the postural response particularly the size of stepping.