Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ELSEVIER
11830 Westline Industrial Drive St. Louis, Missouri 63146
HAND FUNCTION IN THE CHILD: FOUNDATIONS FOR REMEDIATION Copyright 2006,1995 by Mosby Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier's Health Sciences Rights Department in Philadelphia, PA, USA: phone: (+1) 215 239 3804, fax: (+1) 215 239 3805, e-mail: healthpermissions@elsevier.com. You may also complete your request on-line via the Elsevier homepage (http:/ /www.elsevier.com) . by selecting ' Customer Support' and then 'Obtaining Permissions'.
Notice Neither the Publisher nor the Editors assume any responsibility for any loss or injury and/or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of the material contained in this book. It is the responsibility of the treating practitioner, relying on independent expertise and knowledge of the patient, to determine the best treatment and method of application for the patient. The Publ isher
International Standard Book Number 13 978-0323-03186-8 International Standard Book Number 10 0-323-03186-2
Publishing Director: Linda Duncan Editor: Kathy Falk Publishing Services Manager: Patricia Tannian Project Manager: Sarah Wunderly Design Manager: Bill Drone
Printed in the United States of America. Last digit is the print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
ELSEY [ER
S a bre Foundation
CONTRIBUTORS
Dorit Haenosh Aaron, MA, OTR, CHT, FAOTA Coordinator Hand Therapy Fellowship Department of Occupational Therapy Texas Womens University Houston, Texas Mary Benbow, MS, OTR Private Consultant and Lecturer La Jolla, California Jane Case-Smith, EdD, OTR/L, FAOTA Professor Division of Occupational Therapy The Ohio State University School of Allied Medical Professions Columbus, Ohio Sharon A. Cermak, EdD, OTR/L, FAOTA Professor of Occupational Therapy Department of Rehabilitation Sciences Boston University, Sargent College; Director of Occupational Therapy Training Leadership and Education in Neurodevelopment Disabilities Childrens Hospital and University of Massachusetts Medical Center Boston, Massachusetts Ann-Christin Eliasson, PhD, OT Associate Professor Neuropsychiatric Research Unit Institution of Woman and Child Health Karolinska Institute Stockholm, Sweden Charlotte E. Exner, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA Professor Department of Occupational Therapy and Occupational Science Dean College of Health Professions Towson University Towson, Maryland Kimberly Brace Granhaug, OTR, CHT Clinical Manager Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation Christus St. Catherine Katy, Texas Anne Henderson, PhD, OTR Professor Emeritus Department of Occupational Therapy Boston University/Sargent College of Allied Health Professions Boston, Massachusetts Elke H. Kraus, PhD, BSc.Occ.Ther., Dip.Ad.Ed Professor of Occupational Therapy Alice-Saloman University of Applied Sciences Berlin, Germany Carol Anne Myers, MS, OTR/L Occupational Therapist Early Childhood Education Program Newton Public Schools Newton, Massachusetts Charlane Pehoski, ScD, OTR/L, FAOTA Consultant Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center University of Massachusetts Medical School Waltham, Massachusetts
vi
Contributors
Scott D. Tomchek, MS, OTR/L Chief of Occupational Therapy Child Evaluation Center University of Louisville School of Medicine Department of Pediatrics Louisville, Kentucky Laura K. Vogtle, PhD, OTR/L, ATP Associate Professor Department of Occupational Therapy University of Alabama at Birmingham Birmingham, Alabama Margaret Wallen, MA, OT Senior Occupational Therapist Research Department of Occupational Therapy The Childrens Hospital at Westmead Westmead, New South Wales, Australia Jenny Ziviani, BAppScOT, BA, MEd, PhD Associate Professor School of Health and Rehabilitation Science The University of Queensland Queensland, Australia
Ashwini K. Rao, EdD, OTR Assistant Professor of Clinical Physical Therapy Program in Physical Therapy Department of Rehabilitation Medicine Columbia University New York, New York Birgit Rsblad, PhD, PT Associate Professor Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy University of Ume Ume, Sweden Colleen M. Schneck, ScD, OTR/L, FAOTA Professor and Post Professional Program Graduate Coordinator Department of Occupational Therapy Eastern Kentucky University Richmond, Kentucky James W. Strickland, MD Clinical Professor Indiana University School of Medicine Indianapolis, Indiana
vii
viii
Our primary vision continues to be to present in a single text current information on the neurological foundations of hand skills, the development of hand skills, and intervention for children with problems related to hand skills. We hope that a comprehensive review of the hand will provide an important resource and clinical guide for students, practicing pediatric therapists, and others who work with children.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The editors wish rst to acknowledge with gratitude the time and expertise donated by the contributors to this volume. These authors are highly regarded in their respective elds, and we thank them for their insights and the wealth of practical and theoretical understanding they bring through their chapters. We hope that the diversity of ideas presented here will enrich the readers understanding and appreciation of the immense complexity and the multiple dimensions of the human hand and particularly of its importance to daily living from birth through adolescence. This book is the culmination of the efforts of many people who contributed ideas over an extended period of time. The formal beginnings of the book occurred during a series of workshops for occupational and physical therapists funded by the Maternal and Child
The hand is our primary means of interaction with the physical environment, both though the dexterous grasp and manipulation of objects and as the enabler of multiple tool functions. The enormous variety of actions accomplished by our hands ranges from the practical to the creative. The hand is incredibly versatile. It can be a platform, a hook, or a vise. It can hold a football, a hammer, or a needle. It can explore objects, express emotion, or communicate language. The hand is the subject of this book, most specically the hand as a tool for action, as an organ of accomplishment. The motor functions of the hand are some of the most complex and advanced of all human motor skills. Hand use is voluntary, under the control of the conscious mind, and is regulated by feedback from sensory organs. The complexity of skilled hand use is shown by the long developmental period needed for its perfection. The ability to manipulate objects with the efciency and precision of an adult continues to improve throughout late childhood and early adolescence. The plan for this book grew out of the recognition that, although the treatment of hand dysfunction has been a critical area of occupational therapy practice since the beginning of the profession, for many years the professional literature in pediatrics placed a greater emphasis on the neurophysiology and development of gross motor abilities than on manipulative skills. A renewed attention to manipulative abilities, beginning about 15 years ago, was spearheaded by the writings of therapists such as Rhonda Erhart, Reggie Boehm, and Charlotte Exner, and professional literature on the developmental treatment of hand skills has since increased. During a similar period there has been increasing research attention in the elds of neurophysiology and psychology to the motor skills of the hand. Although there are many unresolved issues about hand devel-
opment and dysfunction in childhood, it seemed timely to review that which is currently known. This book is intended for the professional and student interested in the current research and treatment of problems in childrens hand skills. The text is organized around themes from neurobehavior and development, drawing together information that is pertinent to the understanding of dysfunction in the hand in children and as a guidance to intervention. Hand function is reviewed from the perspectives of neurophysiology, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, and therapeutic intervention. The text is organized into three sections, each of which presents several dimensions of hand function. Section I includes chapters on the biologic and psychologic foundations of hand function. The rst chapter describes the cortical control of skilled hand use and identies the properties of that control that are different from the control of gross motor skills. The second chapter presents the anatomic structure and function of the hand facilitating the varied functions. Two chapters on the sensory guidance of the hand function follow, one on touch and proprioception and the other on vision. The other two chapters in Section I review knowledge from several branches of psychology, including the perceptual functions of the hand and the role of cognition in hand activity. Section II focuses on development in both general and specic areas of hand skill. Two chapters in this section focus on the development of basic skills. The rst reviews research on the development of grasp, release, and bimanual skills in infancy and the second the development of object manipulation. Other chapters cover specic and complex skill areas of graphic skill and self-care and the development of hand dominance.
ix
Section III provides knowledge from selected pediatric clinical practice areas. Two of the ve chapters describe dysfunction and treatment of special populations with cerebral palsy and Down syndrome. Another chapter presents the principles and practice of the remediation of hand skill problems, while a fourth focuses on the specic area of teaching handwriting. The remaining chapter identies the many toys that are the natural media for the treatment of hand dysfunction in children. Despite the acceleration of research in the last decade, the study of the development of hand use and the treatment of hand dysfunction in children is still in its infancy. It is our hope that assembling this
Chapter
CORTICAL CONTROL OF HAND-OBJECT INTERACTION
Charlane Pehoski
CHAPTER OUTLINE
MOVING THE FINGERS INDEPENDENTLY: DIRECT CORTICOSPINAL CONNECTIONS TO ALPHA MOTOR NEURONS OF THE HAND AND PRIMARY MOTOR CORTEX Direct Corticospinal Connections to Alpha Motor Neurons of Hand Muscles Primary Motor Cortex Use-Dependent Organization of the Primary Motor Cortex SENSORY GUIDANCE OF HAND MOVEMENTS: PRIMARY SOMATOSENSORY CORTEX Cortical Organization of the Somatosensory System Use-Dependent Organization Within the Primary Somatosensory Cortex Role of Somatosensory Input in Grasp Role of Somatosensory Cortex in Motor Learning THE TRANSFORMATION OF VISUALLY OBSERVED CHARACTERISTICS ABOUT OBJECTS INTO APPROPRIATE HAND CONFIGURATIONS: POSTERIOR PARIETAL LOBE AND VENTRAL PREMOTOR CORTEX Role of the Inferior Parietal Lobe in Preshaping of the Hand Role of the Ventral Premotor Cortex in Preshaping of the Hand Use-Dependent Organization of the Inferior Parietal and Ventral Premotor Cortex The Inferior Parietal Cortex and Tool Use SUMMARY AND THERAPEUTIC IMPLICATIONS
When I rst met Katie she was 6 years old and was having a great deal of difculty managing the ne motor tasks typical of most kindergarten children. She was clumsy and had difculty with such tasks as buttoning and using tools. Her score on the Peabody Developmental Fine Motor Scales was 2.33 standard deviations below the mean for her age and her age equivalent score was 3 years 6 months. This is not an unusual prole for children referred because of poor ne motor skills. What was unique about Katie was that the source of her difculty was known. A benign tumor had been removed from her right posterior parietal lobe when she was 3 years old. Many of the difculties she experienced in handobject interaction could be attributed to the location of her lesion. For example, she was underresponsive to tactile input and often used excess force when holding objects. When asked to feel forms placed in her hand without looking, she just grasped them and did not explore them with her ngers. She had a great deal of difculty in tasks that required in-hand manipulation, such as moving a small object from the palm of the hand to the ngers. Objects often were dropped. This chapter discusses the posterior parietal lobe and its importance for handobject interaction. However, this is not the only important area; other cortical regions are also explored. The capacity to use the hand with skill in hand object interactions represents an evolutionary ability characteristic of the behavior of higher primates. Three fundamental prerequisites are necessary for this function: (a) the capacity for independent control over the ngers, (b) a sophisticated somatosensory system to guide nger movements, and (c) the ability to transform sensory information concerning object properties into appropriate hand congurations (Binkofski et al., 1999). Each of these prerequisites is served by separate
but interconnected areas of the cerebral cortex. This includes the primary motor cortex, primary somatosensory cortex, parietal cortex (particularly the area around the intraparietal sulcus), and premotor cortex (particularly the ventral portion). That is not to say that other motor structures, such as the supplementary motor areas, cingulated motor areas, cerebellum, and basal ganglion do not also serve important functions (e.g., Ehrsson, Kuhtz-Buschbeck, & Forssberg, 2002; Lemon, 1999; Schlaug, Knorr & Seitz, 1994), but rather that the cortical regions mentioned previously seem critically related to skilled action of the hand, particularly as it interacts with objects. This chapter reviews each of the mentioned prerequisite skills and the cortical areas important for their functions. The purpose of this chapter is to better understand the problems of children like Katie and provide evidence for the need to encourage skilled hand use in these children.
MOVING THE FINGERS INDEPENDENTLY: DIRECT CORTICOSPINAL CONNECTIONS TO ALPHA MOTOR NEURONS OF THE HAND AND PRIMARY MOTOR CORTEX
DIRECT CORTICOSPINAL CONNECTIONS TO ALPHA MOTOR N EURONS OF HAND M USCLES
As indicated, one prerequisite for skilled hand use is the control over individual nger movements. This is true even for a seemingly simple task such as picking up an object using a precision grip.1 Try picking up a small object between your index nger and thumb. Pick it up slowly enough so you can observe the action of the ngers. Note the isolation of movement between the index nger and thumb and the movement of the remaining ngers as they get out of the way of the action. If, during this task, your hand muscles had been attached to an electromyograph (EMG) you would have seen that the muscles necessary for this task showed marked variation with respect to the precise timing of their onset and time course of activity during the task, resulting in the specicity of nger move1 This chapter uses the term precision grip when referring to the act of picking up a small object between the index nger and thumb because this is the term used in the neurophysiologic research that is reviewed.
Interneuron zone
Figure 1-1 Termination of the corticospinal tract in the spinal cord. The diagram shows a single ber that synapses in the interneuronal zone and then makes connections with a muscle through the interneuron. Also shown is a fiber within the corticospinal tract that makes a direct connection to a motor neuron of a distal limb muscle.
Figure 1-2
changing patterns can be achieved by changing the strength of these horizontal networks through use (Butesch, 2004). This is a requirement for motor learning. The brain must have the ability to adapt to new and changing circumstances, including both the learning of new skills and recovery from injury (Jackson & Lemon, 2001). An example of a use-dependent change was demonstrated by Karni et al. (1998). In this study, typical adults practiced a nger sequence task daily for 5 weeks (opposing the ngers of the nondominant hand to the thumb in a specic order). The participants also were given a second nger sequence that was not practiced and served as a control for the study. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of the cerebral cortex was done at the start of the experiment and then weekly until the end of the experiment. The authors found that in the initial images done before the experiment began there were no differences between the cortical representation of the experimental and control sequences. At 3 weeks, when the experimental sequence had been well learned, the area of motor cortex representing the experimental sequence had become larger. Changes also have been seen using intracortical microstimulation in monkeys, in which the neuronal representative of movements in the distal forelimb area of the primary motor cortex can be specically mapped. In one study the extent of the representation of the hand was mapped and then the monkeys were trained to pick up small food pellets from a food well (Nudo et al., 1996). After training, intracortical microstimulation of the primary motor cortex was done again and the researchers found that the representation of the movements used in the food retrieval task had expanded. They also looked at the representation of unpracticed wrist and forearm movements, and found that the representation of these movements had contracted. To demonstrate that these changes are reversible and that the primary motor cortex changes are based on use, the monkeys were then trained to perform supination and pronation movements in a key turning task. Intracortical microstimulation demonstrated an expansion of the forelimb area and contraction of the digital representational zones. They also found that movement combinations used in the acquisition of these skilled motor tasks had come to be represented in the same cortical territory. Consequently, use of a particular motor pattern causes structural reorganization in the primary motor cortex. Actions that are practiced come to represent a larger area of cortex and the muscle groups involved also come to be represented together in what appear to be functional groupings (Nudo et al., 1996); however, not all use or practice may be as effective in driving these changes. As discussed later, passive movements and
Even adult patients who had reached a plateau in their recovery after suffering a stroke showed an increase in function (Taub & Morris, 2001) and expansion of the cortical hand representation (Liepert et al., 2000) after constraint induced movement therapy (noninvolved extremity restrained to force use of the involved extremity).
11.5mm
9.5mm
13.5mm
19.5mm
26mm
Figure 1-3 Depiction of a squirrel monkey performing a large pellet retrieval task. Note the relative simplicity of the task because of the size of the well compared with the size of the animals hand. (Redrawn from Plautz E, Miliken G, Nudo R [2000]. Effects of repetitive motor training on movement representation in adult squirrel monkeys: Role of use versus learning, Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 74:2755.)
Use can change the organization of the primary motor cortex, but disuse also can have an effect on centers important to motor skills. Using kittens, Martin et al. (2004) demonstrated that restricting the use of one paw for the rst 7 weeks after birth created permanent changes both in the skill of that paw and the morphology of the direct corticospinal connections in the spinal cord. In another example, a group of researchers followed adults who had undergone surgical treatment of the flexor tendons of the hand (deJong et al., 2003). For 6 weeks after surgery, the patients were required to wear a dynamic immobilization splint that allowed passive but not active nger flexion. After the splint was removed, the patients complained of a temporary clumsiness of the hand that could not be explained by stiffness of the ngers or adhesions. In one patient, EMG studies were done after splint removal and flexion of the ngers showed increased cocontraction of the extensor muscles and no full relaxation of this muscle was seen between sets of movement. In four patients, positron emission tomography (PET) was used to look at task-related increases in cerebral blood flow as they flexed their ngers. These scans were done immediately after the splint was removed and again 6 to 10 weeks after removal. They found that scans immediately after splint removal demonstrated activation in the posterior parietal lobe and cingulate sulcus. This was not seen in the nonsurgical hand. The authors suggested that the increase in parietal involvement (an area of tactile and visual convergence discussed later in this chapter) may
Michel, & Prablanc, 1984). Note the difculty she has in coordinating the ngers of her right hand. She was reported to be able to reach for objects, eat normally, and write (although with difculty), all tasks she could control using vision. Activities outside visual control, such as combing hair or buttoning, were problematic, as were activities that require the ngers to work together as in the paper-crumbling task. No detectable motor decit, such as the ability to perform rapid tapping of the index nger, was noted (i.e., motor functions were intact). A computed tomography (CT) scan found that this woman had a very large lesion involving the somatosensory cortex and superior parietal lobe (Jeannerod, Michel, & Prablanc, 1984). (Note that this womans lesion extended beyond the primary sensory cortex and probably contributed to the severity of her disability). Figure 1-5 shows similar disorganization of nger movements in a monkey with a lesion in area 2 of the somatosensory cortex (Hikosaka et al., 1985). Brochier, Boudreau, and Smith (1999) also found a loss of nger coordination and poor positioning of the ngers when grasping objects in monkeys with inactivation of the somatosensory cortex. This section discusses the important roles sensory information plays in skilled hand movements, including the role it plays in motor learning.
Figure 1-4 Schematic of a woman with a lesion in the somatosensory cortex and superior parietal lobe attempting to crumble a sheet of paper with her left hand (LH) and involved right hand (RH). (Redrawn from Jeannerod M, Michel M, Prablanc C [1984]. The control of hand movements in a case of hemianaesthesia following a parietal lesion. Brain, 107:899920.)
IPSI
CONTRA
Figure 1-5 Disruption of finger coordination after inactivation of area 2 in a monkey. The sequence of movements (left to right) shows the animals attempts at picking up a piece of apple from a funnel. IPSI indicates the normal hand ipsilateral to the inactivated region. CONTRA indicates the disorganized movements of the affected hand contralateral to the inactivated region. (Redrawn from Hikosaka O, Tanaka M, Sakamoto M, Iwamura Y [1985]. Deficits in manipulative behaviors induced by local injection of muscimol in the first somatosensory cortex of the conscious monkey. Brain Research, 325:375380.)
deep, proprioceptive information (information arising from an activity such as active flexion and extension of the ngers) (Iwamura, 1998; Moore et al., 2000). Area 3b sends information to area 1 and area 1 sends information to area 2. Both areas then send information to the parietal lobe (Inoue et al., 2004). Therefore there is a serial or hierarchical processing of information across this area (Ageranioti-Belanger & Chapman, 1992; Inoue et al., 2004; Iwamura, 1998; Iwamura et al., 1985). One of the transformations in sensory information that is seen as information is processed in more posterior cortical regions is the response of a single neuron to stimulation over wider areas of skin. For example, there is an increase in the number of multidigit receptive elds (the area from which stimulation causes a single cortical neuron to re) when progressing from area 3b, where 46% of neurons respond to multiple sites; to area 1, where the percentage is 63%; to area 2, where 85% of neurons respond to stimulation from multiple sites (Ageranioti-Belanger & Chapman, 1992). That is, the discrete information that rst arises from the periphery appears to be combined into progressively more functionally relevant networks. In a study of neurons in area 2 of monkeys, Iwamura et al. (1985) suggested that this convergence represents skin surfaces that come in contact as the result of com-
mon behaviors of the animal. Like the primary motor cortex, which tends to cluster muscles that have repeatedly worked together in interconnected networks, the same appears to be true of sensory information processed in the primary somatosensory cortex. Also like the motor cortex, the organization of the sensory cortex is dependent on use. Therefore these two areas allow for a great deal of flexibility in how information is organized to best serve a variety of functional activities.
10
Central sulcus 2 1
B
3a
3b
Figure 1-6 A. Somatosensory cortex. B. Cross section of somatosensory cortex showing Brodmanns areas 3a, 3b, 1, and 2.
and felt that at least in some (e.g., former typist, appliance repairman) these differences might be related to the individuals premorbid occupation. In a more recent study, Hashimoto et al. (2004) used noninvasive techniques to study the somatosensory cortex in string players. They found an enlarged cortical representation of the hand area in these individuals compared with controls who did not play a string instrument. Like the motor cortex, research seems to indicate that skilled learning or attention to a task may be particularly effective in mediating these cortical changes. Using a behavioral task similar to the one used for studying the changes in the motor cortex of monkeys, animals were trained to pick up food pellets placed in wells of varying diameters (Xerri et al., 1999). This included large-diameter wells in which the pellets were easy to retrieve, and smaller-diameter wells in which retrieval was more difcult. The researchers found that sensory neurons responsive to the specic nger surfaces that had been engaged in the small retrieval task showed major representative changes within area 3b of the somatosensory cortex that were not seen with other nger surfaces. That is, changes reflected digital surfaces that were necessary for object retrieval under
difcult task conditions or in which the animal had to learn a skilled task. In another study, Recanzone et al. (1992) trained two groups of monkeys to place their hands on a mold of the hand. The purpose of the mold was to keep the hand in the same position so a vibratory stimulus could be given to a small site on one of the ngers. One group of animals was trained to lift the hand when they perceived changes in the vibratory input. In other words, these monkeys were to attend to and then make an adaptive response to this tactile stimulus. Another group of monkeys also received the vibratory stimulus but were trained to lift the hand to changes in an auditory stimulus. These animals therefore received the vibratory stimulus in a passive manner and were not required to act on the input. When the area in the primary sensory cortex of these animals that represents the stimulated portion of skin was mapped, both experimental animals showed an increase in the representation of this skin area. However, the increase in the animal who had been the passive recipient of the vibratory stimulus was modest. The authors suggest that attention influences cortical reorganization and that stimulation alone is far less effective in driving cortical reorganization than an active response to the stimulus. In other words, being engaged in the activity and making an adaptive response based on sensory input were the most efcient means of driving the cortical changes seen in this study. It also should be mentioned that in humans, Godde, Ehrhardt, and Braun (2003) showed a 20% decrease in two-point thresholds on the tip of the index nger and a change in the cortical map of this nger after 3 hours of intermittent, purely passive tactile stimulation to the ngertip. Apparently passive input also can promote organizational changes in the primary somatosensory cortex along with some modest improvement in tactile discrimination.
12
were experienced throughout the entire hand. One would have difculty moving the ngers with skill and adjusting the hand to the just right grip so objects are not dropped.2 There might even be some difculty learning a new motor task with the hands. Nonetheless actual engagement with objects is more complicated than just picking them up so they do not drop or manipulating them within the hand. This is particularly true for tool use. Preparation for grasp occurs even before the object is touched and is based on the observed characteristics of the object and the use that will be made of the object. Consideration of the posterior parietal lobe and connection with the premotor cortex is covered next.
THE TRANSFORMATION OF VISUALLY OBSERVED CHARACTERISTICS ABOUT OBJECTS INTO APPROPRIATE HAND CONFIGURATIONS: POSTERIOR PARIETAL LOBE AND VENTRAL PREMOTOR CORTEX
Think for a moment what it would be like if one had an excellent mechanism for the control of nger movements and somatosensory feedback to guide the movements but did not have a mechanism for selecting the grasp appropriate for a particular object. There would be a lot of trial and error. Movements would be slow. A glass would be approached in the same way as a fork. The hand would land on an object and then feel for the appropriate grasp. One function that would help would be vision. Up until now vision has not been considered. The primary motor cortex has limited access to direct visual information (Jeannerod et al., 1995). Vision allows for the preparation of grasp before contact; therefore the hand could be preshaped to match objects of different shapes, sizes, and orientation. Any nal adjustments could be made by somatosensory feedback on contact. This preshaping of the hand is one of the functions provided by a posterior parietal cortexprefrontal lobe cortex circuit.
It should be noted that besides the neural mechanisms responsible for the just right grip, there are other ways to increase the friction at the ngerobject interface, the oils or moisture of the ngers themselves. Washing and drying the hands (Johansson & Westling, 1984) or the introduction of chemicals that reduce sweating of the hands (Smith, Codoret, & St-Amour, 1997) cause an increase in the grip force.
Central sulcus
Central sulcus
Figure 1-7 Diagram of the intraparietal sulcus dividing the superior parietal lobe and inferior parietal lobe.
Figure 1-8 Diagram of ventral premotor area and relationship to primary motor cortex.
14
of possible actions the hand can take on an object (see Rizzolatti & Fadiga, 1998, for a review). This vocabulary is related more to the goal of an action than to individual movements (e.g., a specic neuron might re to grasping with the mouth and also with either hand) (Rizzolatti et al., 1988; Rizzolatti & Fadiga, 1998). The ventral premotor cortex is connected to the primary motor cortex and from there to the direct corticospinal bers to hand muscles (Luppino et al., 1999). What differentiates the primary motor cortex from the ventral premotor cortex is that the latter stores motor schemata that are goal directed, whereas the primary motor area stores movements regardless of the action or context in which they are used (Rizzolatti & Fadiga, 1998). That is, the visual information processed in the anterior intraparietal sulcus about the three-dimensional characteristics of an object is sent to the ventral premotor cortex for the selection of grip and then to the motor cortex for sequencing of the actual muscles to be used. Neurons in the inferior premotor area are known to facilitate neural action in the primary motor cortex. Stimulation of a neuron in the hand area of the primary motor cortex of monkeys causes changes in the EMG reading from hand muscles, but stimulation of an inferior premotor neuron or inferior parietal neuron alone does not. If stimulation is rst given to the premotor cortex and then to the primary motor cortex, the EMG hand muscle response is greater than when the motor cortex is stimulated alone. The authors indicate that this input might be part of the wider control system that helps shape the pattern of activity of different hand muscles for grasp of specic objects (Shimazu et al., 2004). If a small injection of an agent that temporarily inactivates neurons is placed in the ventral premotor cortex of monkeys, the results are similar to those seen with inactivation of the anterior interparietal sulcus. That is, the animal is able to use tactile feedback to succeed in an appropriate grasp when preshaping of the hand is absent, but only after contact with the object, This is particularly true for small objects (Fogassi et al., 2001). It is interesting that large lesions at this site also produced problems with hand shaping of the ipsilateral hand. Further, when monkeys with large lesions were presented with raisins placed in a board with two rows of six horizontally placed holes, the monkeys tended to pick up the raisins in the right holes with the right hand and those on the left with the left hand. They also tended to remove the raisin rst from the holes ipsilateral to the injection site. When food was presented bilaterally, they always preferred the ipsilateral presentation.
Figure 1-9 Spontaneous hand use of a woman with a bilateral disturbance of the posterior parietal lobe as she attempts to use a: (A) lighter, (B) nail clipper, (C) soup spoon, and (D) scissors (successive attempts). (Redrawn from Sirigu A, Cohen L, Duhamel J, Pillon B, Dubois B, Agid Y [1995]. A selective impairment of hand posture for object utilization in apraxia. Cortex, 31:4155.)
part of the automatic movements that create the letters. It appears that the sense of the tool as an extension of the hand has a neurologic correlate that includes the tool into the body scheme of the hand. Working with monkeys, Iriki, Tanaka, and Iwamura (1996) pointed out that the visual receptive elds of neurons within the anterior intraparietal sulcus changed when the monkey used a rake to obtain food pellets (Figure 1-10). Soon after the monkey began to use the rake, the visual eld was seen to change to not only cover the area around the hand but also to include the total length of the rake. This did not happen when the animal only held the tool or just moved a stick back and forth. That is, when the rake was used as a tool, the rake and the body schema of the hand came to be represented together. When imaging studies were done of humans picking up a small object with tongs or with just the ngers, the intraparietal sulcus was again implicated in the tool use task (Inoue et al., 2001). It appears that the anterior intraparietal sulcus is an important area concerned with the preparation and grasp of objects and may be particularly important for tool use. This area has strong connections with the
ventral premotor area, which also appears to be important for hand use. There is one other function of the parietal lobe related to object interaction that should be mentioned, the guidance of movements when exploring an object manually. The term tactile apraxia has been used to dene a problem in this area (Pause et al., 1989). In patients with tactile apraxia, exploratory movements are described as slow and clumsy and may consist of only squeezing the object (Binkofski et al., 2001; Pause & Freund, 1989; Valenza et al., 2001). This problem has been seen in a variety of parietal lesions (Binkofski et al., 2001; Pause & Freund, 1989; Valenza et al., 2001), including the primary somatosensory cortex (Motomura et al., 1990; Tomberg & Desmedt, 1999). The problem does not appear to be related to the severity of any somatosensory disturbances that might be present. That is, a patient with a signicant sensory loss may be better able to manipulate an object for identication than a patient with better-preserved sensation (Pause et al., 1989; Valenza et al., 2001). Problems moving her nger around objects in a manual form identication task was one area with which Katie had difculty. She tended to just
16
table
Food dispenser
Figure 1-10 A. Monkey using a rake to obtain a food pellet that was dispensed out of its reach from a container. B. Simple stick manipulation task in which the food pellet was delivered at a reachable distance as a reward for swinging the stick. (Redrawn from Obayashi S, Suhara T, Kawabe K, Okauchi, Maeda J, Akine Y, Onoe H, Iriki A (2001): Functional brain mapping of monkey tool use, Neuroimage 14: 853-861.)
hold the object. As one group of researchers said, The parietal lobe is not only involved in the elaboration and further processing of somatosensory information, but also in the conception and generation of those motor programs required to collect this information. (Pause et al., 1989, p. 1622).
enough force so that it is not dropped is dependent on sensory input from the ngers. The exact placement of the ngers on an object after grasp is also dependent on sensory feedback. Humans have an important cortical loop for the control of skilled hand function and the interaction with objects, the primary motor cortex and primary sensory cortex connection (Figure 1-11). However, the described actions are relatively simple and human object use is not simple. The second cortical circuit between the posterior parietal lobe (particularly the anterior intraparietal sulcus) and the ventral premotor area is important in the selection of the appropriate grip patterns. As indicated, the inferior portion of the posterior parietal lobe receives both somatosensory information from the primary sensory cortex and visual information from the visual cortex, resulting in complex bimodal neurons (neurons that respond to both somatosensory and visual information). Vision information about an object provides information about the objects size, shape, and orientation. This allows the hand to be preshaped to the objects characteristics before contact. This visual information is transferred to the premotor area through corticocortical connections in which the appropriate grip pattern is chosen. The premotor area then sends this information to the primary motor cortex for the selection and timing of the necessary muscles. This in turn results in sensory information fed to the primary sensory cortex and back to the motor cortex, completing the circuit (see Figure 1-11). The anterior intraparietal sulcus of the posterior parietal lob also is important for incorporating the tool into the body schema of the hand, therefore making the tool an extension of the hand. It also should be noted that there are hand skills that have not been discussed in this chapter; many of these are covered in
3 3
2 Dorsal column
Corticospinal tract
Figure 1-11 A. Diagram of a somatosensory and a primary motor cortex circuit. (1) A message from the primary motor cortex is sent to the muscles via the corticospinal tract; (2) sensory feedback is sent through the dorsal column as a result of the movement (3) of sensory input to the primary somatosensory cortex; (4) sensory information is sent from the primary sensory cortex to the primary motor cortex for any necessary correction of the movement. B. Diagram of somatosensory, inferior parietal lobe, ventral premotor cortex, and motor cortex circuit. (1) Sensory information is sent to the inferior parietal lobe; (2) visual information also is transferred to the inferior parietal lobe; (3) information from the inferior parietal lobe is sent to the ventral premotor cortex; (4) the ventral premotor area transfers information to the primary motor cortex and from there to the corticospinal tract.
other chapters of this book (e.g., handedness, reaching, eyehand coordination, and perceptual functions of the hand). This chapter has concentrated on the performance of the hand in handobject interaction, and has not discussed the shoulder or postural support as background for these skilled movements. These are also important aspects of hand function. For example, Smith-Zuzovsky and Exner (2004) found that 6- and 7-year-old children who were positioned in furniture that was tted to their size did signicantly better on a test of in-hand manipulation than children using typical classroom furniture. In most natural movements the more proximal muscles provide the stability that allows skilled actions of the hand. Thus the corticospinal connections to proximal and distal muscles must cooperate (Turton & Lemon, 1999), but the roles of reach and postural functions are different and therefore so are the basic neural mechanisms that control them. The primary role of posture and the shoulder in skilled hand function is one of stability. If the shoulder lacks stability for hand function or the postural muscles cannot adequately support the trunk, then this needs to be addressed through mechanisms to increase stability and strength. Hand muscles also may need strengthening, but remember that the primary roles of the hand are to act, move, and perform with skill. If a child presents with shoulder instability, poor trunk support, and poor hand use, these should be worked on simultaneously. The hand should not wait until some minimal level of postural support is achieved. The choice of proper positioning and creative selection of activities can make it possible for the child to use his or her hands even when postural support is poor.
As discussed, the cortical reorganization responsible for skilled learning, particularly as it relates to hand object interaction, is use dependent. It is through use that functional patterns of movement or the muscles necessary for the action come to be represented together. The same is true of patterns of somatosensory input. Surfaces that are used together come to be represented together. This happens through practice. Also as indicated, this structural reorganization is best accomplished through tasks that require skill or the learning of an activity. It also requires attention to the task. Passive movements and strength training are much less effective in driving this cortical reorganization. Children with poor hand skills, like Katie, often avoid or are so poor at ne motor tasks that they may actually get less practice than their peers. Skill requires attention to the activity and is facilitated when there is an interest in the outcome. Children with poor hand skills may need help to select and adapt to activities to meet their level of performance and interest. The art of therapy is being able to provide activities that challenge the child within the scope of his or her abilities and elicit the childs enthusiastic cooperation.
REFERENCES
Ageranioti-Belanger SA, Chapman CE (1992). Discharge properties of neurons in the hand area of primary somatosensory cortex in monkeys in relation to the performance of an active tactile discrimination task. II. Area 2 as compared with areas 3b and 1. Experimental Brain Research, 91:207228. Asanuma H, Pavlides C (1997). Neurobiological basis of motor learning in mammals. Neuroreport, 8:ivi.
18
Augurelle A, Smith AM, Lejeune T, Thonnard J (2003). Importance of cutaneous feed back in maintaining a secure grip during manipulation of hand-held objects. Journal of Neurophysiology, 89:665671. Bennett KM, Lemon RN (1996). Corticomotoneuronal contribution to the fractionation of muscle activity during precision grip in the monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology, 75:18261842. Binkofski F, Buccino G, Posse S, Seitz RJ, Rizzolatti G, Freund H (1999). A fronto-parietal circuit for object manipulation in man: evidence from an fMRI-study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 11:32763286. Binkofski F, Dohle C, Posse S, Stephan KM, Heftner H, Seitz RJ, Freund HJ (1998). Human anterior intraparietal area subserves prehension: A combined lesion and functional MRI activation study. Neurology, 50:12531259. Binkofski F, Kunesch E, Classen J, Seitz RJ, Freund H (2001). Tactile apraxia: Unimodal apractic disorder of tactile object exploration associated with parietal lobe lesions. Brain, 124:132144. Brandt BR (1996). Impaired tactual perception in children with Downs syndrome. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 37:1216. Brandt BR, Rosen I (1995). Impaired peripheral somatosensory function in children with Down syndrome. Neuropediatrics, 3:310312. Brochier T, Boudreau MJ, Smith AM (1999). The effect of muscimol inactivation of small regions of motor and somatosensory cortex on independent nger movements and force control in the precision grip. Experimental Brain Research, 128:3140. Butesch CM (2004). Plasticity in the human cerebral cortex: Lessons from the normal brain and from stroke. Neuroscientist, 10:163173. Classen J, Liepert J, Wise SP, Hallett M, Cohen LG (1998). Rapid plasticity of human cortical movement representation induced by practice. Journal of Neurophysiology, 79:11171123. Darian-Smith I, Burman K, Darian-Smith C (1999). Parallel pathways mediating manual dexterity in the macaque. Experimental Brain Research, 128:101108. Debowy DJ, Ghosh S, Ro JY, Gardner EP (2001). Comparison of neuronal ring rates in somatosensory and posterior parietal cortex during prehension. Experimental Brain Research, 137:269291. deJong BM, Coert JH, Stenekes MW, Leenders KL, Paans AM, Nicolai JP (2003). Cerebral reorganization of human hand movements after dynamic immobilization. Neuroreport, 14:16931696. Denckla MB (1974). Development of motor co-ordination in normal children. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 16:729741. Edin BB, Westling G, Johansson RS (1992). Independent control of human nger-tip forces at individual digits during precision lifting. Journal of Physiology, 450:547564. Ehrsson HH, Kuhtz-Buschbeck JP, Forssberg H (2002). Brain regions controlling nonsynergistic versus synergistic movements of the digits: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Neuroscience, 22:5074-5080. Evans AL, Harrison LM, Stephens JA (1990). Maturation of the cutaneomuscular reflex recorded from the rst dorsal interosseous muscle in man. Journal of Physiology, 428:425440.
20
adult squirrel monkeys: Role of use versus learning. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 74:2755. Recanzone GH, Merzenich MM, Jenkins WM, Grajski KA, Dinse HR (1992). Topographic reorganization of the hand representation in cortical area 3b of owl monkeys trained in a frequency-discrimination task. Journal of Neurophysiology, 67:10311056. Remple MS, Bruneau RM, VandenBerg PM, Goertzen C, Kleim JA (2001). Sensitivity of cortical movement representations to motor experience: Evidence that skill learning but not strength training induces cortical reorganization. Behavioral Brain Research, 123:133141. Rizzolatti R, Camarda L, Fogassi M, Gentilucci M, Luppino G, Matalli M (1988). Functional organization of inferior area 6 in the macaque monkey: II. area F5 and the control of distal movements. Experimental Brain Research, 71:491507. Rizzolatti G, Fadiga L (1998). Grasping objects and grasping action meaning: the dual role of monkey rostroventral premotor cortex (area F5). In JA Goode, editor: Sensory guidance of movement. Novartis Foundation Symposium, Chichester, UK, Wiley. Rizzolatti G, Luppino G (2001). The cortical motor system. Neuron, 31:889901. Rouiller EM, Yu XH, Moret V, Tempini A, Wiesendanger M, Liang F (1998). Dexterity in adult monkeys following early lesions of the motor cortical hand area: The role of cortex adjacent to the lesion. European Journal of Neuroscience, 10:729740. Sakata H, Iwamura Y (1978). Cortical processing of tactile information in the rst somatosensory and parietal association areas in the monkey. In G Gordon, editor: Active touch. New York, Pergamon Press. Sakata H, Taira M, Kusunoki M, Murata A, Tsutsui K, Tanaka Y, Shein W, Miyashita Y (1999). Neural representation of three-dimensional features of manipulation objects with stereopsis. Experimental Brain Research, 128:160169. Sakata H, Taira M, Murata A, Mine S (1995). Neural mechanisms of visual guidance of hand action in the parietal cortex of the monkey. Cerebral Cortex, 5:429438. Sanes JN, Donoghue JP (2000). Plasticity and primary motor cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23:393415. Scheibel A, Conrad T, Perdue S, Tomiyasu U, Wechsler A (1990). A quantitative study of dendrite complexity in selected areas of the human cerebral cortex. Brain and Cognition, 12:85101. Schieber MH, Poliakov AV (1998). Partial inactivation of the primary motor cortex hand area: Effects on individual nger movements. Journal of Neuroscience, 18:90389054. Schlaug G, Knorr U, Seitz R (1994). Inter-subject variability of cerebral activations in acquiring a motor skill: A study with positron emission tomography. Experimental Brain Research, 98:523534. Shimazu H, Maier MA, Cerri G, Kirkwood PA, Lemon RN (2004). Macaque ventral premotor cortex exerts powerful
Chapter
ANATOMY AND KINESIOLOGY OF THE HAND
James W. Strickland
CHAPTER OUTLINE
EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT ANATOMY OF THE FULLY DEVELOPED HAND Osseous Structures Joints Muscles and Tendons Nerve Supply Skin and Subcutaneous Fascia Functional Patterns
EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT
Inspection of a normal newborns hands never ceases to evoke awe and wonderment. The tiny nails punctuating the ends of intricately formed ngers and opposable thumbs, each delicately marked with familiar patterns of joint wrinkles, immediately identify the newcomer as human. All of the ingredients that eventually provide an unbelievably extensive continuum of function from exquisitely ne dexterity to great power are present in the tiny waving arms and hands. However, the normal embryonic process through which the upper extremities develop is both predictable and consistent (Arey, 1980; Bora, 1986; Bunnell, 1944; Moore, 1982). Upper limb buds are discernible at 4 weeks of gestation. The scapula, humerus, radius, and ulna are apparent at 5 weeks as cartilage, and by 6 weeks upper arm, forearm, and hand divisions are present. Also at 6 weeks the webbed swellings of the three central digits appear and are soon followed by the two border digits. The metacarpals are present as cartilage, as are the proximal phalanges of the index through small ngers. Initially, each extremity is aligned longitudinally with the body trunk, but at 7 weeks the arms rotate outward and forward at the shoulder level to assume a hand-toface position with the flexor surface of the forearm and hand turned inward toward the body and the extensor surface turned outward. Elbows and wrists are slightly flexed. Innervation of the limbs has already occurred at this point, and vessels extend to the distal extremity. Muscles, muscle groups, joint hollows, and digital cleavages, including thumb differentiation, are also present at 7 to 8 weeks. Webbing between the digits diminishes, and the ngers and thumb are independent of each other by 8 weeks. Carpal bones are cartilaginous, and the os centrale fuses to the scaphoid at 8 weeks.
One cannot expect to adequately understand the development and function of the hand and arm without a solid working knowledge of the intricate anatomic and kinesiologic relationships of the upper extremity, including the embryonic growth stages through which the extremity progresses. Only through comprehension of the normal formation and anatomy of the human hand can one adequately develop an appreciation for the disturbance in function that accompanies injury, disease, or dysfunction. It is appropriate, therefore that an early chapter in a book devoted to development of ne motor coordination be concerned with the embryology, anatomy, kinesiology, and biomechanics of the hand. Because it is impossible in this chapter to review in great detail the enormous amount of literature that has been written about these elds of knowledge, readers are directed to the Suggested Readings.
21
22
For the remainder of gestation after 8 weeks, limb changes primarily involve growth of already present structures.
OSSEOUS STRUCTURES
The unique arrangement and mobility of the bones of the hand (Figure 2-1) provide a structural basis for its enormous functional adaptability. The osseous skeleton consists of eight carpal bones divided into two rows: The proximal row articulates with the distal radius and ulna (with the exception of the pisiform, which lies palmar to and articulates with the triquetrum); the distal four carpal bones in turn articulate with the ve
Distal phalanx
Middle phalanx
Proximal phalanx
Metacarpal
Hamate Triquetrum
Figure 2-1 Bones of the right hand. A. Palmar surface. B. Dorsal surface. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby.)
Figure 2-2 A. Skeletal arches of the hand. The proximal transverse arch passes through the distal carpus; the distal transverse arch, through the metacarpal heads. The longitudinal arch is made up of the four digital rays and the carpus proximally. B. Proximal and distal transverse arches. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby.)
osseous arches. Collapse in the arch system can contribute to severe disability and deformity. Flatt (1979, 1983, 1995) has pointed out that grasp is dependent on the integrity of the mobile longitudinal arches and when destruction at the carpometacarpal joint, metacarpophalangeal joint, or proximal interphalangeal joint interrupts the integrity of these arches, crippling deformity may result.
JOINTS
The multiple complex articulations among the distal radius and ulna, the eight carpal bones, and the metacarpal bases comprise the wrist joint, whose proximal position makes it the functional key to the motion at the more distal hand joints of the hand. Functionally the carpus transmits forces through the hand to the forearm. The proximal carpal row consisting of the scaphoid (navicular), lunate, and triquetrum articulates distally with the trapezium, trapezoid, capitate, and hamate; there is a complex motion pattern that relies both on ligamentous and contact surface constraints. The major ligaments of the wrist (Figure 2-3) are the palmar and intracapsular ligaments. There are three strong radial palmar ligaments: the radioscaphocapitate or sling ligament, which supports the waist of the scaphoid; the radiolunate ligament, which supports the lunate; and the radioscapholunate ligament, which connects the scapholunate articulation with the palmar portion of the distal radius. This ligament functions as a checkrein for scaphoid flexion and extension. The ulnolunate ligament arises intra-articularly from the triangular articular meniscus of the wrist joint and inserts on the lunate and, to a lesser extent, the triquetrum. The radial and ulnar collateral ligaments are capsular ligaments, and V-shaped ligaments from the capitate to
the triquetrum and scaphoid have been termed the deltoid ligaments. Dorsally, the radiocarpal ligament connects the radius to the triquetrum and acts as a dorsal sling for the lunate, maintaining the lunate in apposition to the distal radius. Further dorsal carpal support is provided by the dorsal intracarpal ligament. These strong ligaments combine to provide carpal stability while permitting the normal range of wrist motion. The distal ulna is covered with an articular cartilage (Figure 2-3, C) over its most dorsal, palmar, and radial aspects, where it articulates with the sigmoid or ulnar notch of the radius. The triangular brocartilage complex describes the ligamentous and cartilaginous structure that suspends the distal radius and ulnar carpus from the distal ulna. Blumeld and Champoux (1984) have indicated that the optimal functional wrist motion to accomplish most activities of daily living is from 10 of flexion to 35 of extension. Taleisnik (1976a,b, 1985a,b, 1992) has emphasized the importance of considering the wrist in terms of longitudinal columns (Figure 2-4). The central, or flexion extension, column consists of the lunate and the entire distal carpal row; the lateral, or mobile, column comprises the scaphoid alone; and the medial, or rotation, column is made up of the triquetrum. Wrist motion is produced by the muscles that attach to the metacarpals, and the ligamentous control system provides stability only at the extremes of motion. The distal carpal row of the carpal bones is rmly attached to the hand and moves with it. Therefore during dorsiflexion the distal carpal row dorsiflexes, during palmar flexion it palmar flexes, and during radial and ulnar deviation it deviates radially or ulnarly. As the wrist ranges from radial to ulnar deviation, the proximal carpal row rotates in a dorsal direction, and a simultaneous
24
Ulnocarpal meniscus homologue Ulnolunate ligament (ulnolunate-triquetral) Radioscapholunate ligament (ligament of Testut and Kuenz)
Td
Tm
3 6
Figure 2-3 Ligamentous anatomy of the wrist. A. Palmar wrist ligaments. B. Dorsal wrist ligaments. C. Dorsal view of the flexed wrist, including the triangular fibrocartilage. 1, Ulnar collateral ligament; 2, retinacular sheath; 3, tendon of extensor carpi ulnaris; 4, ulnolunate ligament; 5, triangular fibrocartilage; 6, ulnocarpal meniscus homologue; 7, palmar radioscaphoid lunate ligament. P, Pisiform; H, hamate; C, capitate; Td, trapezoid; Tm, trapezium; Tq, triquetrum; L, lunate; S, scaphoid. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby.)
translocation of the proximal carpus occurs in a radial direction at the radiocarpal and midcarpal articulations. This combined motion of the carpal rows has been called the rotational shift of the carpus. It was once taught that palmar flexion takes place to a greater extent at the radiocarpal joint and secondarily in the midcarpal joint, but because dorsiflexion occurs primarily at the midcarpal joint and only secondarily at the radiocarpal articulation, this now appears to be a signicant oversimplication. The complex carpal kinematics are beyond the scope of this chapter, and the reader is referred to the works of Weber (1988),
Taleisnik (1985a,b), Lichtman and Alexander (1988), and Cooney, Linscheid, and Dobyns (1998) to gain a thorough understanding of this difcult subject. The articulation between the base of the rst metacarpal and the trapezium (Figure 2-5) is a highly mobile joint with a conguration thought to be similar to that of a saddle. The base of the rst metacarpal is concave in the anteroposterior plane and convex in the lateral plane, with a reciprocal concavity in the lateral plane and an anteroposterior convexity on the opposing surface of the trapezium. This arrangement allows the positioning of the thumb in a wide arc of
First metacarpal
Figure 2-4 Columnar carpus. The scaphoid is the mobile or lateral column. The central, or flexion extension, column comprises the lunate and the entire distal carpal row. The medial, or rotational, column comprises the triquetrum alone. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby.)
B
Figure 2-6 A. Multiple planes of motion (arrows) that occur at the carpometacarpal joint of the thumb. B. The thumb moves (arrow) from a position of adduction against the second metacarpal to a position of palmar or radial abduction away from the hand and fingers and can then be rotated into positions of opposition and flexion. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby.)
Figure 2-5 Saddle-shaped carpometacarpal joint of the thumb. A wide range of motion (arrows) is permitted by the configuration of this joint. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby.)
motion (Figure 2-6), including flexion, palmar and radial abduction, adduction, and opposition. The ligamentous arrangement about this joint, while permitting the wide circumduction, continues to provide stability at the extremes of motion, allowing the thumb to be brought into a variety of positions for pinch and grasp, but maintaining its stability during these functions. The articulations formed by the ulnar half of the hamate and the fourth and fth metacarpal bases allow a modest amount of motion (15 at the fourth carpometacarpal joint and 25 to 30 of flexion and extension at the fth carpometacarpal joint). A resulting palmar descent of these metacarpals occurs during strong grasp. The metacarpophalangeal joints of the ngers are diarthrodial joints with motion permitted in three
planes and combinations thereof (Figure 2-7). The cartilaginous surfaces of the metacarpal head and the bases of the proximal phalanges are enclosed in a complex apparatus consisting of the joint capsule, collateral ligaments, and the anterior brocartilage or palmar plate (Figure 2-8). The capsule extends from the borders of the base of the proximal phalanx proximally to the head of the metacarpals beyond the cartilaginous joint surface. The collateral ligaments, which reinforce the capsule on each side of the metacarpophalangeal joints, run from the dorsolateral side of the metacarpal head to the palmar lateral side of the proximal phalanges. These ligaments form two bundles, the more central of which is called the cord portion of the collateral ligament and inserts into the side of the proximal phalanx; the more palmar portion joins the palmar plate and is termed the accessory collateral ligament. These collateral ligaments are somewhat loose with the metacarpophalangeal joint in extension, allowing for considerable play in the side-to-side motion of the digits (Figure 2-9). With the metacarpophalangeal joints in full flexion, however, the cam conguration of the metacarpal head tightens the collateral ligaments and limits lateral mobility of the digits. This alteration in tension becomes an important factor in immobilization of the metacarpophalangeal joints for any length of time, because the secondary
26
Palmar plate
Figure 2-7 Joints of the phalanges. The diarthrodial configuration of the metacarpophalangeal joint permits motion in multiple planes, whereas the biconcave-convex hinge configuration of the interphalangeal joints restricts motion to the anteroposterior plane. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby.)
Figure 2-9 At the metacarpophalangeal joint level, the collateral ligaments are loose in extension but become tightened in flexion. The proximal membranous portion of the palmar plate moves proximally to accommodate for flexion. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby. Modified from Wynn Parry CB, et al. [1973]. Rehabilitation of the hand. London, Butterworth.)
Figure 2-8 Ligamentous structures of the digital joints. The collateral ligaments of the metacarpophalangeal and interdigital joints are composed of a strong cord portion with bony origin and insertion. The more palmarly placed accessory collateral ligaments originate from the proximal bone and insert into the palmar fibrocartilaginous plate. The palmar plates have strong distal attachments to resist extension forces. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby.)
shortening of the lax collateral ligaments that may occur when these joints are immobilized in extension results in severe limitation of metacarpophalangeal joint flexion by these structures. The palmar brocartilaginous plate on the palmar side of the metacarpophalangeal joint is rmly attached
to the base of the proximal phalanx and loosely attached to the anterior surface of the neck of the metacarpal by means of the joint capsule at the neck of the metacarpal. This arrangement allows the palmar plate to slide proximally during metacarpophalangeal joint flexion. The flexor tendons pass along a groove anterior to the plate. The palmar plates are connected by the transverse intermetacarpal ligaments, which connect each plate to its neighbor. The metacarpophalangeal joint of the thumb differs from the others in that the head of the rst metacarpal is flatter and its cartilaginous surface does not extend as far laterally or posteriorly. Two small sesamoid bones are also adjacent to this joint, and the ligamentous structure differs somewhat. A few degrees of abduction and rotation are permitted by the ligament arrange-
Extrinsic Muscles
The extrinsic flexor muscles (see Figure 2-11) of the forearm form a prominent mass on the medial side of the upper part of the forearm: The most supercial group comprises the pronator teres, the flexor carpi radialis, the flexor carpi ulnaris, and the palmaris longus; the intermediate group the flexor digitorum supercialis; and the deep extrinsics the flexor digitorum profundus and the flexor pollicis longus. The pronator, palmaris, wrist flexors, and supercialis tendons arise from the area about the medial epicondyle, the ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow, and the medial aspect of the coronoid process. The flexor pollicis longus originates from the entire middle third of the palmar surface of the radius and the adjacent interosseous membrane, and the flexor digitorum profundus originates deep to the other muscles of the forearm from the proximal two-thirds of the ulna on the palmar and medial side. The deepest layer of the palmar forearm is completed distally by the pronator quadratus muscle. The flexor carpi radialis tendon inserts on the base of the second metacarpal, whereas the flexor carpi ulnaris inserts into both the pisiform and fth metacarpal base. The supercialis tendons lie supercial to the profundus tendons as far as the digital bases, where they bifurcate and wrap around the profundi and rejoin over
Collateral ligament
Cord Accessory
Collateral ligament
Figure 2-10 Strong, three-sided ligamentous support system of the proximal interphalangeal joint with cord and accessory collateral ligaments and the fibrocartilaginous plate, which is anchored proximally by the checkrein ligamentous attachment. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby. Modified from Eaton RG [1971]. Joint injuries of the hand. Springfield, IL, Charles C Thomas.)
28
Composite
Flexor digitorum superficialis Nerve: median Action: flexion of proximal interphalangeal and metacarpophalangeal joints
Superficial
Palmaris longus Nerve: median Action: tension of palmar fascia Flexor carpi ulnaris Palmaris longus Flexor carpi radialis
Flexor carpi ulnaris Nerve: ulnar Action: flexion of wrist; ulnar deviation of hand
Flexor carpi radialis Nerve: median Action: flexion of wrist; radial deviation of hand
Pronator quadratus
Supinator Pronator teres Supinator Nerve: radial Action: forearm supination Pronator teres Nerve: median Action: forearm pronation Brachioradialis Nerve: radial Action: pronation or supination, depending on position of forearm
Supination
Pronation
Brachioradialis
Figure 2-11 Extrinsic flexor muscles of the arm and hand. (Dark areas represent origins and insertions of muscles.) (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. (2005). Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby. Modified from Marble HC [1960]. The hand, a manual and atlas for the general surgeon. Philadelphia, WB Saunders.)
Composite
Flexor digitorum profundus Nerve: medianindex and long ulnarring and small Action: flexion of distal interphalangeal, proximal interphalangeal, and metacarpophalangeal joints
Deep
Flexor pollicis longus Nerve: median Action: flexes interphalangeal and metacarpophalangeal joints of thumb
Figure 2-11contd.
the distal half of the proximal phalanx as Campers chiasma (Figure 2-12). The supercialis tendon again splits for a dual insertion on the proximal half of the middle phalanges. The profundi continue through the supercialis decussation to insert on the base of
FDS FDP
Figure 2-12 Anatomy of the relationship among the flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS), flexor digitorum profundus (FDP), and the proximal portion of the flexor tendon sheath. The superficialis tendon divides and passes around the profundus tendon to reunite at Campers chiasma. The tendon once again divides before insertion on the base of the middle phalanx. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby.)
the distal phalanx. The flexor pollicis longus inserts on the base of the distal phalanx of the thumb. At the wrist the nine long flexor tendons enter the carpal tunnel beneath the protective roof of the deep transverse carpal ligament in company with the median nerve. In this canal the common profundus tendon to the long, ring, and small ngers divides into the individual tendons that fan out distally and proceed toward the distal phalanges of these digits (Figure 2-13). At about the level of the distal palmar crease the paired profundus and supercialis tendons to the index, long, ring, and small ngers and the flexor pollicis longus to the thumb enter the individual flexor sheaths that house them throughout the remainder of their digital course. These sheaths with their predictable annular pulley arrangement (Figure 2-14) serve not only as a protective housing for the flexor tendons, but also provide a smooth gliding surface by virtue of their synovial lining and an efcient mechanism to hold the tendons close to the digital bone and joints. There is an increasing recognition that disruption of this valuable
30
Hypothenar muscles
Figure 2-14 Components of the digital flexor sheath. The sturdy annular pulleys (A) are important biomechanically in guaranteeing the efficient digital motion by keeping the tendons closely applied to the phalanges. The thin pliable cruciate pulleys (C) permit the flexor sheath to be flexible while maintaining its integrity. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby. Modified from Doyle JR, Blythe W [1975]. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons: Symposium on tendon surgery in the hand. St Louis, Mosby.)
Figure 2-13 Flexor tendons in the palm and digits. Fibroosseous digital sheaths with their pulley arrangement are shown, as is a division of the superficialis tendon about the profundus in the proximal portion of the sheath. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby.)
pulley system can produce substantial mechanical alterations in digital function, resulting in imbalance and deformity. Extension of the wrist and ngers is produced by the extrinsic extensor muscle tendon system, which consists of the two radial wrist extensors, the extensor carpi ulnaris, the extensor digitorum communis, extensor indicis proprius, and the extensor digiti quinti proprius (extensor digiti minimi) (Figure 2-15). These muscles originate in common from the lateral epicondyle and the lateral epicondylar ridge and from a small area posterior to the radial notch of the ulna. The brachioradialis originates from the epicondylar line proximal to the lateral epicondyle and, because it inserts on the distal radius, it does not truly contribute to wrist or digit motion. The extensor carpi radialis longus and brevis insert proximally on the bases of the second and third metacarpals, respectively, and the extensor carpi ulnaris inserts on the base of the fth metacarpal. The long digital extensors terminate by insertions on the bases of the middle phalanges after receiving and giving bers to the intrinsic tendons to form the lateral bands that are destined to insert on the bases of the distal phalanx. Digital extension, therefore results from a combination of the contribution of both the extrinsic and intrinsic extensor systems. The extensor pollicis longus
and brevis tendons, together with the abductor pollicis longus, originate from the dorsal forearm and, by virtue of their respective insertions into the distal phalanx, proximal phalanx, and rst metacarpal of the thumb, provide extension at all three levels. The extensor pollicis longus approaches the thumb obliquely around a small bony tubercle on the dorsal radius (Listers tubercle) and therefore functions not only as an extensor but as a strong secondary adductor of the thumb. The extensor indicis proprius also originates more distally than the extensor communis tendons from an area near the origin of the thumb extensor and long abductor. It lies on the ulnar aspect of the communis tendon to the index nger and inserts with it in the dorsal approaches of that digit. The extensor digiti quinti proprius arises near the lateral epicondyle to occupy a supercial position on the dorsum of the forearm with its paired tendons lying on the fth metacarpal ulnar to the communis tendon to the fth nger. It inserts into the extensor apparatus of that digit. At the wrist, the extensor tendons are divided into six dorsal compartments (Figure 2-16). The rst compartment consists of the tendons of the abductor pollicis longus and extensor pollicis brevis and the second compartment houses the two radial wrist extensors, the extensor carpi radialis longus and brevis. The third compartment is composed of the tendon of the extensor pollicis longus and the fourth compartment allows passage of the four communis extensor tendons and the extensor indicis proprius tendon. The extensor
Extensor carpi radialis longus and brevis Nerve: radial Action: extension of wrist and radial deviation of hand
Extensor carpi ulnaris Nerve: radial Action: extension of wrist and ulnar deviation of hand
Composite
Extensor pollicis longus Nerve: radial Action: extension of interphalangeal joint and metacarpophalangeal joint of thumb
Extensor digitorum communis and extensor digiti quinti proprius Nerve: radial Action: extension of fingers
Figure 2-15 Extrinsic extensor muscles of the forearm and hand. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby. Modified from Marble HC [1960]. The hand, a manual and atlas for the general surgeon. Philadelphia, WB Saunders.) Continued
digiti quinti proprius travels through the fth dorsal compartment and the sixth houses the extensor carpi ulnaris.
Intrinsic Muscles
The important intrinsic musculature of the hand can be divided into muscles comprising the thenar eminence, those comprising the hypothenar eminence, and the remaining muscles between the two groups (Figure
2-17). The muscles of the thenar eminence consist of the abductor pollicis brevis, the flexor pollicis brevis, and the opponens pollicis, which originate in common from the transverse carpal ligament and the scaphoid and trapezium bones. The abductor brevis inserts into the radial side of the proximal phalanx and the radial wing tendon of the thumb, as does the flexor pollicis brevis, whereas the opponens inserts into the whole radial side of the rst metacarpal.
32
Extensor pollicis brevis Nerve: radial Action: extension of metacarpophalangeal joint of thumb
Figure 2-15contd.
Extensor digitorum communis Extensor digiti quinti proprius Abductor digiti quinti
Extensor pollicis brevis Extensor pollicis longus Extensor carpi radialis longus and brevis Abductor pollicis longus 1 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 6
Figure 2-16
The flexor pollicis brevis has a supercial portion that is innervated by the median nerve and a deep portion that arises from the ulnar side of the rst metacarpal and is often innervated by the ulnar nerve. The hypothenar eminence in a similar manner is made up of the abductor digiti quinti, the flexor digiti quinti brevis, and the opponens digiti quinti, which originate primarily from the pisiform bone and the pisohamate ligament and insert into the joint capsule of the fth metacarpophalangeal joint, the ulnar side of the base of
the proximal phalanx of the fth nger, and the ulnar border of the aponeurosis of this digit. The strong thenar musculature is responsible for the ability to position the thumb in opposition so that it may meet the adjacent digits for pinch and grasp functions, whereas the hypothenar group allows a similar but less pronounced rotation of the fth metacarpal. Of the seven interosseous muscles, four are considered in the dorsal group (Figure 2-18, B) and three as palmar interossei (Figure 2-18, C). The four dorsal
Opponens pollicis Nerve: median Action: rotation of first metacarpal toward palm
Flexor pollicis brevis Nerve: mediansuperficial ulnardeep Action: flexion and rotation of thumb
Abductor digiti quinti Nerve: ulnar Action: abduction of small finger (flexion of proximal phalanx, extension of proximal and distal interphalangeal joints)
Flexor digiti quinti brevis Nerve: ulnar Action: flexion of proximal phalanx of small finger and forward rotation of fifth metacarpal
Figure 2-17 Intrinsic muscles of the hand. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby. Modified from Marble HC [1960]. The hand, a manual and atlas for the general surgeon. Philadelphia, WB Saunders.) Continued
interossei originate from the adjacent sides of the metacarpal bones and, because of their bipennate nature with two individual muscle bellies, have separate insertions into the tubercle and the lateral aspect of the proximal phalanges and into the extensor expansion. The more palmarly placed three palmar interossei
(Figure 2-18, C) have similar insertions and origins and are responsible for adducting the digits together, as opposed to the spreading or abducting function of the dorsal interossei. In addition, four lumbrical tendons (Figure 2-19, A) arising from the radial side of the palmar portion of the flexor digitorum profundus
34
Lumbricals Nerve: medianindex and long ulnarring and small Action: supplements metacarpophalangeal flexion and extension of proximal and distal interphalangeal joints
Composite
All interossei Nerve: ulnar Action: flexion of metacarpophalangeal joints and extension of proximal and distal interphalangeal joints
Dorsal interossei
Dorsal interossei Nerve: ulnar Action: spread of index and ring fingers away from long finger
Palmar interossei
Palmar interossei Nerve: ulnar Action: adduction of index, ring, and fifth fingers toward long finger
Figure 2-17contd.
tendons pass through their individual canals on the radial side of the digits to provide an additional contribution to the complex extensor assemblage of the digits. The arrangement of the extensor mechanism, including the transverse sagittal band bers at the metacarpophalangeal joint and the components of the extensor hood mechanism that gain bers from both the extrinsic and intrinsic tendons, can be seen in Figure 2-19, B, C. An oversimplication of the function of the intrinsic musculature in the digits would be that they provide strong flexion at the metacarpophalangeal joints and extension at the proximal and distal interphalangeal joints. The lumbrical tendons, by virtue of their origin from the flexor profundi and insertion into the digital extensor mechanism, function as a governor between the two systems, resulting in a loosening of the antagonistic profundus tendon during interphalangeal joint
extension. The interossei are further responsible for spreading and closing of the ngers and, together with the extrinsic flexor and extensor tendons, are invaluable to digital balance. A composite, well-integrated pattern of digital flexion and extension is reliant on the smooth performance of both systems; and a loss of intrinsic function results in severe deformity. Perhaps the most important intrinsic muscle, the adductor pollicis (Figure 2-18, A), originates from the third metacarpal and inserts on the ulnar side of the base of the proximal phalanx of the thumb and into the ulnar wing expansion of the extensor mechanism. This muscle, by virtue of its strong adducting influence on the thumb and its stabilizing effect on the rst metacarpophalangeal joint, functions together with the rst dorsal interosseous to provide strong pinch. The adductor pollicis, deep head of the flexor pollicis brevis, ulnar two lumbricals, and all interossei, as well as the
Adductor pollicis Abductor pollicis brevis Flexor pollicis brevis Transverse carpal ligament Opponens pollicis Opponens digiti quinti Flexor digiti quinti Abductor digiti quinti
Pronator quadratus
Ulnar nerve
Dorsal interossei (1 to 4)
Palmar interossei (1 to 3) 1 2 3
B
Figure 2-18 Position and function of the intrinsic muscles of the hand.
hypothenar muscle group, are innervated by the ulnar nerve. Loss of ulnar nerve function has a profound influence on hand function.
involved joint. To a large extent the wrist is the key joint and has a strong influence on the long extrinsic muscle performance at the digital level. Maximal digital flexion strength is facilitated by dorsiflexion of the wrist, which lessens the effective amplitude of the antagonistic extensor tendons while maximizing the contractural force of the digital flexors. Conversely, a posture of wrist flexion markedly weakens grasping power. At the digital level, metacarpophalangeal joint flexion is a combination of extrinsic flexor power supplemented by the contribution of the intrinsic muscles, whereas proximal interphalangeal joint extension results from a combination of extrinsic extensor and intrinsic muscle power. At the distal interphalangeal joint the intrinsic muscles provide a majority of the
36
Triangular ligament
Interosseous muscle
A
Long extensor tendon Interosseous muscle Sagittal bands Dorsal extensor expansion Central slip of common extensor Lateral band
Long extensor tendon Sagittal bands Bony insertion of interosseous tendon on proximal phalanx Distal movement of extensor expansion during flexion
Interosseous muscle
Lumbrical muscle
Lateral band
C
Figure 2-19 A. Extensor mechanism of the digits. B, C. Distal movement of the extensor expansion with metacarpophalangeal joint flexion is shown.
0 mm
3 mm
16 mm
44 mm
55 mm
Figure 2-20 Excursion of the flexor and extensor tendons at various levels. The numbers on the dorsum of the extended finger represent the excursion in millimeters necessary at each level to bring all distal joints from full flexion into full extension. The numbers shown by arrows on the palmar aspect of the flexed digit represent the excursion in millimeters for the superficialis (S) and the profundus (P) necessary at each level to bring the finger from full extension to full flexion. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby. Modified from Verdan C [1979]. Tendon surgery of the hand. London, Churchill Livingstone.)
N ERVE SUPPLY
In considering the nerve supply to the forearm, hand, and wrist, understand that these nerves are a direct continuation of the brachial plexus and that at least a working knowledge of the multiple ramications of the
38
Table 2-1
Muscle
Flexor carpi radialis Extensor carpi radialis longus Extensor carpi radialis brevis Extensor carpi ulnaris Abductor pollicis longus Flexor pollicis longus Flexor digitorum profundus Flexor digitorum superficialis Brachioradialis Flexor carpi ulnaris Pronator teres Palmaris longus Extensor pollicis longus Extensor digitorum communis
IAPD 90
0.9
B
1.1 0.1
Abnormal
MA
1 % A-4 2 1 % A-2 IAPD 2
C
1.2 4.5
PTE
PTE
IAPD 90
D
Figure 2-21 Biomechanics of the finger flexor pulley system. A. The arrangement of the annular and cruciate pulleys of the flexor tendon sheath. A, B, Normal moment arm (MA), the intra-annular pulley distance (IAPD) between the A-2 and A-4 pulleys, and the profundus tendon excursion (PTE), which occurs within the intact digital fibroosseous canal as the proximal interphalangeal joint is flexed to 90. Annular pulleys: A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-5; cruciate pulleys: C-I, C-2, C-3. C, D, Biomechanical alteration resulting from excision of the distal half of the A-2 pulley together with the C-1, A-3, C-2, and proximal portion of the A-4 pulley. The moment arm is increased, and a greater profundus tendon excursion is necessary to produce 90 of flexion because of the bowstringing that results from the loss of pulley support. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby. Modified from Strickland JW [1983]. Management of acute flexor tendon injuries. Orthopaedic Clinics of North America, vol 14. Philadelphia, WB Saunders.)
From Von Lanz T, Wachsmuth W (1970). Praktische anatomie. In JH Boyes, editor: Bunnells surgery of the hand, 5th ed. Philadelphia, Lippincott.
plexus is necessary if one is to fully appreciate the more distal motor and sensory contributions of the nerves of the upper extremity. Injuries at either the spinal cord or plexus level or to the major peripheral nerves in the upper extremity result in a substantial functional impairment for which splinting may be necessary. The median, ulnar, and radial nerves, as well as the terminal course of the musculocutaneous, are responsible for the sensory and motor transmission to the forearm, wrist, and hand. The supercial sensory distribution is shared by the median, radial, and ulnar nerves in a fairly constant pattern (Figure 2-22). This chapter is concerned with the most frequent distribution of
these nerves, although it is acknowledged that variations are common. The palmar side of the hand from the thumb to a line passed longitudinally from the tip of the ring nger to the wrist receives sensory innervation from the median nerve. The remainder of the palm, as well as the ulnar half of the ring nger and the entire small nger, receives sensory innervation from the ulnar nerve. On the dorsal side, the ulnar nerve distribution again includes the ulnar half of the dorsal hand and the ring and small ngers, whereas the radial side is supplied by the supercial branch of the radial nerve. Some inner-
MA
Median
Median
Median
Ulnar Radial
Median nerve
Figure 2-22 Cutaneous distribution of the nerves of the hand. A. Palmar surface. B. Dorsal surface. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby.)
vation to an area distal to the proximal interphalangeal joints is supplied by the palmar digital nerves originating from the median nerve. The area around the dorsum of the thumb over the metacarpophalangeal joint is frequently supplied by the end branches of the lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve. The extrinsic and intrinsic musculature of the forearm and hand is supplied by the median, ulnar, and radial nerves (Figure 2-23). The long wrist and digital flexors, with the exception of the flexor carpi ulnaris and the profundi to the ring and small ngers, are all supplied by the median nerve. The pronators of the forearm and the muscles of the thenar eminence, with the exception of the deep head of the flexor pollicis brevis and the adductor pollicis, which are innervated by the ulnar nerve, are also supplied by the median nerve. All muscles of the hypothenar eminence, all interossei, the third and fourth lumbrical muscles, the deep head of the flexor pollicis brevis, the adductor pollicis brevis, as well as the flexor carpi ulnaris and the ulnar-most two profundi, are supplied by the ulnar nerve. The radial nerve supplies all long extensors of the hand and wrist, as well as the long abductor and short extensor of the thumb, the supinator, and the brachioradialis of the forearm. When considering sensibility, one should remember that the hand is an extremely important organ for the detection and transmission to the brain of information relating to the size, weight, texture, and temperature of objects with which it comes in contact. The types of cutaneous sensation have been dened as touch, pain, hot, and cold. Although most of the nervous tissue
in the skin is found in the dermal network, smaller branches course through the subcutaneous tissue following blood vessels. Several types of sensory receptors have been described, and in most areas of the hand there is an interweaving of nerve bers that allows each area to receive nerve input from several sources. In addition, deep sensibility from nerve endings in muscles and tendons is important in the recognition of joint position. The high interruption of the median nerve above the elbow results in a paralysis of the flexor carpi radialis, the flexor digitorum supercialis, the flexor pollicis longus, the profundi to the index and long ngers, and the lumbricals to the index and long ngers. In addition, pronation is weakened as a result of the loss of innervation of both the pronator teres and quadratus muscles and, most importantly, the patient loses the ability to oppose the thumb because of paralysis of the median nerve-innervated thenar muscle group. A more distal interruption of the median nerve at the wrist level produces loss of opposition and both lesions result in a critical impairment of sensation in the important distribution of that nerve to the palmar aspect of the thumb, index, long, and radial half of the ring nger. High ulnar nerve interruption produces paralysis of the flexor carpi ulnaris, the flexor profundi and lumbricals to the ring and small ngers and, most importantly, the interossei, adductor pollicis brevis, and deep head of the flexor pollicis brevis. The resulting loss of the antagonistic flexion at the metacarpophalangeal joints of the ring and small ngers permits
40
Common digital nerves Palmar nerves to thumb Motor (thenar) branch of median nerve Median nerve
Ulnar nerve
B
Figure 2-23 Distribution of the median (A) and ulnar (B) nerves in the palm. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby.)
hyperextension at this level by the unopposed long extensor tendons, often resulting in a claw deformity. The loss of the strong adducting and stabilizing influence of the adductor pollicis combined with the paralysis of the rst dorsal interosseous muscle results in profound weakness of pinch and produces a collapse deformity of the thumb, necessitating interphalangeal joint hyperflexion for pinch (Froments sign). More distal lesions of the ulnar nerve usually result in a greater degree of claw deformity because of the sparing of the profundi function of the ring and small ngers. Sensory loss after ulnar nerve interruption involves the palmar ring (ulnar half) and small ngers.
The palmar skin with its numerous small brous connections to the underlying palmar aponeurosis is a highly specialized, thickened structure with little mobility. Numerous small blood vessels pass through the underlying subcutaneous tissues into the dermis. In contrast, the dorsal skin and subcutaneous tissue are much looser with few anchoring bers and a high degree of mobility. Most of the lymphatic drainage from the palmar aspect of the ngers, web areas, and hypothenar and thenar eminences flows in lymph channels on the dorsum of the hand. Clinical swelling, which frequently accompanies injury or infection, is usually a result of impaired lymph drainage. The central, triangularly shaped palmar aponeurosis (Figure 2-24) provides a semirigid barrier between the palmar skin and the important underlying neurovascular and tendon structures. It fuses medially and laterally with the deep fascia covering the hypothenar and thenar muscles, and fasciculi extending from this thick fascial barrier extend to the proximal phalanges to fuse with the tendon sheaths on the palmar, medial, and lateral aspects. In the distal palm, septa from this palmar fascia extend to the deep transverse metacarpal ligaments forming the sides of the annular brous canals, allowing for the passage of the ensheathed flexor tendons and the lumbrical muscles and the neurovascular bundles.
Figure 2-24 Palmar aponeurosis reflected distally reveals septa and underlying palmar anatomy.
Dorsally the deep fascia and extensor tendons fuse to form the roof for the dorsal subaponeurotic space, which, although not as thick as its palmar counterpart, may prove restrictive to underlying fluid accumulations or intrinsic muscle swelling.
FUNCTIONAL PATTERNS
The prehensile function of the hand depends on the integrity of the kinetic chain of bones and joints extending from the wrist to the distal phalanges. Interruptions of the transverse and longitudinal arch systems formed by these structures always result in instability, deformity, or functional loss at a more proximal or distal level. Similarly, the balanced synergismantagonism relationship between the long extrinsic muscles and the intrinsic muscles is a requisite for the composite functions necessary for both power and precision functions of the hand. It is essential to recognize that the hand cannot function well without normal sensory input from all areas. Many attempts have been made to classify the different patterns of hand function, and various types of grasp and pinch have been described. Perhaps the more simplied analysis of power grasp and precision handling as proposed by Napier (1955, 1956) and rened by Flatt (1979, 1983, 1995) is the easiest to consider.
Figure 2-25 Progressive alterations in precision grasp with changes in object size. Adaptation takes place primarily at the carpometacarpal joint of the thumb and the metacarpophalangeal joints of the digits. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby.)
42
the index nger tip to the tip of the small nger, and the adaptation that occurs between the thumb and digits as progressively smaller objects are held occurs primarily at the metacarpophalangeal joints of the digits and the carpometacarpal joint of the thumb. For power grip the wrist is in an extended position that allows the extrinsic digital flexors to press the object rmly against the palm while the thumb is closed tightly around the object. The thumb, ring, and small ngers are the most important participants in this strong grasp function, and the importance of the ulnar border digits cannot be minimized (Figure 2-26). In precision grasp, wrist position is less important, and the thumb is opposed to the semiflexed ngers with the intrinsic tendons providing most of the nger movement. When the intrinsic muscles are paralyzed, the balance of each nger is markedly disturbed. The metacarpophalangeal joint loses its primary flexors, and the interphalangeal joints lose the intrinsic contribution to extension. A dyskinetic nger flexion results in which the metacarpophalangeal joints lag behind the interphalangeal joints in flexion. When the hand is closed on an object, only the ngertips make contact rather than the uniform contact of the ngers, palm, and thumb that occurs with normal grip (Figure 2-27). Certain activities may require combinations of power and precision grips, as seen in Figure 2-28. Pinching between the thumb and either the index or long nger is a further renement of precision grip and may be classied as tip grip, palmar grip, or lateral grip (Figure 2-29), depending on the portions of the phalanges brought to bear on the object being handled. In these functions the strong contracture of the adductor pollicis brings the thumb into contact against the tip or sides of the index or index and long ngers with digital
B
Figure 2-27 A. Normal hand grasping a cylinder. Uniform areas of palm and digital contact are shaded. B. Intrinsic minus (claw hand grasping the same cylinder). The area of contact is limited to the fingertips and the metacarpal heads. (From Brand PW [1999]. Clinical mechanics of the hand, 2nd ed. St Louis, Mosby.)
Figure 2-26 Strong power grip imparted primarily by the thumb, ring, and small fingers around the hammer handle with delicate precision tip grip employed to hold the nail. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby.)
resistance imparted by the rst and second dorsal interossei. The size of the object being handled dictates whether large thumb and digital surfaces, as in palmar grip, or smaller surfaces, as in lateral or tip grasp, are used. Flatt (1972) has pointed out that the dual importance of rotation and flexion of the thumb is often ignored in the preparation of splints, which permit only tip grip because the thumb cannot oppose the pulp of the ngers to produce palmar grip. The patterns of action of the normal hand depend on the mobility of the skeletal arches, and alterations of the conguration of these arches are produced by the balanced function of the extrinsic and intrinsic muscles. Whereas the extrinsic contribution resulting from the large powerful forearm muscle groups is more important to hand strength, the ne precision action imparted by the intrinsic musculature gives the hand an enormous variety of capabilities. Although one need
REFERENCES
Arey L (1980). Developmental anatomy, 7th ed. Philadelphia, WB Saunders. Basmajian JU (1980). Electromyographydynamic gross anatomy: A review. American Journal of Anatomy, 159:245260. Bell-Krotoski J (1990). Light touch-deep pressure testing using Semmes-Weinstein monolaments. In J Hunter, L Schneider, E Mackin, A Callahan, editors. Rehabilitation of the hand, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby. Blumeld RH, Champoux JA (1984). A biomechanical study of normal functional wrist motion. Clinical Orthopedics, 187:2325. Bora FW (1986). The pediatric upper extremity. Philadelphia, WB Saunders. Brand PW (1974). Biomechanics of tendon transfer. Orthopedic Clinics of North America 5:202230. Brand PW, Hollister A (1999). Clinical mechanics of the hand, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby. Bunnell S (1944). Surgery of the hand. Philadelphia, JB Lippincott. Cooney W, Linscheid R, Dobyns J (1998). The wrist diagnosis and operative treatment. St Louis, Mosby. Flatt AE (1972). Restoration of rheumatoid nger joint function. III. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 54A:13171322. Flatt AE (1979). The care of minor hand injuries. St Louis, Mosby. Flatt AE (1983). Care of the arthritic hand. St Louis, Mosby. Flatt AE (1995). The care of the arthritic hand, 5th ed. St Louis: Quality Medical Publishing. Lichtman D, Alexander A (1988). The wrist and its disorders. Philadelphia, WB Saunders. Long C, Conrad MS, Hall EA, Furler MS (1970). Intrinsicextrinsic muscle control of the hand in power grip and precision handling. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 52A:853867. Moberg E (1958). Objective methods of determining the functional value of sensibility of the hand. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 40B:454476. Moore KL (1982). The developing human: Clinically oriented embryology, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, WB Saunders. Napier J (1955). The form and function of the carpometacarpal joint of the thumb. Journal of Anatomy, 89:362. Napier JR (1956). The prehensile movements of the human hand. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 38B:902913. Taleisnik J (1976a). Wrist anatomy, function, and injury. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Instructional Course Lectures, vol. 27. St Louis, Mosby. Taleisnik J (1976b). The ligaments of the wrist. Journal of Hand Surgery [America] 1:110118. Taleisnik J (1985a). The wrist. New York, Churchill Livingstone. Taleisnik J (1985b). Carpal kinematics. In The wrist. New York, Churchill Livingstone.
Figure 2-28 Power grip used to hold the squeeze bottle with precision handling of the bottle top by the opposite hand. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby.)
Figure 2-29 Types of precision grip. A. Tip grip. B. Palmar grip. C. Lateral grip. (From Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips CA, et al. [2005]. Hand and upper extremity splinting. St Louis, Mosby. Modified from Flatt AE [1974]. The care of the rheumatoid hand, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby.)
not specically memorize the various patterns of pinch, grasp, and combined hand functions, it is essential to understand the underlying contribution of the various muscle-tendon groups, both extrinsic and intrinsic, to these activities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am extremely grateful to Gary W. Schnitz for many of the excellent illustrations used in this chapter. This chapter has been edited by Elaine Ewing Fess, MS, OTR, FAOTA, CHT for inclusion in this book. The
44
Taleisnik J (1992). Soft tissue injuries of the wrist. In JW Strickland, AR Rettig, editors: Hand injuries in athletes. Philadelphia, WB Saunders. Weber ER (1982). Concepts governing the rotational shift of the intercalated segment of the carpus. Orthopedic Clinics of North America, 15:193207. Weber ER (1988). Physiologic bases for wrist function. In D Lichtman, A Alexander, editors: The wrist and its disorders. Philadelphia, WB Saunders.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Chase RA (1973). Atlas of hand surgery. Philadelphia, WB Saunders. Chase RA (1984). Atlas of hand surgery, vol. 2. Philadelphia, WB Saunders. Clemente CD (editor) (1990). Grays anatomy of the human body, 14th ed. Philadelphia, Lea & Febiger. Hollingshead HW (editor) (1982). Anatomy for surgeons, vol 4. The back and limbs. New York, Harper & Row.
Chapter
Ann-Christin Eliasson
CHAPTER OUTLINE
DEVELOPMENT OF MOVEMENT CONTROL THEORIES LEARNED MOVEMENTS AFFERENT INFORMATION Proprioception Touch BASIC COORDINATION OF FORCES DURING GRASPING Development of Manipulatory Forces DEVELOPMENT OF ANTICIPATORY CONTROL Weight Size Friction ORGANIZATION OF SENSORIMOTOR CONTROL IMPAIRED FORCE CONTROL AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS Force Coordination Anticipation of the Properties of Objects Sensory Information Used for Force Control SUMMARY
The hand is an effective tool that is used in many different tasks of daily life. The successful performance of manual skills in daily life depends on a complex process incorporating several different aspects of a persons capability (Figure 3-1). The usefulness of the hand is highly dependent on cognition because one has to understand the value of using ones hands for a
meaningful purpose. Then the task to be performed has to be encoded and translated into purposeful actions, and these must be performed in the appropriate order. In the last decade, considerable attention has been given to the development of prehensile force control during the manipulation of objects in both healthy children and children with cerebral palsy (CP), as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other kinds of dysfunctions related to the central nervous system (CNS). It is known that integration of somatosensory information is crucial for the fine tuning of motor commands, force regulation, and the build up of memory strategies for grasping and manipulating objects. Coordination of movements and somatosensory control develop rapidly during the first years of life. The refinement continues for many years, and adult-like sensorimotor control is not attained until the early teenage years. If somatosensory control is dysfunctional, a person is observed to be clumsy to a greater or lesser degree. Furthermore, peoples perceptions have an effect on their performance of manual skills because their sensory impressions should be translated into meaningful information even for the very simplest of tasks. The perceptual system provides information about the position of the hand in space, as well as the position of the target, both of which are important for goal-directed movement. Finally, the musculoskeletal components are crucial for motor output. Although any movement a person brings about is highly dependent on how the CNS plans and organizes the movement, the contractile components of the muscles, bones, and joints are the effectors of the planned movement. Another cognitive aspect is motivation, which is closely related to attention and concentration, and all of which have an influence on the successful performance of manual skills. A reduced focus on a task almost certainly limits the ability to learn. Thus self-efficacy
45
46
Perception
Figure 3-1 Descriptive illustration of components influencing childrens ability to use their hands. (From Eliasson AC (2004). Improving the use of the hands in daily activities: aspects of the treatment of children with cerebral palsy. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 25:3760.)
and body image have an impact on ones ability to perform tasks. Although the performance of manual skills is complex, this chapter discusses how the sensory information received about an object is increasingly well integrated with motor processing during development, leading to smooth, coordinated movements of the hand. This chapter also describes how impairment, mainly arising from CP, but also from dysfunctions such as those seen in children with ADHD and developmental coordination disorder (DCD) affects sensorimotor control of the hand. Dysfunction or impairment of the CNS almost always affects hand function. There is a continuum of decreasing hand function from being somewhat clumsy to having severe impairment. It seems that the diagnosis is less important; it is the grade of impairment or dysfunction that is crucial. Children with CP have different degrees of impaired hand function. Some children only have difficulty performing differentiated finger movements or in-hand manipulation, whereas others have severe impairments that make it impossible even to grasp an object. Most children with ADHD have fairly good hand function, but when DCD is present also, the clumsiness is more apparent. Regardless of the degree of severity, decreased hand function has an impact on childrens daily self-care or school activities, and it affects their engagement in play or leisure. The ability to analyze a childs capacity to use his or her hands and compare the childs capabilities with the complexity of the task is a prerequisite for intervention planning. This chapter explains the underlying causes of the impairment or clumsiness apparent in children with impairment or dysfunction in their CNS. By understanding the mechanisms normally responsible for controlling movements, intervention that takes into consideration the mechanism controlling manual skills can be planned. Some examples of this are given later in this chapter.
LEARNED MOVEMENTS
Voluntary movements in humans are complex. It is difficult to demonstrate a simple fixed pattern from a CPG, although skilled movements appear to depend on a set of motor programs. According to Brooks (1986),
Motor programs are a set of muscle commands that are structured before the motor acts begin and that can be sent to the muscles with the correct timing so that the entire sequence can be carried out in the absence of peripheral feedback (p. 7),
AFFERENT INFORMATION
The importance of afferent information is seen in patients with large sensory fiber neuropathies, in which the large afferent fibers generating proprioceptive and tactile information degenerate. Unless these patients see their limbs, they do not know their position and cannot detect limb motion. When reaching toward a target without seeing the moving hand, they make large errors; if they look at the hand before reaching, the hand comes closer to the target. This indicates that these patients can compensate for the lack of somatosensory information visually and also use vision to program the reaching in advance. Because the patients cannot stop the movement precisely at the desired
or, in other words, can follow an initial plan. In welllearned, fast movements the trajectory exactly follows this initial plan. The initiation and termination are
48
target, information from various receptors in the skin is essential for precise movements (Ghez et al., 1990). Impaired sensation is also common in children with hemiplegic CP and has to be taken into account when planning treatment.
PROPRIOCEPTION
The proprioceptive system gives information about the stationary position of the limbs (limb position sense) and movements of the limb (kinesthesia). The latter information is mediated from tendon organs and muscle spindles and also from receptors in the skin, sensitive to skin stretch. The tendon organ signals information about the strength of muscle contraction, increased signaling indicating increased tension. Signals from the muscle spindle regulate the length of the muscle fibers. The receptors are rather complicated and, despite intensive research, their function is not fully understood. It has been agreed, however, that the muscle spindle is responsible for small changes in muscle contraction, which may be important for force regulation during the grasping act. There are muscle spindles in almost all skeletal muscles, and they mediate information mainly through 1a afferents to the spinal cord. The muscle spindle also has efferent innervation to intrafusal muscle fibers, in which the primary and secondary endings set the sensitivity to the afferent signals. The different contractions of intrafusal muscle fibers are probably crucial for the information sent to the CNS. Alpha and gamma motor neurons are co-activated by central mechanisms to maintain the sensitivity of the muscle spindles throughout the range of almost all movements. There have been different models for the coactivation of alpha and gamma motor neurons, but it appears that descending commands activate both, as demonstrated by Vallbo (1970) in studies of microneurography. The afferent signals are used to update and correct the motor programs, and the information can be used in a conscious way to give knowledge about the limb movement and position in space.
TOUCH
The tactile system is used to discriminate between different surfaces and shapes and also provides sensory input to the CNS, which regulates the force of the muscles during grasping and holding of objects. Touch transmits nerve impulses from mechanoreceptors to the CNS via axons with different diameters. Large fibers with a fast conduction rate mediate tactile sensation from the skin, whereas thin fibers with a slow conduction rate mediate sensation of pain and temperature. The receptors mediating tactile sensation can be classified on the basis of their receptive fields and
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3 Experimental instrument in which the grip surfaces are exchangeable and the weight can be covaried without any visual changes.
50
the weight, size, and frictional character of the surface of the object. After the loading phase there is a transition phase, in which the lift reaches the final position and the forces are well adjusted to the current properties of the object. In the final static phase the object is held in the air (Figure 3-4). Tactile information triggers different motor commands and links the different phases together. The different types of receptors respond differently during the lift, which has been demonstrated by microneurography from single tactile units innervating the glabrous skin of the fingers. Fast-adapting receptors send bursts of impulses when first touching an object,
1 Year
6 Years
Adult
4N
2N
Position, mm
40 mm
40 N/S
Cerebral Palsy
Grip Force
3N
Load Force
3N
0.2s
Figure 3-4 Superimposed traces of representative lifts performed at different ages and in three children with cerebral palsy with various degree of severity. Grip force, load force, position, and grip force rate are shown as functions of time. When lifting the object, the grip force starts to increase; then the grip force and load force increase until the object starts to move. When the forces overcome gravity, the signal measuring position increases, followed by a static phase when the object is held in the air. (Modified from Forssberg H, Eliasson AC, Kinoshita H, Johansson RS, Westling G [1991]. Development of human precision grip. I. Basic coordination of force. Experimental Brain Research, 85:451457; Forssberg H, Eliasson AC, Redon-Zouiteni C, Mercuri C, Dubowitz L [1999]. Impaired grip-lift synergy in children with unilateral brain lesions. Brain, 122:11571168.)
weight of the object at lift-off, indicating anticipatory controlled movements (Brooks, 1986; Forssberg et al., 1991). Small children also have more variation than adults because they cannot repeatedly produce similar movements. However, 1-year-old children can use tactile and proprioceptive information to adjust the forces by sensory feedback during the static phase. All phases are prolonged, and the different phases are not triggered elegantly as in adults (Forssberg et al., 1995). There is an increased difference between thumb and finger contact, probably because of an immature ability to adjust the finger toward the objects size (von Hofsten & Ronnquist, 1988). This uncoordinated movement in small children is likely attributable to immature motor output and sensory processing. There is rapid development until age 2. The refined coordination then progressively develops until leveling out at ages 4 to 6 and continues gradually until the teenage years, when the lifts are completely adult-like (see Figure 3-4) (Forssberg et al., 1991).
Grip Force 2N
Load Force 2N
8 Months
2 Years
Adult
4N
DIPLEGIA
HEMIPLEGIA
Figure 3-5 Grip force during the preload and the loading phase (before lift-off) is plotted against load force in children of different ages and children with cerebral palsy. Trials are superimposed for each subject. (Modified from Forssberg H, Eliasson AC, Kinoshita, H, Johansson RS, Westling G [1991]. Development of human precision grip. I. Basic coordination of force. Experimental Brain Research, 85:451457; Eliasson AC, Gordon AM, Forssberg H [1991]. Basic coordination of manipulative forces in children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 33:661670.)
52
4 Acceleration (N/s2)
WEIGHT
When the weight of the object is varied but the visual appearance remains constant, adults typically scale the grip and load force rates based on earlier experience of the objects weight. This is indicated by higher grip and load force rates for heavier objects. The forces are decreased at lift-off to harmonize with the weight of the object. The anticipatory mechanism can be further demonstrated when lifting an unexpectedly light object. For example, if one lifts an unopened but empty can of soda, the lift will probably be too high because a heavier can is expected. However, this occurs only once for the same can. Somatosensory information adjusts the forces to the objects actual weight during the static phase and updates the internal representation of the object for a smooth movement the next time the object is lifted. Children cannot handle this type of situation as efficiently as adults. However, despite uncoordinated force generation and large variation of grip and load force rates, 2-year-old children start to scale the forces toward different weights. It takes several years until the anticipatory control of weight is fully developed. Children between the ages of 6 and 8 are nearly adultlike although the variation is still larger than in adults (Figure 3-6). This indicates that anticipatory scaling of forces occurs in conjunction with maturation of coordinated movement (Forssberg et al., 1992).
0
12 24 46 68 t 5 11 ul -1 8Ad 11
Age (yrs)
Figure 3-6 Influence of the 200- and 800-g weight (400 g for 1- to 2-year-old children) in the constant lifting series for peak grip force rate (A) and peak acceleration (B). The means and standard error of means of the individual means for each subject indicate the major changes during development. (Modified from Forssberg H, Kinoshita H, Eliasson AC, Johansson RS, Westling G [1992]. Development of human precision grip. II. Anticipatory control of isometric forces targeted for objects weight. Experimental Brain Research, 90:393398).
SIZE
Anticipatory control also is predicted from visual information about an objects size (Gordon et al., 1991a,b). When the object is kept proportional to the volume,
there are appropriately scaled forces toward the expected weight relative to the volume. When only the size of the object is co-varied and the weight is kept constant, the employed grip force rate is higher for the larger than the smaller object. However, adults and older children perceive the small objects as heavier. This indicates a dichotomy between the perceptual and motor systems because of the size-to-weight illusion (Charpentier, 1891). People predict a big object to be heavier than a small one, yet this is not always true. This understanding of the discrepancy between size and weight and a proper scaling of the motor output starts to develop at 3 years. Children younger than 3 are not able to control the motor output according to size but do use a higher grip force rate for heavier
FRICTION
Tactile influence on the force coordination is available on touching an object, contrary to weight influence, which is not available until lift-off. Tactile information from fingertips triggers prestructured motor commands based on sensorimotor memories and adjusts the force coordination based on the friction of the contact surface. The employed grip forces are different when one holds a slippery bottle than when holding a tool covered with rubber, even if they have the same weight. When contact pads on the test object are altered by exchangeable contact surfaces of silk and sandpaper, the relationship between grip force and load force is changed before lift-off. In adults there is an initial adjustment to the new frictional condition during the first 0.1 second and secondary adjustments during the loading and static phases (Johansson & Westling, 1987). These adjustments are important in establishing an adequate safety margin, which prevents one from dropping the object. The ratio between grip and load force actually used, minus the slip ratio necessary to prevent the object slipping out of the hand, makes up the safety margin. One-year-old children have a larger safety margin than adults. Gradually, the safety margin decreases in conjunction with increased coordination and less variability during the first 5 years (Figure 3-7). Some children of 18 months can scale the grip force based on tactile information in the beginning of the lift. They have a higher grip force for slippery materials than for rough ones during consecutive lifts with the same friction. Several years are necessary before children can handle objects with different frictional surfaces in the same elegant way as adults. Children younger than 6 years of age, sometimes up to 10 or 12 years, need several lifts and a predictable order to adjust the grip force to the current friction and form an internal representation before setting the parameters of the programmed motor output. The difference between adaptation to weight and adaptation to friction is that frictional conditions appear directly upon touching the object, whereas weight information is likely more crucial for anticipatory control because the weight is not available until lift-off. Grip forces of high amplitude
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
5 10 -1 611
Ad
ul
Age (yrs)
Figure 3-7 The mean and standard deviation of individual means of the safety margin for lifts with sandpaper and silk plotted for different age groups. The safety margin is expressed in percent of the slip ratio. Significant differences are indicated by an asterisk (p < 0.05). (Modified from Eliasson AC, Gordon AM, Forssberg H [1995]. Tactile control of isometric finger forces during grasping in children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 37:7284.)
are a useful compensatory strategy to avoid dropping objects (Forssberg et al., 1995).
54
(1986) has described deficit in shaping the fingers toward the size of the object in patients with damage to the parietal area. The maturation of control mechanisms for the grasping movement continues throughout childhood. All measured parameters rapidly develop during the first years. Force coordination is poorly developed in 1year-old children; for example, they usually crush an ice cream cone, whereas children of 2 years manage quite well. There is a continuum of improvement of the parallel generation of grip and load forces as well as scaling of the forces toward the objects different weight and friction. In 4-year-old children the motor output becomes less varied and more coordinated, in conjunction with a decreased safety margin. Children have more coordinated and adjusted movements and are able, for example, to carry a kitten and handle fragile objects. At that age there is even force scaling to the size of the object. However, the appropriate anticipatory scaling with acceleration of the lift to harmonize with the weight of the object is not developed until 6 to 8 years of age. Even so, there are still large variations in the ability to properly scale the forces according to frictional demands. It is not until ages 10 to 12 that scaling approaches adult levels. Efficient control of finger movements continues to develop until adolescence, when children can learn to play musical instruments and develop good handwriting with accurate speed. Obviously, there is parallel processing of cognitive functions and sensorimotor control during normal development. The maturation processes probably occur at many levels. Both the motor cortex and corticospinal tract with monosynaptic connections are important for precision grip and are highly related to force generation. In monkeys the monosynaptic projections to the spinal cord are not fully developed until the end of the first year (Lawrence & Hopkins, 1976). Myelination of the axons and increased conduction rate of cortical motor neuronal activity develop over several years and probably influence the temporal parameters of the lift (Muller, Hornberg, & Lenard, 1991). Because many areas of the brain are apparently involved in the grasping act, its full development obviously depends on establishment of appropriate synaptic connections between the cortex and all other areas associated with the act. These maturation processes are shown by reorganization of reflex responses with more efficient and faster triggering, which continues until adolescence (Evans, Harrison, & Stephens, 1990; Forssberg et al., 1991; Issler & Stephens, 1983). There are cortical networks mediating monosynaptic corticospinal projections to the motor neurons controlling distal muscles (Fetz & Cheney, 1980; Muir & Lemon, 1983), which
FORCE COORDINATION
When making a lift, the temporal pattern is rarely impaired in children with ADHD regardless of whether or not the ADHD is accompanied by DCD (Pereira et al., 2000); for children with CP, it is almost always disturbed to some degree. In these children the difference in the time at which the first finger or thumb makes contact with the object and the time at which the second finger makes contact is larger than in typically developing children, indicating disturbed coordination of finger movement and shaping of the fingers toward the size of the object, although there is a great deal of variation within the group, from almost as good
56
CP
T2 T3
6N
F4 F5
F6 F3
30 N/S 4N 60 N/S
F2
60 mm 50 mm/s
Velocity Acceleration
F1 F1
2 mm/s2 1 sec
Figure 3-8 Grip force from the index finger (ind) and thumb (th), grip force rate, load force, load force rate, vertical position, velocity, and acceleration as a function of time for representative trials during object replacement and release for one child in the control group and one child with hemiplegia. The grip and load force rates are shown using a 20 point numerical differentiation. Vertical lines indicate the initiation of vertical displacement (T0), object contact with the table (T1), release of one digit (T2) and then the opposing digit (T3). The measured force parameters are shown by arrows indicating peak velocity (F1), peak load force rate corresponding to table contact (F2), minimum grip force rate (F3), grip force at replacement (F4), grip force at table contact (F5), and grip force at load force zero (F6) (dashed line in the right traces). (Modified from Eliasson AC, Gordon AM [2000]. Impaired force coordination during object release in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine in Child Neurology, 42:228234.)
succeed. By analyzing her performance in the light of the knowledge that the hand of the child with hemiplegic CP has impaired force coordination, the therapist was able to give the girl precise information. The therapist recognized that although she appeared to be slow when replacing the horse, she was not slow enough in the crucial part of the actionwhen she had to loosen her grasp. That part had to be performed even more slowly, and she was able to succeed by increasing her awareness of that part of the movement sequence. Normally this behavior is performed in an unconscious way (i.e., by implicit processes) (Gentile, 1998). However, after a lesion has occurred in the CNS, it may be necessary to use an explicit process, at least in the early stage of learning. Knowledge about normal and abnormal behavior and the ability to analyze the task made it possible to give precise instructions. The idea was to help the child to learn how her impaired nervous system works and give her a strategy that could enable her to perform this task successfully; then she might be able to use the same strategy when releasing other objects in different situations (Eliasson, 2005).
58
force applied during the isometric force coordination, making the performance unpredictable and, of course, inconvenient for daily life. This is a common feature in the early development of all children, including children with different diagnoses (Eliasson et al., 1991; Brogren, Forssberg, & Hadders-Algra, 2001; Pereira et al., 2000). A way of solving this problem is to increase the safety margin to prevent objects from being dropped. This compensatory behavior was obvious in all the children with CP who were investigated. It is evidently a successful compensatory strategy for those with impaired sensory processing, lack of anticipatory control, and slow adaptation (Eliasson et al., 1995). However, it does make it difficult to handle fragile objects because there is a danger that the object will be crushed, and it also makes it difficult for children with CP to handle heavy objects because, in this case, a high level of force is needed and weakness is a common problem in children with CP. The question that needs to be addressed is: How can children with sensory dysfunction learn to handle objects as efficiently as possible? Sensory information is crucial for the performance of precise movements. Tactile information is the most important information for discrete finger movements, whereas proprioception is more important for reaching in different directions and handling objects of different weights. Tasks in which tactile information is crucial are, for example, buttoning up a shirt, picking raspberries, and opening a door with a key. For many bimanual tasks, having intact sensibility in only one hand does not terribly influence the task performance because people usually hold the object (an action requiring less sensory information) with their impaired hand and manipulate (requires efficient tactile regulation) with their dominant hand (Krumlinde-Sundholm & Eliasson, 2002). However, an important compensation for tactile disturbance is to use visual information. Vision strongly influences manipulatory actions and should not be overlooked when attempts are made to gain a deeper understanding of how the somatosensory systems influence manipulatory actions. The ability to use visual information as a form of compensation was seen when the results of hand surgery were evaluated. Children with CP and impaired sensibility tended to benefit more or at least as much from upper limb surgery as measured by a timed dexterity task than children with intact sensibility (Figure 3-9) (Eliasson, Ekholm, & Carlstedt, 1998). This probably has something to do with the ability to see the grasp being performed after surgery because before the surgery was performed, the hand was pronated, the wrist was flexed, and the thumb was in-palm, making it impossible to see the grasping act as it was conducted. After surgery, in contrast, the hand was more extended and supinated
Figure 3-9 Dexterity, in seconds when moving 10 cubes and placing them on the opposite side of a vertical border on the table. Individual results of 11 subjects with normal two-point discrimination (2PD) and 14 with impaired 2PD before and after surgery. 2PD: 3 to 4 mm was tested for in a randomized order, their fingers were touched with a distinct but light touch with one or two points, 10 times on each finger. Before examination, the task was demonstrated for them to see and feel the differences between one and two points on both hands. Normal 2PD required at least eight correct answers on two of three digits. The time decreased 14.5 s (md) compared with 9 s (md) for children with normal sensation. (Modified from Eliasson A.C, Ekholm C, Carlstedt T [1998]. Hand function in children with cerebral palsy after upper-limb tendon transfer and muscle. Developmental Medicine in Child Neurology, 40:612621.)
and the thumb was able to meet the fingers, making it possible to use vision to compensate for impaired sensibility. This may indicate that impaired sensation could be an indication for surgery, at least from one perspective. This is opposite to what commonly is recommended but has to be considered. One other important way to compensate for lack of control that should not be overlooked is to concentrate and pay deliberate attention to the performance of the task. The compensatory strategies are crucial, but they often make the children slower.
SUMMARY
Motor controlmeaning how the CNS controls movementis complex, but by understanding the principles of how movements are organized, it is possible to use the knowledge that has been gained to plan intervention. By using this perspective we can help children to learn more about themselves and help them find more efficient ways to use their possibilities rather than focusing on the impaired or odd movement. An important perspective to put across is that there is nothing
REFERENCES
Alstermark B, Gorska R, Lundberg A, Pettersson LG, Walkowska M (1987). Effect of different spinal cord lesions on visually guided switching of target-reaching cats. Neuroscience Research, 5:6367. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association. Barkley RA (1990). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a handbook for diagnosis and treatment. New York, Guilford Press. Bernstein N (1967). The coordination and regulation of movements. Oxford, Pergamon. Brogren E, Forssberg H, Hadders-Algra M (2001). Influence of two different sitting positions on postural adjustments in children with spastic diplegia. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 43:534546. Brooks VB (1986). The neural basis of motor control. New York, Oxford University Press. Brown IK, van Rensburg F, Walsh G, Lakie M, Wright GW (1987). A neurological study of hand function of hemiplegic children. Developmental Medicine and Child
60
Forssberg H, Eliasson AC, Redon-Zouiteni C, Mercuri C, Dubowitz L (1999). Impaired grip-lift synergy in children with unilateral brain lesions. Brain, 122:11571168. Forssberg H, Grillner S, Halbertsma J (1980). The locomotion of the spinal cat. I. Coordination within a hind limb. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 108:269281. Forssberg H, Grillner S, Halbertsma J, Rossignol S (1980). The locomotion of the spinal cat. II. Interlimb coordination. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 108:283295. Forssberg H, Kinoshita H, Eliasson AC, Johansson RS, Westling G (1992). Development of human precision grip. II. Anticipatory control of isometric forces targeted for objects weight. Experimental Brain Research, 90:393398. Forssberg H, Kinoshita H, Eliasson AC, Johansson RS, Westling G (1995). Development of human precision grip IV: Tactile adaptation of isometric finger forces to the frictional condition. Experimental Brain Research, 104:323330. Gentile A (1998). Implicit and explicit processes during acquisition of functional skills. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 5:716. Ghez C, Gordon J, Ghilardi MF, Christakos CN, Coper SE (1990). Roles of proprioceptive input in the programming of arm trajectories. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 55:837847. Gordon AM, & Duff SV (1999). Fingertip forces in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. I: Anticipatory scaling. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 41:166175. Gordon AM, Forssberg H, Johansson RS, Eliasson AC, & Westling G (1992). Development of human precision grip. III. Integration of visual size cues during the programming of isometric forces. Experimental Brain Research, 90:399403. Gordon AM, Forssberg H, Johansson RS, Westling G (1991a). The integration of haptically acquired size information in the programming of precision grip. Experimental Brain Research, 83:483488. Gordon AM, Forssberg H, Johansson RS, Westling G (1991b). Visual size cues in the programming of manipulative forces during precision grip. Experimental Brain Research, 83:477482. Grillner S, Wallen P, Brodin L (1991). Neural network generating locomotor behavior in lamprey: Circuitry, transmitters, membrane properties and simulation. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 14:169199. Henderson SE, Sugden DA (1992). Movement assessment battery for children. New York, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Ingram TTS (1966). The neurology of cerebral palsy. Archives of the Diseases of Childhood, 41:337357. Issler H, Stephens JA (1983). The maturation of cutaneous reflexes studied in the upper limb in man. Journal of Physiology, 335:643654. Jeannerod M (1986). The formation of finger grip during prehension. A cortically mediated visuomotor pattern. Behavioural Brain Research, 19:305319. Johansson RS, Vallbo B (1983). Tactile sensory coding in the glabrous skin of the human hand. Trends in Neurosciences, 6:2732. Johansson RS, Westling G (1984). Influence of cutaneous sensory input on the motor coordination during precision manipulation. In C von Euler, O Franzen, U Lindblom,
Chapter
Sharon A. Cermak
CHAPTER OUTLINE
DEVELOPMENT OF HAPTIC PERCEPTION Haptic Perception in Infants Haptic Perception in Children Gender and Hand Differences in Haptic Recognition and Haptic Accuracy Summary and Implications for Practice FUNCTIONS CONTRIBUTING TO HAPTIC PERCEPTION Role of Somatosensory Sensation in Haptic Perception Role of Manual Manipulation and Exploratory Strategies in Haptic Perception Role of Vision and Cognition in Haptic Perception Summary and Implications for Practice EVALUATION OF HAPTIC PERCEPTION IN INFANTS AND CHILDREN HAPTIC PERCEPTION IN CHILDREN WITH DISORDERS Prematurity Mental Retardation Brain Injury Learning Disabilities and Related Disorders Summary and Implications for Practice SUMMARY The hand has two closely related functions: It is both an executive and a perceptual organ (Bushnell & Boudreau, 1998; Gibson, 1988; Hatwell, Streri, & Gentaz, 2003; Lederman & Klatzky, 1998). As an executive organ it is
used for carrying out everyday activities such as tying shoes or buttoning. As a perceptual organ it seeks and processes information such as when searching for a coin in a pocket. The two functions of the hand are closely intertwined. Rochat (1989) emphasized that
from the origin of development, action is under some perceptual or sensorimotor control and the picking up of perceptual information is somehow inherent in any performed act (p. 871).
However, when the hand performs a practical action, its perceptual functioning is regulated by what is needed to achieve this action, whereas when the hand acts primarily as a perceptual system, its motor activity is primarily exploratory and information seeking. This chapter concerns the hand as a perceptual or information-seeking organ. Focus is on active touch (haptic perception) rather than passive touch. Passive touch involves only the excitation of receptors in the skin and underlying tissue;
active touch involves the concomitant excitation of receptors in the joints and tendons along with new and changing patterns in the skin (Gibson, 1962, p. 482).
Haptic perception deals with the retrieval, analysis, and interpretation of the tactile properties (e.g., size, shape, texture) and identity of objects through manual and in-hand manipulation (Bushnell & Boudreau, 1993; Hatwell, 2003). The process of tactile scanning is complex and includes the blending of feedback from tactile,
63
64
kinesthetic, and proprioceptive sensations. The tactile spatial properties of objects are obtained through the retrieval of information about the relationship of the objects to the body and gravity during active manual exploration. The study of haptic perception has been closely associated with the study of visual perception. Researchers have attempted to gain insight into how we use our visual and haptic senses to function by comparing the ability to match objects through the use of vision and haptic manipulation. These studies typically require the subject to match a standard (test) object to a set of two or more comparison objects. If the subject is asked to do an intramodal comparison, both the standard and comparison objects are analyzed using the same sensory modality (visual or haptic sense). If the subject is asked to do an intermodal comparison, the standard object is analyzed using one sense and the comparison object(s) are analyzed using the other sense. In this chapter research methodology is specied as containing intramodal or intermodal matching, whereas the senses used appear in parentheses (standard comparison). For example, intermodal (haptic-visual) matching means that the haptic sense was used to analyze the standard or test object and the visual sense was used to select from among the comparison objects. The term multimodal exploration refers to the simultaneous use of the visual and haptic senses in object investigation. In this chapter the review of intramodal matching (matching using the same sensory system) is limited to haptic-haptic matching in which the subject feels the standard or test object and then feels several comparison objects to nd the match. One goal of this chapter is to provide the reader with an understanding of selected aspects of haptic perception that may influence effective evaluation and treatment of children with suspected and identied impairments in haptic perception. Topics covered include the development of haptic perception, functions contributing to haptic perception, evaluation of haptic perception in infants and children, and haptic perception in children with neurologic disorders. The adult literature has been included to the degree to which it assists our understanding of the current status of the pediatric research.
They also noted that the infants held the objects for relatively long periods, as much as ve times as long as they would have been expected to visually attend to an object. Because these 4-month-old infants were so competent at identifying objects tactually and visually, Streri and colleagues (Streri, 2003a; Streri & Spelke, 1988) questioned Piagets theory that vision and touch become integrated through haptic exploration of objects and suggested that this ability may be present without substantial experience in handling objects. In a recent study of cross-modal recognition in newborns, Streri and Gentaz (2004) have even suggested that under some limited conditions, newborns have the ability to extract shape in a tactile format and transfer it to a visual format, independent of common experience. Molina and Jouen (1998, 2001, 2003) also reported that newborns can discriminate between rough and soft textures and modify their grasping according to the texture of the grasped object.
surfaces containing one or two holes or having openings or closings on their outer edges. These authors found that the ability of children to identify objects and shapes by touch progressively improved with increased age. Children 212 to 312 years of age were able to correctly recognize common objects but were unable to identify shapes. By 312 to 5 years of age children developed the ability to match topologic forms. Recognition of geometric gures emerged at 4 to 412 years with the ability to differentiate curvilinear (circle and ellipse) from rectilinear (square and rectangle) shapes. The ability to recognize geometric gures in greater numbers and levels of complexity was shown to progressively improve from 412 to 7 years of age. Benton and Schultz (1949) also studied intermodal (haptic-visual) matching of common objects in a group of 156 3- to 5-year-old children and found that performance progressively improved with age. Three-yearold children typically were able to recognize 50% of the items presented (mean 4.0 out of eight items). Fouryear-old children performed only slightly better than children in the 3-year-old age group (mean = 4.5). Near-perfect performance typically was found by 5 years of age, with most children correctly recognizing at least seven of the eight objects presented. Hoop (1971a) also studied intermodal (hapticvisual) matching at 312 to 512 years. Like Piaget and Inhelder, Hoop found the identication of common objects to be easier than the recognition of topologic forms and geometric gures. There was little variation in the ability of 312- to 512-year-old children to match topologic forms (means ranging from 2.3 to 2.6 out of a maximum score of 4). Miller (1971) reported a similar nding. The 3- and 4-year-old children in her study were able to identify fewer than half of the intermodally (haptic-visual matching) and intramodally (haptic-haptic matching) presented shapes. Like Piaget and Inhelder, Hoop found the recognition of topologic forms through intermodal (haptic-visual) matching to be easier than the identication of geometric gures. However, this has not been a consistent nding (Derevensky, 1979). Derevensky (1979) suggested that listing shapes as topologic or geometric may be an incorrect method of categorization, and suggested that it may not be whether a shape is topologic or geometric but the nature of the distinctive features that it contains that contributes to task difculty. Another interesting nding was reported by Abravanel (1972), who noted that, in a series of intermodal (haptic-visual matching conditions, it was easier for 6- to 8-year-old children to identify solid (threedimensional) than flat (two-dimensional) geometric gures. She attributed this to possible variation in the usefulness of the manipulation strategies used by the children in shape exploration. This topic is discussed in depth in a later section of this chapter.
66
Recently, Bushnell and Baxt (1999) examined haptic recognition of familiar versus unfamiliar objects. They found that 5-year-old children more accurately identied familiar than unfamiliar objects; however, this varied as a function of whether the matching was haptic-haptic or haptic-visual. For unfamiliar objects, haptic-haptic matching was more accurate than hapticvisual matching, whereas there was no difference for familiar objects. Familiar objects were identied more accurately than unfamiliar objects in a haptic-visual matching task, but there was no difference as a function of familiarity in the haptic-haptic matching task. A limitation of the study is that a ceiling effect was reached for familiar objects, with many participants achieving maximum scores. There is general agreement that the haptic perception of common objects is well developed by 5 years of age, and the ability of children to select geometric gures through intermodal (haptic-visual) matching emerges at about 4 years of age (Abravanel, 1972; Blank & Bridger, 1964; Hoop, 1971a; Micallef & May, 1979; Piaget & Inhelder, 1948/1967). Like the nding of Piaget and Inhelder, all of these studies have noted improvement in accuracy with increasing age. Moreover, with increasing age, children change their representation of objects from one based primarily on global shape to one that incorporates a balance of global shape and specic local parts (analytical mode) (Berger & Hatwell, 1993, 1995; Morrongiello et al., 1994). However, whereas some researchers reported that young children primarily used global strategies to categorize objects, others found that both children and adults primarily used analytic modes (Schwarzer, Kufer, & Willkening, 1999). Within this mode, Schwarzer found a developmental sequence in the attribute chosen for categorization of objects. They found that focusing on surface texture decreased with age and focusing on shape increased with age. Thus children preferred substance-related attributes, especially surface texture, whereas adults preferred the structure-related attributes, especially shape. This was consistent with Berger and Hatwell (1993), who also found a preference for surface texture as an analytic attribute.
Research generally has shown that boys and girls 3 to 14 years old display equal ability to recognize common objects, shapes, and words through intramodal (haptichaptic) and intermodal (haptic-visual) matching (Abravanel, 1970; Affleck & Joyce, 1979; Ayres, 1989; Benton et al., 1983; Benton & Schultz, 1949; Bushnell & Baxt, 1999; Ciof & Kandel, 1979; Cronin, 1977; Etaugh & Levy, 1981; Gliner, 1967; Klein & Roseneld, 1980; Kleinman, 1979; Witelson, 1976; Wolff, 1972). Occasionally boys have been identied as exhibiting greater skill than girls in the intramodal (haptic-haptic) matching of objects by texture, size, and shape (Gliner, 1967). In addition, Siegel and Barber (1973) found boys to display a stronger preference than girls for the use of form over texture in the intramodal (haptic-haptic) matching of shapes. Most studies conducted on normal adults have shown there to be no difference in the overall accuracy of haptic perception between men and women (Cronin, 1977; Kleinman, 1979; McGlone, 1980). When handedness is examined, children often display greater left- than right-hand skill in some forms of haptic perception (Hahn, 1987; Rose et al., 1998); however, the strength and age of onset of this difference vary among studies (Streri, 2003c). The nding of greater left- than right-hand skill on some tasks, particularly those requiring discrimination of meaningless shapes, has been viewed as related to right hemisphere superiority in the processing of spatial information (e.g., Witelson, 1974, 1976). In a recent meta-analysis of cerebral specialization of spatial abilities, Vogel, Bowers, and Vogel (2003) found a right-hemisphere preference when subjects were performing spatial orientation and manual manipulation tasks. However, because the age of onset of rightleft hand differences varied widely across studies, it is inappropriate to interpret the presence or absence of a hand difference for stereognosis as being related to the maturity of hemispheric specialization for haptic perception in a given child. Consistent evidence of a rightleft hand difference for stereognosis did not appear until adolescence.
68
2 months of age. Intermodal transfer of information between the haptic and visual senses begins at 4 to 6 months, although recent evidence suggests that even newborns have limited ability. This means that by the second half of the rst year of life infants can explore an object using the hand and then recognize the same object as being similar or different using vision. Haptic perception improves with increasing age. Children nd common objects easier to haptically recognize than topologic forms, geometric gures, or unfamiliar objects. At 212 years, children can identify many common objects through use of the haptic sense. Haptic recognition of common objects reaches full maturity by about 5 years. Intramodal (haptic) and intermodal (haptic and visual) identication of topologic forms and geometric shapes emerges at 3 to 4 years and continues to develop throughout childhood. With increasing age children are able to match forms or shapes having increasingly complex distinctive features. They also are able to move from recognizing only solid (three-dimensional) shapes to being able to also distinguish flat (two-dimensional) gures. Hapticvisual matching generally is better than visual-haptic matching. Thus in developing a program to enhance childrens haptic matching abilities it is best to start with familiar objects, with haptic-visual matching preceding visual-haptic matching. Like adults, children show greater left than right hand skill in some forms of haptic perception, possibly reflecting specialization of the right hemisphere for the processing of spatial information. However, the age at which hand preference for haptic processing emerges varies across studies. Although some authors suggest that haptic perception may be better in boys than girls, most studies have not found a difference. The literature contains less information about the development of sensory properties such as texture and weight in childhood. It is known that children nd rough textures easier to match than smooth textures. The development of texture discrimination improves between 4 and 9 years, in part because tactile sensitivity increases during this time span (Gliner, 1967). The discrimination of diameter and length begins at about 4 years and continues into adolescence, with variation in diameter being easier to recognize than variation in length. Children as young as 3 to 4 years can recognize the spatial orientation of an object when the child or object has been rotated, but it is not until 5 to 6 years that children can haptically identify objects as facing up, down, or rotated. Childrens ability to haptically analyze objects having two or more tactile properties is limited. Rather than analyzing several sensory properties simultaneously as adults do, children appear to select one sensory property to use in object analysis. The sensory
motor coordination are thought to be related, in part, to the processing of tactile, kinesthetic, and proprioceptive sensations for their execution (Brooks, 1986; Case-Smith, 1995; Case-Smith, Bigsby, & Clutter, 1998; Duque et al., 2003; Gordon & Duff, 1999; Johansson & Westling, 1988, 1990).
70
commonly produced actively, through the use of manual manipulation and exploratory strategies. This raises the question of how the pattern of tactile feedback generated by variation in the pattern of manual and in-hand manipulation affects the accuracy of object identication. In recent years several researchers have attempted to answer this question; their ndings are discussed in the following section. See Chapter 8 for a detailed discussion of in-hand manipulation. Because most of the research on this topic has been done on adults, this section begins with a summary of the adult research followed by a review of the pediatric literature.
Table 4-1
STRUCTURE
Weight Volume Global shape Exact shape Unsupported holding Enclosure; contour following Enclosure Contour following
FUNCTION
Part motion Specic function Part motion test Function test
Data from Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL (1987). Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 19:342368.
BOX 4-1
Most Effective Strategies Used for Identication of Tactile Properties (Other Than Recognition of Shape)
1. Texture: lateral motion (moving the nger across the surface of the object) 2. Hardness: pressure 3. Weight: unsupported holding* 4. Volume: enclosure (gripping) 5. Temperature: static contact
*Jiggling while holding the object aided in the discrimination of weight. Brodie EE, Ross HE (1985). Jiggling a lifted weight does aid discrimination. American Journal of Psychology, 98:469471.
of shape and size. When pouches needed to be simultaneously sorted by two or three properties, the manipulation strategies were combined, with lateral motion and pressure often being merged into a single nger movement. When the properties of texture and shape needed to be analyzed, adults appeared to search for cues about texture before they searched for cues about the objects shape (Lederman, Brown, & Klatzky, 1988). Subjects showed a preference for manipulation strategies that could simultaneously
72
serve both transport and support functions, bringing the object alternately into the oral zone and the eld of view for exploration. Ruff (1989) described a dual role of handling: the hands make information available to the eyes as the object is manipulated at the same time that the hands directly gather haptic information. In the rst role the hands are used to manipulate the object and change the objects location relative to the observer, such as turning the object around to provide different visual perspectives. In the second role the hands gather haptic information about the object, such as by pressing the object to determine its substance or rubbing a nger across the object to determine its texture or shape. Based on their developmental work, Bushnell and Boudreau (1991, 1993, 1998) suggested that the motoric capacities needed to perform exploratory procedures limit haptic perception in the young infant. In conjunction with the early development of multimodal exploration, the characteristics of object manipulation change from 2 to 5 months. At 2 to 3 months the infants manipulative behaviors are primarily limited to grasping movements, potentially informing the infant about the objects substance, temperature, and size (Bushnell & Boudreau, 1991, 1993). Although slight nger movements are produced at 2 months, by 4 months the occurrence of ngering behavior increases signicantly (Rochat, 1989). Because discrimination of texture requires isolated nger movements, texture discrimination does not begin until around 6 months of age. Before this, when both hands are involved in contacting an object, it is primarily for transporting the object to the mouth. Rochat (1989) noted that in young infants (2 to 4 months) bimanual coordination is initially linked to the oral system. This observation points to the importance of the mouth in the early manifestation of bimanual action in the context of object manipulation. The handmouth coordination seen in the 2- to 4-month-old infant is later combined with vision when behaviors such as ngering emerge. To more thoroughly assess how infants use object handling skills to gain information for recognition of specic object qualities, Ruff (1984) studied 6-, 9-, and 12-month-old infants and assessed the various manipulation strategies they used, including mouthing, ngering, transferring, banging, and object rotation. Fingering proliferated with increased age, particularly with objects that varied in texture. Ruff suggested that this ngering can be crucial for obtaining information about small object details. Hand use for object rotation also was noted to change, with all infants using a onehanded rotation pattern, in which the arm or wrist moves, but only older infants using two-handed object rotations. Ruff suggested that two-handed rotation can be particularly useful because with rotation the object does not have some parts covered by the hand. She
Perceptual Functions of the Hand 73 BOX 4-2 Actions Used by Infants in Object Exploration
Table 4-2
Grasping Banging Fingering Mouthing Switching (hand to hand) Squeezing Rubbing Pressing Poking Slapping Scooting Dropping
Age Range
212 to 4 years
and foam covered). Results indicated that infants made use of both object properties and table surface properties. For example, infants banged more on the wood surface. Age differences in actions were also noted. Palmer suggested that these differences may reflect developing action economy (e.g., waving the bell with a flick of the wrist rather than with the whole arm swing seen in younger infants), new exploratory systems (e.g., changing from mouthing to waving and banging), and increasing ne motor control (e.g., nger individuation). Case-Smith and co-workers (1998) examined 120 2- to 12-month-old infants and also found that infants grasp and manipulation strategies varied as a function of the objects haptic attributes (size, shape, contour, movable parts) and the childs age. They found that objects with movable parts elicited more varied and mature manipulation strategies and suggested that objects with movable parts and multidimensional surfaces facilitate haptic development and motor skill by affording the infant a variety of surfaces to explore and by sustaining the infants interest (p. 108). Research suggests that even infants younger than 6 months detect an objects perceptual features that enable particular actions (affordances) for hand and mouth. Rochat (1983, 1987) found that neonates showed differential oral and manual responding to objects varying in substance and texture. In a study of 3-month-old infants, Rochat (1989) noted that the characteristics of manual manipulation and exploration by the infant reflected some relation to the physical properties and affordances of the object (Box 4-2).
4 to 5 years
5 to 6 years
6 to 7 years
developmental progression in the acquisition of manipulation strategies, with the accuracy of object identication being related to the level of sophistication of the haptic manipulation strategies (Abravanel, 1968b; Hatwell, 2003; Hoop, 1971b; Jennings, 1974; Kleinman, 1979; Wolff, 1972; Zaporozhets, 1965, 1969). The description of the developmental progression of haptic discrimination of common objects and shapes in Table 4-2 is a summary of the work conducted by Piaget and Inhelder (1948/1967) and Zaporozhets (1965, 1969). Whereas haptic strategies of the 2- to 4-year-old child consist primarily of grasping the object, by age 6 to 7 years systematic exploration with contour following is noted. Abravanel (1968b) provided a description of the developmental progression in haptic manipulation of size (length) that was strikingly similar to that identied
74
If children want: To compare two objects for texture, they use a lateral motion, often with the index nger. To compare hardness, they use pressure. To examine temperature, they use static contact. To examine volume of three-dimensional objects, they tend to embrace the object. To compare weight, they tend to hold the object in their hand and lift it from the surface.
Hatwell Y (2003). Manual exploratory procedures in children. In Y Hatwell, A Streri, E Gentaz (editors): Touching for knowing (pp. 6782). Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing; Klatzky RL, Lederman SJ (2003). The haptic identication of everyday life objects. In Y Hatwell, A Streri, E Gentaz (editors): Touching for knowing (pp. 105122). Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing; Klatzky RL, Lederman SJ, Metzger VA (1985). Identifying objects by touch: An expert system. Perception and Psychophysics, 37:299302; Streri AF (2003a). Manual exploration and haptic perception in infants. In Y Hatwell, AF Streri, E Gentaz (editors): Touching for knowing (pp. 5166). Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
for the analysis of common objects and shapes. She found that the youngest children in her study (3 to 5 years) typically used the palm of the hand, grasping and palpating the objects. By 5 years the children held the ends of the bar used for evaluating length. From 5 through 8 years children used the whole hand (palm with progressively increasing use of the ngers) for manipulation of the bar and displayed a systematic method of determining length. By 9 years, use of the palm was no longer seen; the ngers and ngertips were used for exploration. Researchers have shown that the manipulation strategy used by the child or adult varies as a function of the information to extract (Box 4-3) (Hatwell, 2003; Klatzky & Lederman, 2003; Klatzky, Lederman, & Metzger, 1985; Streri, 2003a). In summary, the results of studies that address analysis of strategies used in the recognition of common objects, shapes, and sizes, including lengths, suggest that manipulation strategies become more complex with increasing age, a maturational change that seems to contribute to the accuracy of haptic object recognition. The structural characteristics of the test materials influence the time spent in haptic exploration, perhaps because they contribute to task difculty or they affect the complexity of manipulation strategies needed for object exploration. The effect of object characteristics on the use of manipulation strategies has been extensively addressed in infants, and
Cognition
The development of infants and young childrens exploration of the environment is linked to their understanding and knowledge about the world (Bushnell & Boudreau, 1998; McLinden & McCall, 2002). Because cognition and vision are closely linked in haptic object identication, it is difcult to categorize certain functions, such as mental imagery, that involve both cognition and vision. The ability to use cognitive strategies (mental imagery and verbalization) to aid in haptic object recognition develops during childhood. Piaget and Inhelder (1948/1967) considered the ability to distinguish objects through the use of touch to be an external reflection of ones capacity to transform tactile properties of objects into visual images (integrate visual and haptic information), although recently this view has been questioned. This ability to use visual imagery to improve haptic recognition and memory of objects is thought to contribute to childrens ability to recognize objects on tests of haptic perception and reproduce objects through drawing. In fact, research has shown that adults with high spatial ability and skill in
76
mental imagery perform signicantly better than their less skilled peers on tests of haptic perception (McCormick & Mouw, 1983). Verbalization (labeling of the haptic properties of objects) also has been found to aid in haptic object identication. Bailes and Lambert (1986) compared the ability of adults who were sighted and blind to determine if four segments of a stimulus gure matched a completed geometric design. The subjects who were sighted were faster and more accurate than the subjects who were blind. Adult subjects who used verbalization had better haptic accuracy scores than subjects who used a mixture of verbalization and mental imagery. Subjects who solely used mental imagery displayed the lowest haptic accuracy scores. Thus in some tasks, verbalization may be a more effective strategy than mental imagery, although both may be benecial. The ability to use cognitive strategies (mental imagery and verbalization) to aid in haptic object recognition develops during childhood. Children 3 to 6 years of age often could not describe the strategies that they used to aid in haptic object identication (Blank & Bridger, 1964). By the fourth grade several solely used verbalization or mental imagery, whereas most relied on a mixture of verbalization and visual imagery to aid in haptic object identication (Ford, 1973). Adults were evenly mixed in their isolated use of verbalization and mental imagery, and combined use of the two cognitive strategies (Bailes & Lambert, 1986). Alexander, Johnson, and Schreiber (2002) examined the effect of 4- to 9-year-old childrens domain-specic knowledge on their performance in haptic comparison task. Children with varying levels of knowledge about dinosaurs haptically explored pairs of familiar (dinosaur) and unfamiliar (sea creature) models and were asked to state whether or not the pairs were identical. Older children correctly identied more pairs than younger children and explored models more exhaustively. Although dinosaur knowledge did not affect overall performance, it did affect the types of explorations that to some extent resulted in increased errors. Specically, after exploring the rst object, children with high knowledge about dinosaurs tended to form an initial hypothesis (e.g., based on one feature such as the beak) and then sought evidence to conrm this initial hypothesis by primarily exploring just the beak of the possible matches. In doing this, they ignored or failed to seek out evidence (e.g., exploring the dinosaurs feet) that did not conrm their hypothesis.
called top-down processing. Thus providing a cue such as this is a fruit, in advance of giving the child an object to manipulate may result in improved performance.
78
which the child feels a geometric shape without the use of vision and points to its visual counterpart from among a set of choices. The second aspect of the test is a haptic-haptic intramodal matching task in which the child feels a geometric shape with one hand and explores a set of ve shapes to nd its match with the other hand. The MFP test is a complex task that, when used in conjunction with the SIPT, contributes to identication of various problems including haptic perception, form and space perception decit across sensory systems, problems in visualization, and somatodyspraxia. The haptic-haptic matching component of the test also reflects functional integration of the two sides of the body (Ayres, 1989). In the graphesthesia test (GRA) of the SIPT, the examiner draws a design on the back of the childs hand and the child must reproduce that design with his or her nger. This is not truly a haptic perception task because the tactile input is received passively not through active manipulation. Nevertheless it is similar to many haptic perception tasks because the child needs to interpret designs received through moving touch applied to the hand and then signify knowledge of the design by a motor response. As with tests of haptic perception, ne motor coordination and motor planning abilities are necessary for optimal test performance (Ayres, 1989). Another standardized test that includes aspects of haptic perception is The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery: Childrens Revision (Golden, 1987), a 149-item test battery designed to assess a broad range of neuropsychological functions in children ages 8 to 12 years. There are 11 different scales, one of which assesses tactile functions. The 16 items on this scale assess tactile localization, tactile discrimination, intensity, tactile spatial discrimination, direction of movement, identication of traced shapes and numbers, and identication of objects. The specic items on the Tactile Function Scale that address aspects of haptic perception include two items that assess stereognosis, in which the examiner places an object (quarter, key, paper clip, and eraser) in the childs hand and the child must name the object. If word-nding difculties are suspected, the examiner can place the four objects in front of the child along with four other objects and ask the child to point to the object he or she just felt. There are also four items that are similar to the graphesthesia test of the SIPT. In these items the child is required to recognize a cross, triangle, and circle drawn on the back of his or her wrist with a pencil. There are two items in which a number is written on the back of the wrist. In these items the child needs to know only that a number was drawn and need not identify the specic number. An overall score is provided for the Tactile Function Scale. Although there is not a specic score
80
able to gain knowledge about the shape of an object by feeling it and mouthing it and that they are able to make this information available to the visual system. They were able to do this even after only 30 seconds of handling or mouthing of the object. On the other hand, preterm infants did not seem to know that the object they saw was the same object they were exploring with their hand or mouth. Overall, preterm infants were limited in acquiring information; they showed evidence of difculty perceiving passive touch and effectively using active touch to explore their world. Interestingly, lower-income full-term infants also showed poorer haptic-visual integration than did full-term middle-income infants. Recognition memory also has been studied in premature infants (Rose, 1983; Rose et al., 1988), who were found to have longer initial exposures and less recovery with novelty, indicating slower and perhaps less complete information processing. Poor haptic perception appears to be long lasting. Two follow-up studies examined the long-term outcomes of children who were born preterm. Somatosensory processing, including haptic perception, was impaired when the children were examined at school age (DeMaio-Feldman, 1994; Short et al., 2003). Another research paradigm that has been found to discriminate between high-risk infants and their typical peers is manipulative exploration. Early studies of exploratory behavior from a Piagetian perspective documented decreased manipulation in premature infants but interpreted the decreased action to be a reflection of a disordered motor system that provided inadequate or inaccurate information (Kopp, 1974). Kopp examined the performance of premature and fullterm 8-month-old infants who were clumsy and nonclumsy (based on reach and grasp). The coordinated group of infants showed signicantly more exploration of objects, particularly more mouthing. The infants with poor coordination used more large arm movements and less object manipulation than the infants with good coordination. Kopp discussed the value of object manipulation in enhancing attention and providing information to infants. However, she also pointed out that infants with poor manipulation skills may give extra attention to motor actions, leaving less attention available for sensory or perceptual processing. More recent studies have focused on the attentional and organizational differences between preterm and full-term infants because early focused attention reflects active learning and predicts cognitive outcome (Lawson & Ruff, 2004). Preterm infants exhibit shorter duration of action and less directed information-seeking action. High-risk infants have also been found to have less organized action and attentional strategies in exploratory manipulation of objects (Ruff, 1986; Ruff
M ENTAL RETARDATION
Research conducted with individuals with mental retardation provides insight into the relationship between haptic perception and cognitive ability. Much of the research examining the relationship among cognitive abilities and haptic manipulation and motor skill has been done with children with Down syndrome (e.g., Brandt, 1996; Moss & Hogg, 1981). These studies generally reported that children with Down syndrome did not show as effective accommodation of their hands to objects after grasp and did not use haptic manipulation and exploratory strategies as readily as typical children. However, it is difcult to directly attribute these results to the childs cognitive abilities because many of these ndings can be attributed to the sensorimotor problems or other aspects of Down syndrome (Exner, 1991). For example, Brandt and Rosen (1995) found that children with Down syndrome demonstrated impaired peripheral somatosensory function (sensory nerve conduction velocities) and suggested that this may contribute to poor tactual perceptual performance. It is likely that, regardless of the cause of the delay, impairment in the ability to efciently explore objects interferes with learning about key object properties (Exner, 1991). Jones and Robinson (1973) compared the performance of a group of children with mental retardation (mean IQ = 47) to an age-matched group of children with normal intelligence. Accuracy of intramodal (haptic-haptic) and intermodal (hapticvisual) discrimination of meaningless shapes was poorer for the children with mental retardation than for the children with average intelligence. However, other studies found that when children with mental retardation and typical children were matched for mental age, the between-group difference in accuracy of haptic recognition disappeared (Derevensky, 1976, cited in Derevensky, 1979; Jones & Robinson, 1973; Medinnus & Johnson, 1966). In fact, two studies identied subjects with mental retardation as performing better than normal mental age-matched controls in intramodal (haptic-haptic) and intermodal (haptic-visual) matching tasks (Hermelin & OConnor, 1961; Mackay & Macmillan, 1968). Because matching subjects for mental age eliminated differences in haptic accuracy scores between children with mental retardation and typical children, it can be concluded that some aspects of higher cognitive processing are most likely necessary for task completion. In addition to verbal intelligence, haptic strategies have
BRAIN I NJURY
Impairments in tactile perception frequently have been reported in children with a diagnosis such as cerebral palsy that indicates a known brain injury (Bolanos et al., 1989; Boll & Reitan, 1972; Cooper et al., 1995; Duque et al., 2003; Krumlinde-Sundholm & Eliasson, 2002; Reitan, 1971; Solomons, 1957; Tachdjian & Minear, 1958; Van Heest, House, & Putnam, 1993; Yekutiel, Jariwala, & Stretch, 1994) and with traumatic brain injury (Ayres, 1989). Stereognosis (haptic identication of shapes or common objects) is often cited among the tactile functions showing impairment. Intermodal (visual-haptic) matching of shapes also has been shown to be impaired in children with brain injury (Birch & Lefford, 1964). Solomons (1957) found that children with brain injury were also impaired in the haptic discrimination of size and texture, although they did not differ from typical children in their ability to haptically match objects by weight. Although Boll and Reitan (1972) cited no problems in haptic shape recognition, they noted that the children with brain injury performed poorly on a complex tactile performance task that required shape recognition for task completion. Rudel and Teuber (1971) compared the ability of typical children and children with brain injury to discriminate three-
82
Hulme, 1987; Spellacy & Barbara, 1978; Nyden et al., 2004), with stereognosis among the tactile tests used in some of these studies. Impairment in motor coordination often has been found to accompany poor tactile perception in children with learning disabilities and related disorders. Johnson and co-workers (1981) found children with language disorders performed more poorly than a group of typical children matched for age, IQ, and socioeconomic status on tests of tactile perception (simultagnosia, graphesthesia, and nger identication) and motor coordination (hopping, nger opposition, diadochokinesis, and putting coins in a box). Reports of children with developmental Gerstmann syndrome have commonly cited a pairing of impairment in nger identication and constructional praxis (including poor handwriting and difculty drawing geometric shapes) (Benton & Geschwind, 1970; Kinsbourne & Warrington, 1963; PeBenito, 1987; Spellacy & Barbara, 1978). CaseSmith (1995) studied 30 preschool children with perceptual-motor problems and found that stereognosis (Manual Form Perception test of SIPT) correlated with Motor Accuracy, a test of ne-motor skill (r = 0.43). Several other authors also have linked decits in somatosensory processing (including poor haptic perception) to problems in motor planning (praxis) (Ayres, 1965, 1969, 1971, 1972, 1977, 1989; Ayres, Mailloux, & Wendler, 1987; Gubbay, 1975; Hulme et al., 1982; Reeves & Cermak, 2002; Walton, Ellis, & Court, 1962). However, it is not clear whether impaired haptic perception contributes to poor motor planning, poor motor planning contributes to difculty in haptic perception, or there is an ongoing interaction. There has been little research specically designed to identify factors that may be contributing to impaired haptic perception in children.
SUMMARY
Haptic perception in infants and children has been reviewed in depth in this chapter. It was the authors intent to provide an overview of the literature on the topic, with emphasis on material relevant to the evaluation and treatment of disorders in haptic perception in children with suspected and identied CNS dysfunction. The literature reviewed provides insight into the development of haptic perception and the identication of factors that may be contributing to impairment in haptic perception in some children. Haptic perception emerges in early infancy and continues to mature into adolescence. The infant initially uses oral exploration to learn about objects. The hands rst transport objects to the mouth and later become a primary tool for haptic object exploration. Manual manipulation of objects begins with grasping and is later replaced by more specic manipulation patterns (e.g., ngering, banging) that are tailored to the physical properties of the object. Manual manipulation gradually replaces mouthing as the preferred method of object exploration. This is followed by a long period of development in which the accuracy of haptic object recognition improves and the complexity of manual manipulation and exploratory strategies increases. The accuracy of haptic object recognition is related to the choice of haptic manual manipulation and exploratory strategies. Vision appears to guide the development of manual manipulation and helps to bring meaning to the haptic information being retrieved by the hands. It is not until 6 years of age that children can easily explore objects with the hands without the assistance of vision. With time the hands develop the ability to retrieve information from the environment without the aid of vision, making it possible for vision and haptic sensory processing to take
REFERENCES
Abravanel E (1968a). Intersensory integration of spatial position during early childhood. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 26:251256. Abravanel E (1968b). The development of intersensory patterning with regard to selected spatial dimensions. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 33(2):153. Abravanel E (1970). Choice for shape vs. textural matching by young children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 31:527533. Abravanel E (1972). How children combine vision and touch when perceiving the shape of objects. Perception and Psychophysics, 12(2A):171175.
84
Brodie EE, Ross HE (1985). Jiggling a lifted weight does aid discrimination. American Journal of Psychology, 98:469471. Brooks VB (1986). The neural basis of motor control. New York, Oxford University Press. Brown C, Dunn W (2002a). Infant-Toddler Sensory Prole. San Antonio, Psychological Corporation/Harcourt Assessments. Brown C, Dunn W (2002b). Adolescent-Adult Sensory Prole. San Antonio, Psychological Corporation/Harcourt Assessments. Bushnell EW, Baxt C (1999). Childrens haptic and crossmodal recognition with familiar and unfamiliar objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25:18671881. Bushnell EW, Boudreau PR (1991). The development of haptic perception during infancy. In MA Heller, W Schiff (editors): The psychology of touch (pp. 139161). Hillsdale, NJ, LEA. Bushnell EW, Boudreau JP (1993). Motor development and the mind: The potential role of motor abilities as a determinant of aspects of perceptual development. Child Development, 64(4):10051021. Bushnell EW, Boudreau JP (1998). Exploring and exploiting objects with the hands during infancy. In KJ Connolly (editor): The psychobiology of the hand (pp. 144161). London, MacKeith Press. Carpenter MB (1991). Core text of neuroanatomy 4th ed. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins. Case-Smith J (1991). The effects of tactile defensiveness and tactile discrimination on in-hand manipulation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45:811818. Case-Smith J (1995). The relationships among sensorimotor components, ne motor skill, and functional performance in preschool children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 49:645652. Case-Smith J, Bigsby R, Clutter J (1998). Perceptual-motor coupling in the development of grasp. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52:102110. Case-Smith J, Butcher L, Reed D (1998). Parents report of sensory responsiveness and temperament in preterm infants. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52:547555. Case-Smith J, Weintraub N (2002). Hand function and developmental coordination disorder. In SA Cermak, D Larkin (editors): Developmental coordination disorder (pp. 157171). Albany, NY, Delmar Thomson. Catherwood D, Drew L, Hein B, Grainger H (1998). Haptic recognition in two infants with low vision assessed by a familiarization procedure. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 92(3):212215. Ciof J, Kandel GL (1979). Laterality of stereognostic accuracy of children for words, shapes, and biogram: A sex difference for biograms. Science, 204:14321434. Connolly K, Jones B (1970). A developmental study of afferent-reafferent integration. British Journal of Psychology, 61:259266. Cooper J, Majnemer A, Rosenblatt B, Birnbaum R (1995). The determination of sensory decits in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Journal of Child Neurology, 10:300309. Cronin V (1977). Active and passive touch of four age levels. Developmental Psychology, 13:253256. Davidson PW (1972). Haptic judgments of curvature by blind and sighted humans. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93:4355. Davidson PW (1985). Functions of haptic perceptual
86
Landau B (1991). Spatial representation of objects in the young blind child. Cognition, 38:145178. Lawson KR, Ruff HA (2004). Early focused attention predicts outcome for children born prematurely. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 25:399406. Lederman SJ (1981). The perception of surface roughness by active and passive touch. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 18:253255. Lederman SJ, Brown RA, Klatzky RL (1988). Haptic processing of spatially distributed information. Perception and Psychophysics, 44:222232. Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL (1987). Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 19:342368. Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL (1990). Haptic classication of common objects: Knowledge driven exploration. Cognitive Psychology, 22:421459. Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL (1998). The hand as a perceptual system. In KJ Connolly (editor): The psychobiology of the hand (pp. 1635). London, MacKeith Press. Locher PJ, Simmons RW (1978). Influence of stimulus symmetry and complexity upon haptic scanning strategies during detection, learning, and recognition tasks. Perception and Psychophysics, 23:110116. Lord R, Hulme C (1987). Kinaesthetic sensitivity of normal and clumsy children. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 29:720725. Mackay CK, Macmillan J (1968). A comparison of stereognostic recognition in normal children and severely subnormal adults. British Journal of Psychology, 59:443447. McCall RB (1974). Exploratory manipulation and play in the human infant. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 39:2,155. McCormick RV, Mouw JT (1983). Subject-object and subsystem interactions in problem solving. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 29:196205. McGlone J (1980). Sex differences in human brain asymmetry: A critical survey. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3:215263. McLinden M (2004). Haptic exploratory strategies and children who are blind and have additional disabilities. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 98(2):99115. McLinden M, McCall S (2002). Learning through touch: Supporting children with visual impairment and additional difculties. London, David Fulton. Medinnus GR, Johnson D (1966). Tactual recognition of shapes by normal and retarded children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 22:406. Micallef C, May RB (1979). Visual dimensional dominance and haptic form recognition. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 7:2124. Miller LJ (1988). Miller Assessment for Preschoolers. San Antonio, Psychological Corp./Harcourt Assessment. Miller S (1971). Visual and haptic cue utilization by preschool children: The recognition of visual and haptic stimuli presented separately and together. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 12:8894. Miller S (1986). Aspects of size, shape and texture in touch: Redundancy and interference in preschool children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 53:621622. Molina M, Jouen F (1998). Modulation of the palmar group behavior in neonates according to texture property. Infant Behavior and Development, 21:659666. Molina M, Jouen F (2001). Modulation of manual activity
88
Warren DH, Rossano MJ (1991). Intermodality relations: Vision and touch. In MA Heller, W Schiff (editors): The psychology of touch (pp. 119137). Hillsdale NJ, LEA. Witelson SF (1974). Hemispheric specialization for linguistic and nonlinguistic tactual perception using a dichotomous stimulation technique. Cortex, 10:317. Witelson SF (1976). Sex and the single hemisphere: Specialization of the right hemisphere for spatial processing. Science, 193:425427. Wolff P (1972). The role of stimulus-correlated activity in childrens recognition of nonsense forms. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 14:427441.
Chapter
REACHING AND EYE-HAND COORDINATION
Birgit Rsblad
CHAPTER OUTLINE
MATURE REACHING MOVEMENTS Movement Speed Transport and Grasp Phase Role of Vision Role of Proprioception Integration of Sensory Information DEVELOPMENT OF REACHING DURING INFANCY Beginning to Master the Reach Coordinating the Body Parts Involved in the Reaching Movement Movement Planning Role of Sensory Information Movement-to-Movement Variability REACHING IN CHILDREN WITH MOTOR IMPAIRMENTS Movement Planning Feedback Control of Reaching Movements Adaptation of Reaching Movements The Movements of the Arms Are Coupled in Children with Hemiplegic Cerebral Palsy Our hands are extremely important tools for us in our everyday lives, and we are able to use them with grace and skill. To do so we have to be able to bring them to the right place at the right time. This can be illustrated with the example of catching a ball. To catch the ball successfully the hand has to be at the calculated meeting point at exactly the right time. Moreover, it must be prepared for the catch, with the ngers closing
around the ball before the moment of contact, or we will fail to catch it. In other types of goal-directed arm movements the arm trajectory as such can be the goal, as when painting or drawing, but in a reaching movement the goal is to transport the hand to the target, with precision in both time and space. This chapter is organized in three parts: the rst deals with the mature reaching movement, the second with the development of reaching in infancy, and the third with reaching in children with motor disabilities.
MOVEMENT SPEED
If the velocity of the hand during a reaching movement is plotted versus time as in Figure 5-1, one can see that the tangential velocity curve is bell shaped. The reaching movement is continuous with one single peak of velocity. In the last part of the reaching movement, when the hand is close to the target, the velocity is slow. This typical bell-shaped velocity curve is seen when the reach is carried on with, as well as without, visual feedback (Jeannerod, 1984; Morosso, 1981). This indicates that the reaching movement is programmed in advance of movement onset to a high degree.
89
90
1500
750
70 0
the activities we perform. When we reach out to pick a blueberry, movement speed is lower compared with that used in reaching for a ball we intend to throw. The decrease of accuracy when speed increases has been called the speed-accuracy trade-off and is dened by Fitts law (1954). The minimum variance theory, put forward by Harris and Wolpert (1998), might explain this phenomenon. They argue that neuronal signals are corrupted by noise that increases with the size of the control signal. Therefore increased acceleration leads to increased variability in the nal limb position and thus requires further corrective movements. This means that moving very fast can be counterproductive.
750 0 0 200
ms Figure 5-1 Kinematic proles of the transport component of a reaching movement. The heavy line depicts the velocity of the wrist (cm) as a function of time. This curve describes a single continuous movement with a single peak of velocity. The two peaks connected by the thin line depict the acceleration of the wrist (cm2) as a function of time. The positive peak constitutes one phase of acceleration and the negative peak one phase of deceleration, together forming one movement unit. (From Jeannerod M, et al. [1992]. Parallel visuomotor processing in human prehension movements. In R Caminiti, PB Johnson, Y Burnod [editors]: Control of arm movement in space. New York, Springer-Verlag.)
400
600
If one considers the reaching movement in terms of accelerations and decelerations, it can be divided into movement units. One phase of acceleration followed by a deceleration then can be said to constitute a movement unit (Brooks, 1976; von Hofsten, 1979). The movement paths within these movement units are relatively straight, and movement direction is changed in between units (von Hofsten, 1991). The number of movement units comprising a movement can be viewed as an index of its degree of programming. A movement consisting of only one movement unit, such as that depicted in Figure 5-1, then can be viewed as being entirely programmed before movement onset. However, if the movement is composed of many movement units, one can assume that it has been programmed several times during execution. A reaching movement, aimed at a stationary object, generally consists of one or two movement units, with the rst covering the main part of movement duration. The choice of movement speed is crucial for how skillfully we manage to reach and grasp an object. A movement cannot be both fast and precise. Unconsciously we strive to optimize movement speed to suit
ROLE OF VISION
It is obvious that vision plays a very important role in our ability to reach out for objects. One need only imagine what it would be like to be blind to realize the importance of vision to reaching. Vision is the sense that provides us with information about the layout of the environment, and when reaching for an object, vision denes both the position and shape of the object. Seeing the environment gives us an opportunity to anticipate upcoming events and plan our movements in an anticipatory fashion. One example of this is the way we shape our hand before contact with an object. A blind person reaching for an object does not have this ability but has to touch the object rst and then, guided by haptic information, shape the hand for grasp. If we cannot foresee upcoming events and plan our movements ahead of time, our movements will be uncoordinated of necessity. Given that visual information is important both for movement planning and execution, one may ask what should be seen and when during the movement we need that information. The answer to this seems to be that full visual information is optimal. Several studies show that we must be able to see the target both before and during a movement or movement quality is reduced (Berthier et al., 1996; Sarlegna et al., 2003). Moreover, if we can see our hand as we move it toward the target, movement accuracy and efciency will be improved (Connolly & Goodale, 1999; Sarlegna et al., 2004; Saunders & Knill, 2003; Schenk, Mair, & Zihl, 2004). The minimum delay needed for visual information to affect the physical movement of the hand traditionally has been thought to be around 200 msec (Keele & Posner, 1968). Because many naturally occurring reaching movements take around 500 msec to com-
ROLE OF PROPRIOCEPTION
We have receptors in our muscles, tendons, joints, and skin that provide us with information about the positions and movements of our body parts. This is here termed proprioception, after Sherrington (1906). Although it is relatively easy to nd out how we can move without vision or with degraded vision, proprioceptive information cannot be manipulated as easily. Instead, the research on the role of proprioception has focused on animal experiments and patients with sensory loss caused by diseases. One line of research has used deafferented monkeys. When their dorsal spinal roots are sectioned, the monkeys are deprived of sensation from the upper limbs but the motor nerves are unaffected. This technique was used in early experiments by Mott and Sherrington (1895). They reported that the monkeys limbs became useless after such operations and that the animals used their upper limbs only if forced to and then in an awkward way. They concluded that afferent information from the limbs was necessary for both movement initiation and control. Similar results also were reported by Lassek & Moyer (1953). However, later experiments with deafferented monkeys reported different results. Taub and Berman (1968) reported a clear improvement in motor function after the initial disability that resulted from the section of the nerves. The animals were able to reach for and grasp objects with a primitive pincer grip a few months after surgery. Recovery of function also has been reported by Knapp and co-workers (1963). Bossom and Ommaya (1968) have pointed out that motor pathways can be damaged easily during a rhizotomy and that this could be why the degree of recovery of function varied between studies.
92
Despite the previous diversity in results, there are also similarities. Several investigators have found that, when forced to, the animals are able to use their deafferented limb. Animals that had both forelimbs deafferented regained function to a higher degree than those with only one deafferented forelimb, who could choose to use the normal hand. This latter effect has been called learned nonuse by Taub and Berman (1968) and was explained in terms of an inhibition of the deafferented limb. However, if the animals that had one limb deafferented were forced to use it because the normal limb was restrained, they recovered function to the same degree as the bilaterally deafferented animals (Bossom, 1974; Knapp et al., 1963). Yet another similarity among the reports is that the deafferented monkeys were capable of both initiating and carrying out motor acts, however uncoordinated. Studies of humans with sensory decits seem to conrm this. Gordon and Ghez (1992) described patients with large-ber sensory neuropathy in the following way:
These patients, although able to initiate and carry out complex movement sequences, were severely impaired in most functional activities. For example, none could drink water from a cup without spilling.
The experiments by Ghez and co-workers (1990) provide us with important information about the role of proprioception in reaching movements. They studied the reaching movement in patients with sensory loss caused by large-ber neuropathy. Without visual feedback the patients made large directional errors from movement onset and also were unstable at movement endpoint. When allowed to monitor the movement visually, they were able to substitute for the loss of proprioceptive information to some degree, and performance improved. However, Ghez and coworkers (1990) also studied the effect on movement accuracy when the patients were able to look at the limb before movement onset but not during the ongoing movement and found that this also improved function. This indicates that proprioception is not only important for feedback during the ongoing movement but also plays an important role for programming of movements by providing the nervous system with information about the current state of the body parts.
MOVEMENT PLANNING
As discussed, the reaching movement can be analyzed in terms of acceleration and deceleration. A phase of acceleration followed by a phase of deceleration then constitutes a movement unit. When the infants rst start to reach and grasp, at around 4 months of age, the ability to plan the movement ahead of time is still poor. As a consequence of this, the movement path is awkward and crooked, and the trajectory consists of many movement units. This changes after the infant has practiced reaching for some time, and at around 1 year of age the number of movement units has decreased and the movement paths are straighter (Konczak & Dichgans, 1997; von Hofsten, 1991) (Figure 5-2). The ability to plan movements ahead of time, and not only react to what has already happened, is fundamental for movement skill. One example when this is
94
05:58:51
Start Horizontal
15 months
24 months
Adult
Vertical
05:58:31
10 cm Start
Figure 5-2 Sagittal hand paths of one infant at four different ages illustrating the progression toward smoother and straighter movements. (From Konczak J, Dichgans J (1997). The development toward stereotypic arm kinematics during reaching in the rst 3 years of life. Experimental Brain Research, 117:346354.)
05:58:11
obvious is when we catch a ball that is thrown to us. To be able to do this we must predict the trajectory of the moving object and reach for the meeting point. Von Hofsten and Lindhagen (1979) found that at the age children start to reach successfully for stationary objects, they also can catch fast-moving ones. Eighteenweek-old infants were found to be able to catch objects that moved at 30 cm/sec. Most of the reaches were aimed at the meeting point from movement onset. This demonstrates an early emerging capacity for anticipatory control of reaching movements. That is, the infant does not reach toward where he or she rst sees the object, but rather appears to be anticipating the point where the hand and the object will meet (Figure 5-3). The ability for anticipatory control develops substantially during the rst year of life. One example of this is how the infant prepares the hand for the grasp. An adult reaching for an object shapes the hand to t the properties of the object in anticipation of contacting it. Von Hofsten and Rnnquist (1988) studied the shaping of grip aperture as infants reached for objects. The 5- to 6-month-old children started to close the hand before making contact with the object, which indicates some anticipatory ability. However, these young infants did not adjust their grip aperture to match the object size, as did children at 9 months of age. At 13 months of age the infants started to close the hand earlier during the reach compared with the younger children and were comparable to adults in this respect. Infants 10 months of age also have been found to shape their hand to t different shapes of objects before contact (Pieraut-Le Bonniec, 1990).
05:57:91
Figure 5-3 Two views of the performance of a wellaimed reach by an infant who is 21 weeks of age. The frame on the bottom is the start of the reach. The interval between frames is 0.2 sec (digital clock reading in the upper portion of each frame). The child is directing the reach ahead of the object to the point at which the object will be at the end of the reaching movement. (From von Hofsten C [1980]. Predictive reaching for moving objects by human infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30:369382.)
When we as adults reach for an object the movement trajectory is not only affected by the size and shape of the object but also by what we intend to do with it after we have picked it up. We reach more slowly for an object that will be used in a precision task (e.g., tting a coin in a slot) than for an object that will be used in a nonprecision task (e.g., throwing the coin in a bucket). Claxton, Keen, and McCarty (2003) studied 10-month-old infants to see if they also had this ability to plan a reaching movement in several segments. The
MOVEMENT-TO-MOVEMENT VARIABILITY
The infant has not yet learned the most efcient way of performing a movement and is still exploring the possibilities of its own body. Therefore he or she will perform a specic task, such as reaching for a toy, with signicant movement-to-movement variability. In fact, being able to perform a specic task in a consistent manner is a prominent feature of movement skill. Figure 5-4, A shows the superimposed movement trajectories of a 1-year-old girl reaching for an object. In Figure 5-4, B the same task is performed by an 11year-old boy. Although the little girl grasps the object without difculty, it is clear that she does not reach for the object with the same skill as the older boy does. Lhuisset and Proteau (2004), who studied reaching movements in children 6, 8, and 10 years old, found that although the children clearly planned the movements ahead of time, the planning processes were still more variable than for adults.
500
500
400
300
300
200
200
100
100
0 0
0.2
0.4 (sec)
0.6
0.8
0 0
0.2
0.4 (sec)
0.6
0.8
Figure 5-4 The gures show that a young child performs a specic movement with high variability, whereas an older child has a more consistent movement pattern. A, Trajectory of the hand for a 12-month-old girl who is reaching repeatedly for the same object. B, How an 11-year-old boy performs the same movement. (From Eliasson AC, Rsblad B [2001]. Arm och handrrelser: Normal och avvikande utveckling. In E Beckung, E Brogren, B Rsblad [editors]: Sjukgymnastik fr barn och ungdom. Teori och tillmpning. Lund, Studentlitteratur.)
96
MOVEMENT PLANNING
A common nding in motor control research on children with motor impairments is that the ability for movement planning is impaired. One example of how the ability to plan reaching movements can be impaired comes from a study on reaching in children with attention decit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Eliasson, Rsblad, & Forssberg, 2004). To analyze the kinematics of the arm movement we used a digitizing tablet. The task for the children was to move a cursor on a computer screen with a hand-held digitizer on the tablet. Start and target positions on the screen were always visible during the movement. The screen cursor, however, could either be visible throughout the entire movement or blanked at movement initiation. Analysis showed that movement control was impaired in children with ADHD and that their problems were especially pronounced when the screen cursor was not visible on the screen. Because the children could not visually correct the movement when the screen cursor was blanked, results indicate a poorer motor programming in children with ADHD. Moreover, the children with ADHD performed jerky movements with higher peak accelerations than the control group of children. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the choice of movement speed is crucial for how skillfully we manage to reach for and grasp an object. The children with ADHD adopted higher movement speed compared with the typically developed children but this high speed was counterproductive and resulted in increased movement endpoint errors and further corrective movements. Similar results also have been found when the control of reaching movements in children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) has been studied. Van der Meulen and colleagues (1991a,b) tested the ability in children with DCD to make precise arm movements. In a rst study, the task for the child was to reach for a target as quickly and precisely as possible. In a second study, the ability to track a target that moved unpredictably was assessed. In both studies, the children were tested in situations in which they did or
REFERENCES
Alstermark B, Gorska T, Lundberg A, Petterson L-O (1990). Integration in descending motor pathways controlling the forelimb in the cat. 16. Visually guided switching of target-reaching. Experimental Brain Research, 80:111. Bernstein N (1967). The coordination and regulation of movement. London, Pergamon Press. Berthier NE, Clifton RK, Gullapalli V, McCall DD, Robin D (1996). Visual information and object size in the control of reaching. Journal of Motor Behavior, 28:187197. Berthier NE, Clifton RK, McCall DD, Robin DJ (1999). Proximo distale structure of early reaching in human infants. Experimental Brain Research, 127:259269. Bossom I (1974). Movement without proprioception. Brain Research, 45:285296. Bossom I, Ommaya AK (1968). Visuomotor adaptation to prismatic transformation of the retinal image in monkeys with bilateral dorsal rhizotomy. Brain, 91:161172. Brooks VB (1976). Some examples of programmed limb movements. Brain Research, 71:3847. Claxton LJ, Keen R, McCarty ME (2003). Evidence of motor planning in infant reaching behavior. Psychological Science, 14:354356. Clifton R, Rochat P, Robin DJ, Berthier NE (1994). Multimodal perception in the control of infant reaching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20:876886. Connolly JD, Goodale MA (1999). The role of visual feedback of hand position in the control of manual prehension. Experimental Brain Research, 125:281286. Eliasson A-C, Rosblad B, Forssberg H (2004). Disturbances in programming goal-directed arm movements in children with ADHD. Developmental Medicine in Child Neurology, 46:1927. Fitts PM (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47:381391. Gesell A, Ames LB (1947). The development of handedness. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 70:155175.
THE MOVEMENTS OF THE ARMS ARE COUPLED IN C HILDREN WITH H EMIPLEGIC C EREBRAL PALSY
A specic problem faced by children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy is that the movements of the arms and hands often are coupled. If the child is engaged in manual activities with one hand mirror movements frequently can be observed in the other hand. Typically, reaching movements in children with hemiplegia are performed with lower velocity in the impaired arm than in the unimpaired arm (Van Thiel & Steenbergen, 2001; Volman, Wijnroks, & Vermeer, 2002a,b). However, symmetric movements of the arms tend to improve the movement quality of the impaired hand, measured as speed and smoothness, but restrict the movements of the unimpaired hand, which adapts to the impaired one and accordingly moves more slowly (Utley & Sugden, 1998; Van Thiel & Steenbergen,
98
Ghez C, Gordon I, Ghilardi MF, Christakos CN, Cooper SE (1990). Roles of proprioceptive input in the programming of arm trajectories. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 55:837847. Gordon I, Ghez C (1992). Roles of proprioceptive input in control of reaching movement. In H Forsberg, H Hirschfeldt (editors): Movement disorders in children. Medicine and Sport Science. Basel, Karger. Grenier A (1981). Motoricite libelree par xation manuelle de la nuque au cours de premieres semaines de la vie. Archives Francaises de Pediatrie, 38:557561. Harris CH, Wolpert DM (1998). Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature, 394:780784. Harris CS (1965). Perceptual adaptation to inverted, reversed and displaced vision. Psychological Review, 72:419444. Hopkins B, Rnnqvist L (2002). Facilitating postural control: Effects on the reaching behavior of 6-month-old infants. Developmental Psychobiology, 40:168182. Jeannerod M (1981). Intersegmental coordination during reaching at natural visual objects. In I Long, A Baddeley (editors): Attention and performance. IX. Hillsdale, NJ, LEA. Jeannerod M (1984). The timing of natural prehension movements. Journal of Motor Behavior, 16:235254. Kearney K, Gentile AM (2002). Prehension in young children with Down syndrome. Acta Psychologica, 112:316. Keele SW, Posner MI (1968). Processing visual feedback in rapid movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77:155158. Knapp HD, Taub E, Berman AI (1963). Movements in monkeys with deafferentated forelimbs. Experimental Neurology, 7:303315. Konczak J, Dichgans J (1997). The development toward stereotypic arm kinematics during reaching in the rst 3 years of life. Experimental Brain Research, 117:346354. Lassek AM, Moyer EK (1953). An ontogenetic study of motor decits following dorsal brachial rhizotomy. Journal of Neurophysiology, 16:247251. Lhuisset L, Proteau L (2004). Visual control of manual aiming movements in 6- to 10-year-old children and adults. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36:161172. Loukopoulos LD, Engelbrecht SE, Berthier NE (2001). Planning of reach-and-grasp movements: Effects of validity and type of object information. Journal of Motor Behavior, 33:255264. Marteniuk RG, MacKenzie CL, Athenes S (1990). Functional relationships between grasp and transport components in a prehension task. Human Movement Science, 9:149176. Martin O, Prablanc C (1992). Online control of hand reaching at undetected target displacements. In GE Stelmach, I Requin (editors): Tutorials in motor behavior: II, Amsterdam, Elsevier. Mon-Williams M, Tresilan JR (2001). A simple rule of the thumb for elegant prehension. Current Biology, 11:10581061. Morosso P (1981). Spatial control of arm movements. Experimental Brain Research, 42:223227. Mott FW, Sherrington CS (1895). Experiments upon the influence of sensory nerves upon movement and nutrition of the limbs. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B57:481488. Norrlin S, Dahl M, Rsblad B (2004). Control of reaching movements in children and young adults with
Chapter
COGNITION AND MOTOR SKILLS
Ashwini K. Rao
Perhaps the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible. Albert Einstein
CHAPTER OUTLINE
CASE SCENARIO MOTOR SKILLS ARE ADAPTIVE What Is the Overall Framework for Understanding Movements? INTRODUCTION TO COGNITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO MOTOR SKILLS COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN MOTOR SKILLS Attention Perception Concept Formation (Knowledge) Memory SKILL ACQUISITION (LEARNING) EPILOGUE: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COGNITIVE AND MOTOR DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
Through the course of evolution, the importance of the hand to the organism has increased tremendously. We use our hands to reach out and grasp and manipulate objects, write and draw, make gestures, and create and use tools. Thus our hands are not only used for manipulation skills, but also for communication. The greater importance of hand skills in humans is reflected in an increase in the area of the brain dedicated to hand movement. In addition, cognitive capacity (broadly dened as the collection and organization of information into knowledge) has increased through the course of evolution. This is also reflected in the increase in size of frontal lobe structures in humans when compared with nonhuman primates.
Although the extent of brain structures has increased along with our functional repertoire of hand and cognitive skills, this in no way implies that there is a simple cause-and-effect relationship between brain and behavior. In fact, research on the neural control of movement has shown that although specic areas of the brain are involved in the control of hand movements, the performance of movements in turn influences development of the same neural structures. Thus structure (brain areas involved in hand control) and function (behavioral repertoire of manipulative skills during functional tasks) are intertwined and influence each other through development. Manipulation skills are some of the most complex motor skills and require the coordination of many systems. Within the motor system, manipulative skills require the coordination of many different segments of the body that allow for adapting the hand to grasp different objects and application of precise amounts of force on objects that allow for successful manipulation of objects during functional activity (Flanagan, Haggard, & Wing, 1996). Coordination becomes even more complicated when we consider the cognitive components (e.g., memory, attention, perception) that have to work in concert with the emerging motor skill.
CASE SCENARIO
Consider this simple scenario. Jimmy, a 2-year-old typically developing child, is sitting at a table, reaching out to grasp a glass full of water so as to bring it toward his mouth. This simple functional act, one that is carried out by children with seemingly effortless ease, nevertheless is extremely complicated and poses several challenges to a developing system such as Jimmys. This
101
102
task highlights the numerous processes that can be categorized as cognitive-perceptual aspects of motor control. Even before beginning the movement of reaching for the glass, Jimmys visual processes provide his nervous system with tremendous information about the glass: how far the glass is from him, where the glass is placed on the table with reference to his body, the shape of the glass, how much water is in the glass, the consistency and estimated weight of the glass. The responses to these questions constitute processes called perception and representation. In addition to these perceptual processes, the association of visual input from the glass with symbols about objects provides information that is stored as object knowledge, useful for identication and classication. This information is stored in memory, which can be retrieved at any time. Furthermore, the size and apparent weight of the glass determine whether Jimmy picks up the glass with one or two hands. Such decision making is based on memory of prior interactions with objects. Once Jimmy grasps the glass, his visual and haptic (tactile) processes provide his system with information about the weight of the glass and how the movement of bringing the glass to his mouth displaces the water in the glass. As Jimmy repeats the process of grasping glasses of various sizes, shapes, and weights, and transporting the glass toward his mouth on different occasions, his nervous system internalizes rules about how his movement affects the liquid in the glass through a process of trial and error. This process is called learning and is an essential cognitive skill that enables Jimmy not only to retain the knowledge of how to grasp and lift a given glass, but also generalizes (transfers) this skill to enable successful interactions with various objects.
104
other and may assume differential importance depending on the demands of the task.
ATTENTION
Attention is a fundamental aspect of all human activity. We are able to perceive stimuli and act on them better when we attend to the stimulus of interest and ignore extraneous stimuli. Our sensory systems receive a tremendous amount of information. If we did not have a mechanism to lter unwanted stimuli, we would encounter sensory overload. At any given moment, we are aware of only a few stimuli that are functionally important to the task at hand, and our awareness is limited by our capacity for processing information. Thus functional attention is selective by denition. Attention can be dened by examining its constituent parts of arousal, capacity, and selectivity (Plude, Enns, & Brodeur, 1994). Arousal refers to the momentary level of excitation in the information processing system that helps tune our cognitive systems to optimally receive information. Capacity refers to the actual capacity of our information processing system. It is generally accepted that humans can process a certain amount of information at any given moment. Finally, selectivity refers to the ability of the system to allocate resources so as to focus on certain stimuli and not others. Selective attention is a multidimensional process, involving components of orienting, ltering, searching and expecting (Plude et al., 1994). From an early age, infants show preference for orienting their vision to attend to certain stimuli while ignoring others (Maurer & Lewis, 1991). In fact, neonates spend more time attending to their mothers face than the faces of strangers, even when other sensory cues, such as smell and auditory cues, are excluded (Bushnell, Sai, & Mullin, 1989). The orienting response is variable and not developed early in life, presumably because the neural structures that control such behavior (e.g., the superior colliculus) are not fully developed. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that infants demonstrate beginning capabilities for selective orientation to preferred stimuli. Another aspect of selective attention is that infants show a preference for novel stimuli rather than stimuli that have been present in the environment. Most of us have observed infants paying more attention to new faces in comparison with familiar faces. This phenomenon is known as habituation and refers to the decrease in the amount of visual attention (time spent on a stimulus) devoted to more familiar stimuli (Bertenthal, 1996; Ruff, 1986). Ruff found that the amount of time spent in examining novel stimuli decreases as the infant becomes familiar with an object and suggests that the
PERCEPTION
Perceptual processes constitute an important part of cognitive contributions to motor skills. Perception can be dened as a process of collecting information from the environment based on vision, touch, hearing, and muscle and joint proprioceptors to construct an internal representation of space and the body (Kandel, 2000). Thus our perception is created through an active process of searching for and attending to stimuli based on our sensory organs. All pertinent information is then used in the construction of an internal representation. Historically, perception was thought to emerge from a developmental process as infants and young children developed their repertoire of sensorimotor behaviors (Piaget, 1952). The current view, however, challenges this notion and proposes that different sensory inputs converge into a unied representation that precedes thought and action (Marr, 1982). The emerging framework from the cognitive neurosciences proposes that there may be at least two independent and parallel perceptual processes: one that is used in the recognition of objects and the other used for the guidance of movements (Goodale et al., 1994). Thus visual information about an object in the environment is processed by separate neural pathways and used for different purposes (Bertenthal, 1996; Goodale & Westwood, 2004). The system for the identication of objects, also called the ventral stream, is proposed to project from the visual cortex to the temporal lobe. The system for
Perceptual-Motor Processes
We must perceive in order to move, but we must also move in order to perceive. (Gibson, 1979) This statement, from one of the most influential psychologists in the area of perception, highlights the reciprocal relationship between perception and action. According to Gibson (1979) perceptual systems have adapted to use information pertinent to actions that are readily available in the environment. For instance, perceptual-motor systems use visual information available in the optic array, haptic information from hands as they explore objects, and proprioceptive information available from muscles and joints. Although movements are adapted in response to perceptual processes, the reverse is true as well. Such reciprocity was shown in a study that tested crawling infants and recently walking infants on their locomotion on two different surfaces; a rigid and a pliable surface. Although crawling infants did not differentiate between these two surfaces, recently walking infants changed their mode of locomotion depending on the surface. They crawled on the pliable surface and walked on the rigid one (Gibson et al., 1987). More recently, it was shown that recently walking infants adopt a more stable posture (sitting) as they negotiate a surface with a downward incline, whereas crawling infants did not adapt their posture (Adolph, Eppler, & Gibson, 1993). These studies show that perception (e.g., perceived stability of surface)
106
influences action and action in turn influences perception (e.g., newly walking infants differentiating among surfaces). Contrary to the proposals of early models of perceptual-motor development (Piaget, 1952), goaldirected behavior is observed very early in development. Infants as young as 3 weeks old have been observed to reach out and grasp stationary and moving objects (von Hofsten, 1982). Neonates actively control their gaze and look at faces that engage them in a mutual gaze (Farroni et al., 2002), and visually track moving objects within their rst month (Bloch & Carchon, 1992). Von Hofsten (1993) argues that behaviors that are explored in the womb (e.g., hand-tomouth behavior) may demonstrate an advantage after birth. The evidence described in this section highlights that infants are capable of goal-directed movements based on visual information available in the environment (e.g., from a moving object). Although this behavior is highly variable from trial to trial, and fragile (it is not observed consistently), the existence of such control provides evidence that our perceptual systems are tuned to act on visual and haptic information from a very early age. According to Thelen (Thelen, 1995; Thelen & Corbetta, 1994), behavior is highly variable when rst expressed and is gradually adapted as a result of a dynamic process of selection of the most appropriate coordinative structures that are specic to the contextual demands of the task. The contextual nature of perceptual-motor behavior, in part, is dependent on the fact that motor skills are not simply influenced by perceptual processes but also by biomechanical and physiologic factors. For example, although infants are able to reach for moving targets at the age of 3 weeks, such behavior is contingent on the stability of their head (von Hofsten, 1982). When the head is not stabilized, goal-directed reaching is not observed. In a now classic example of the contextual nature of perceptual-motor behavior, Thelen and colleagues described the case of the disappearing reflex (Thelen, 1995; Thelen, Fisher, & Ridley-Johnson, 1984). Infants are known to demonstrate a stepping reflex when held upright with their feet on a supporting surface. Within a few months, this reflex pattern of movements is not seen. The traditional explanation for the disappearance of this reflex was that the maturing nervous system inhibited the reflex, a primitive behavior. However, at the same time that the reflex disappears, infants also demonstrate an increase in their body mass. When such infants were held upright partially submerged in water with their feet in contact with a surface, the stepping reflex re-emerged, indicating that the reflex disappeared primarily because of increased weight and a biomechanically demanding posture (Thelen et al., 1982; Thelen & Fisher, 1982)
M EMORY
Memory is the process by which knowledge is encoded, stored, and retrieved (Milner, Squire, & Kandel, 1998). The neurobiological pathways responsible for memory are dependent on our sensory perceptual and attention processes (discussed in the preceding sections) that allow task-related information to be stored. Most models of memory propose the existence of multiple systems of memory, each devoted to a specic function (Willingham, 1997). Memory can be classied in many different ways: One is to classify it according to the time scale of the operation. Thus we distinguish between short-term (working) and long-term memory systems. Working memory is proposed to be a dedicated system that holds information for short periods of time
108
Explicit memories are further divided into memories for facts (semantic memory) and events (episodic memory). Semantic memory is built up by associating a stimulus with specic concepts. Thus a visual image of an elephant associates features of the elephant (e.g., its large size, large ears, tusks, and small tail) with the conceptual category of elephant. This information is then further associated with additional knowledge about elephants that allows children to close their eyes and recall an internal representation of an elephant. Semantic memory is thought to be stored in a distributed fashion in the neocortex, including the medial temporal areas that process verbal information and occipital areas that process visual information. Episodic memory, on the other hand, is concerned with the temporal ordering of events. In children, this type of memory is built up by associating events with what happened during such events (Schneider, 2000). Explicit memory is processed in four distinct phases. The rst phase is called the encoding phase, during which new information is attended to and processed at rst encounter. All pertinent information in the stimulus must be attended to for memory to be stored in long-term memory. A second phase is consolidation, in which the new information is altered from a labile state to a stable state for long-term storage. Consolidation is a time-dependent process, and any event that interferes with this process prevents new and labile information from being converted to long-term memory. The third phase is storage, which refers to the mechanism by which memories are retained over time. Finally, the fourth phase is retrieval, which refers to the process of recall of memories (Kandel, 2000). Implicit memory, in contrast with explicit memory, is concerned with storage and recall of information without conscious awareness (Milner et al., 1998). This kind of memory is also called procedural memory, because it refers to knowledge about how a task is performed, rather than what a task is. Implicit memory does not depend on conscious processing of information, builds slowly over time through repetition, and is primarily expressed through performance rather than through language (Kandel, 2000). Most of the early evidence of the distinction between implicit and explicit memories came from the study of individuals with focal lesions of the medial temporal lobe. In one patient (HM) most of the medial temporal lobes were removed secondary to seizures. The surgical lesion left HM with a memory decit of explicit long-term memory, particularly for facts and events that occurred after the surgery and also a decit of events that occurred immediately before the surgery (retrograde amnesia). Although he had a relatively intact short-term memory, HM was unable to transfer information from short-
1. Learning is a process whereby a child acquires the capability for skilled action. 2. Learning results from practice or experience, rather than being simply a function of neuromaturation. Perhaps this concept is best highlighted by the fact that infants practice tasks such as reaching (von Hofsten & Fazel-Zandy, 1984) and locomotion (Adolph, 1997) several hundred times in a day over a period of months before they become skilled. This extended practice is the basis for improvement of skill. 3. Learning is a process that cannot be observed directly and typically is inferred from changes in behavior. As discussed in the preceding sections, much of the evidence on motor development has come from detailed longitudinal observational studies in infants and young children (Adolph, 1997; Thelen, 1995; von Hofsten & Fazel-Zandy, 1984). 4. Learning produces changes that are relatively
the environment in which the action is taking place (whether the environment is stationary or in motion). Focus on the regulatory features necessitates selective attention to pertinent stimuli. During this process, the performers system learns to differentiate the environment (perceive greater detail in the sensory array) and grouping of similar stimuli into chunks, a process described earlier. During this phase, the child pays attention to the overall structure (shape or conguration) of the movement. Thus in reaching for an object, a child is aware of the orientation of her hand as it attempts to approximate the orientation of the object for successful grasp. Gentile (1992) terms this the topology or shape structure of the movement. Although the performer is aware of the topology, she or he is not aware of the internal processes of parameter specication that specify the timing of the movement components, the forces to be imparted to the limbs, and so on. During this early stage, based on the results of the movement, the child receives feedback on the outcome of the movement. This knowledge is then encoded and stored in memory and helps the child learn the association between movement patterns and their outcome. This process enables children to repeat successful movements and leads to the formation and renement of internal models (or representations) of the task. Studies of infants learning to perform goal directed reaching have demonstrated evidence for this notion. Recording of the movement patterns of infants have shown that early in learning, arm reaching movements are extremely variable and the goal of reaching for and grasping an object is not achieved consistently. How-
ever, within a relatively short period of time, movements converge to a consistent topology enabling the child to achieve the goal more consistently (Konczak et al., 1995; von Hofsten et al., 1984). With renement of the internal model, the abstract representation of the movement and outcome becomes independent of the actual environmental and biomechanical constraints. For instance, in learning the task of writing, a child acquires an internal model of the task. In this case the movements of the hand (and the forces applied) that produce the form (or topology) of a letter. Once this model is learned, the child can perform this task not only with the dominant hand, but with the nondominant hand as well (although not as efciently because the nondominant hand is not as skilled). The fact that we can produce the same action using different effectors highlights the importance of an internal model (abstraction) of the task that is independent of the effectors. Skill is rened during the later stages of learning. Performance improves but at a much slower rate than in the early stages of learning. In this phase improvements occur in the efciency of the movement: The child is better able to predict the consequences of her movement and better able to produce consistent movements from one trial to the next. According to Gentile (1998) this phase is characterized by changes that the performer is not aware of. The changes pertain to the parameter specication, and include improvements in the timing of force generation of the segments involved in the movement and the timing and amplitude of muscle contractions that ultimately produce the
110
movements. In addition, movement sequences are more efciently blended together temporally so that each sequence is not discernible from other sequences of movement. The evidence from recording of intersegmental forces and patterns of muscle activation demonstrates that improvements at this level of the system continues over a much longer period of time (Konczak, Borutta, & Dichgans, 1997). Although the topology of reaching movement improves within the rst few months, improvements in the coordination of forces continue until at least the third year. This underscores the fact that consistency in the external features of movements (e.g., topology) are contingent on internal features (e.g., coordination of forces and muscle patterns) that remain variable over a much longer period of time (Manoel Ede & Connolly, 1995). It can be argued that the variability in the coordination of forces allows the system flexibility and generalizability. In summary, learning is thought to progress through two interdependent and parallel processes. The early phase is characterized by establishment of a mapping between the performer and the environment that, with practice, quickly improves the overall shape structure of the movement. The processing of information during this phase is explicit in nature and leads to the formation of an internal model of the task (Gentile, 1998). Later in learning, movements are rened at a micro level that is not observable in the behavior. The processing of this information progresses without conscious awareness on the part of the performer (i.e., implicitly). Because the improvements at this stage concern coordination of the details of intersegmental forces, the later stage of learning is extended over a longer period of time (Gentile, 2000).
SUMMARY
In this chapter we have described motor skills as goal oriented and made up of movements that are organized to solve the spatial and temporal challenges presented by specic tasks. In addition to the control processes underlying motor control, we have described many components of cognitive skills that are important for the development and execution of motor skills. Cognitive development and motor development are closely related and have a reciprocal relationship. Hand function is critical in supporting cognitive development because hand movements allow for interactions with objects that in turn support the development of knowledge about objects. Tool use with the hands almost always requires cognitive skill to comprehend the meansend relationship of movement to goal or outcome. In contrast with hand skills, gross motor skills seem to require little cognitive development for their emergence. This chapter has covered a number of topics related to the literature on the relationship between motor skills and cognition. The past few years have seen a fundamental shift in the way in which we understand the relationship of cognitive and motor skills and our understanding of development in general. The emerging paradigm proposes that movement skills are developed not only as a function of neuromaturation, but also through the interaction of emergent movement and cognitive skills with the environment. This new paradigm
emphasizes the multicausal, fluid, contextual and selforganizing nature of developmental change, the unity of perception, action and cognition, and the role of exploration and selection in the emergence of new behavior (Thelen, 1995).
the challenge ahead will be to develop creative therapeutic solutions that enhance skill acquisition.
REFERENCES
Adolph KE (1997). Learning in the development of infant locomotion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 62(3):IVI, 1158. Adolph KE, Eppler MA, Gibson EJ (1993). Crawling versus walking infants perception of affordances for locomotion over sloping surfaces. Child Development, 64(4): 11581174. Baddeley A (1998). Working memory. Centre Royal Academy of Sciences III, 321(23):167173. Baddeley A (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 4(10):829839. Bahrick LE, Hernandez-Reif M, Pickens JN (1997). The effect of retrieval cues on visual preferences and memory in infancy: Evidence for a four-phase attention function. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 67(1):120. Bahrick LE, Pickens JN (1995). Infant memory for object motion across a period of three months: Implications for a four-phase attention function. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 59(3):34371. Bernstein N (1967). The organization and regulation of movements. London, Pergamon. Bertenthal BI (1996). Origins and early development of perception, action, and representation. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 47:431459. Bloch H, Carchon I (1992). On the onset of eye-head coordination in infants. Behavioural Brain Research, 49(1):8590. Bushnell IW, Sai F, Mullin JT (1989). Neonatal recognition of the mothers face. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7:315. Castellanos FX (1997). Toward a pathophysiology of attention-decit/hyperactivity disorder. Clinical Pediatrics, 36:381393. Cohen K (1981). The development of strategies of visual search. In DF Fisher, RA Monty, JW Senders (editors). Eye movements: Cognition and visual perception (pp. 271288). Hillsdale, NJ, LEA. Cowan N, Nugent LD, Elliott EM, Ponomarev I, Saults JS (1999). The role of attention in the development of short-term memory: Age differences in the verbal span of apprehension. Child Development, 70(5):10821097. Desmond JE, Gabrieli JD, Glover GH (1998). Dissociation of frontal and cerebellar activity in a cognitive task: Evidence for a distinction between selection and search. Neuroimage, 7(4 Pt 1):368376. Diamond A (2000). Close interrelation of motor development and cognitive development and of the cerebellum and the prefrontal cortex. Child Development, 71(1):4456. Farroni T, Csibra G, Simion F, Johnson MH (2002). Eye contact detection in humans from birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(14):96029605. Flanagan JR, Haggard P, Wing AM (1996). The task at hand. In JR Flanagan, P Haggard, AM Wing (editors): Hand and brain: The neurophysiology and psychology of hand movements (pp. 513). San Diego, Academic Press.
For therapists interested in learning better ways to teach children to learn or relearn cognitive and motor skills, the new paradigm offers novel ways to assess and plan interventions. For instance, different interventions may be necessary to facilitate implicit versus explicit learning. Although therapists can use conscious processes to facilitate explicit learning, the only way to enhance implicit learning is to carefully structure the environment and select tasks for optimal practice, and provide timely feedback and structure ample opportunities for prolonged practice (Gentile, 1998). Thus therapists not only have to keep the child in mind during the assessment and intervention, but the environment in which the skills are performed as well. As we develop greater knowledge of the differential impact of cognitive disability (e.g., attention, perceptual, memory, conceptual) on the acquisition of motor skills,
112
Gentile AM (1972). A working model of skill acquisition with applications to teaching. Quest, 17:323. Gentile AM (1992). The nature of skill acquisition: Therapeutic implications for children with movement disorders. In H Forssberg, H Hirschfeld (editors): Movement disorders in children (pp. 3140). Basel, Karger. Gentile AM (1998). Implicit and explicit processes during acquisition of functional skills. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 5:716. Gentile AM (2000). Skill acquisition: Action, movement and neuromotor processes. In J Carr, R Shepherd (editors): Movement science: Foundations for physical therapy in rehabilitation (pp. 111187). Gaithersburg, MD, Aspen. Geuze RH, Kalverboer AF (1994). Tapping a rhythm: A problem of timing for children who are clumsy and dyslexic? Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 11:203213. Ghez C, Thach WT (2000). The cerebellum. In ER Kandel, JH Schwartz, TM Jessel (editors): Principles of neural science (pp. 832852). New York, McGraw-Hill. Gibson EJ, Riccio G, Schmuckler MA, Stoffregren TA, Rosenberg D, Taormina J (1987). Detection of the traversability of surfaces by crawling and walking infants. Journal of the Psychology of Human Perception and Performance, 13(4):533544. Gibson JJ (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA, Houghton-Mifflin. Goodale MA, Milner AD (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences, 15:2025. Goodale MA, Meenan JP, Bulthoff HH, Nicolle DA, Murphy KJ, Racicot CI (1994). Separate neural pathways for the visual analysis of object shape in perception and prehension. Current Biology, 4(7):604610. Goodale MA, Milner AD, Jakobson LS, Carey DP (1991). A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them. Nature, 349(6305):154156. Goodale MA, Westwood DA (2004). An evolving view of duplex vision: Separate but interacting cortical pathways for perception and action. Current Opinions in Neurobiology, 14(2):203211. Hitch GJ, Towse J (1995). Working memory: What develops? In FE Weinert, W Schneider (editors): Memory performance and competencies. Issues in growth and development (pp. 322). Mahwah, NJ, LEA. Hughes C (1996). Planning problems in autism at the level of motor control. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 26:99107. Johnson MH (1990). Cortical maturation and the development of visual attention in early infancy. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2:8195. Kadesjo B, Gillberg C (1998). Attention decits and clumsiness in Swedish 7-year-old children. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 40:796804. Kandel ER (2000). From nerve cells to cognition. In ER Kandel, JH Schwartz, TM Jessel (editors): Principles of neural science, 4th ed (pp. 381403). New York, McGraw-Hill. Kandel ER, Kupfermann I, Iverson S (2000). Learning and memory. In ER Kandel, JH Schwartz, TM Jessel (editors): Principles of neural science, 4th ed (pp. 12271246). New York, McGraw-Hill. Keele SW, Ivry R (1990). Does the cerebellum provide a common computation for diverse tasks? A timing hypothesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 608:179211.
Chapter
HAND SKILL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF INFANTS PLAY: BIRTH TO 2 YEARS
Jane Case-Smith
CHAPTER OUTLINE
DEVELOPMENTAL THEORIES AND CONCEPTS A Neuromaturation Model Individual Patterns in Hand Skill Development Hand Skills Emerge Through the Interaction of Systems Perception as a Primary Influence on Hand Skill Development Development of Hand Skills for Functional Outcomes CONTEXTS FOR HAND SKILL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF HAND SKILLS Posture Sensory Systems DEVELOPMENT OF HAND SKILLS IN THE CONTEXT OF INFANT PLAY ACTIVITIES Play Activities: Birth to 12 Months Prehension: Birth to 12 Months Object Release: Birth to 12 Months Bimanual Skills: Birth to 12 Months Play Activities: 12 to 24 Months Prehension: 12 to 24 Months Object Release: 12 to 24 Months Bimanual Skills: 12 to 24 Months SUMMARY
The development of prehension and bimanual coordination is essential to an infants ability to play and explore. As hand skills mature, the infant becomes increasingly competent in exploring and playing with objects. The young infants rudimentary grasp and release patterns become precise patterns during the rst years of life. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the infants development of grasp, release, and bimanual skills in the context of exploratory and functional play. The rst section describes developmental theories and concepts helpful to understanding the development of hand skills. The second and third sections describe how contexts, posture, and sensory function influence hand skill development The fourth section describes the play activities and specic hand skills that characterize the sequential stages of infant development, birth to 2 years.
117
118
1930s and 1940s. Based on neuronal maturation, grasp and manipulation patterns develop in an orderly and relatively invariant sequence. The sequence of reaching and grasping patterns identied in the 1930s by Gesell and Halverson continues to be referenced in developmental motor tests in use today (Bayley Scales of Infant Development) (Bayley, 1993). The neuromaturation theorythat motor development reflects central nervous system maturation emphasizes that early movements are involuntary reflexes under the influence of subcortical brainstem structures (Andre-Thomas, 1964; Gilfoyle, Grady, & Moore, 1990; McGraw, 1943). Neonates reflexive behaviors are automatic reactions to sensory stimulation that result in neonates experiencing arm and hand movements over which they later gain control. Reflexes provide young infants with survival capabilities (e.g., sucking and rooting) and protective responses (e.g., avoiding response). Reflexes allow infants to experience a complete range of movement and tactile proprioceptive input. Reflexes and reactions are modied through interactions with the environment as infants assimilate the sensory feedback from reflexive movements (Gilfoyle et al., 1990). In the rst 6 months they become integrated into acquired or voluntary behaviors. McGraw (1943) describes a typical progression of maturation: (a) dominant reflexive responses, (b) inhibition of reflexes, (c) transitional behaviors, and (d) voluntary motor pattern and skill. This typical sequence varies in the timing of onset and completion of each phase but appears to be remarkably invariant in the ordering of developmental motor patterns. When cortical control begins to dominate over subcortical control of hand movement, voluntary grasp emerges. Transitional behaviors mark the period when reflexes are inhibited and voluntary controlled movements begin to develop (Twitchell, 1970). By 4 months the infant grasps a visually located object. A series of studies were completed from 1925 to 1940 to examine the neuromaturation model. These descriptive studies documented the unfolding of grasping patterns in the rst year of life (Castner, 1932; Halverson, 1931, 1932, 1937; Jones, 1926). Each researcher investigated specic aspects of prehension development. Jones (1926) was interested in when infants begin to use their thumbs, recognizing the importance of thumb movement to effective prehension. He found thumb opposition to be present in all infants by 9 months. Halverson examined visual control of prehension, approach or reach, and grasping patterns. He documented the emergence of visual attention and visually guided grasp. Halverson reported active thumb movement by 7 months and the beginning of ngertip grasp by 9 months. Castner (1932) was primarily interested in precision grasp of small objects (i.e., a
Hand Skill Development in the Context of Infants Play: Birth to 2 Years 119
1997; Thelen et al., 1993) has explored how infants actions and performance emerge from the interaction of many systems, both internal and external to the child. Factors that influence hand skills include the infants size, growth, biomechanical attributes, neurological maturation, perceptual abilities, sensation, and cognition (Gordon & Forssberg, 1997; Manoel & Connolly, 1998; Thelen, 1995; Thelen, Kelso, & Fogel, 1987). Within individual infants, these factors vary with time, activity, and environmental conditions. An infants actions during the performance of a task, then, are the results of the subsystems (e.g., motor, sensory, perceptual, skeletal, psychologic) interacting with each other and the environment. These individual systems are interdependent and work together, such that strengths in one system (e.g., visual) can support limitations in another (e.g., kinesthetic). Which systems are recruited for the tasks varies according to the novelty of the activity and the degree to which the task has become automatic. For example, reaching to pick up a cup initially is guided by the visual system, but after it is practiced and learned, reaching is guided primarily by the kinesthetic system, with some direction by the visual system. In contrast, grasping appears to initially involve primarily somatosensory input, but later also is guided by vision. Early grasping and manipulation patterns that are guided by visual and somatosensory input (e.g., play with a rattle) are later guided by cognition and memory (e.g., handwriting). The infants sensorymotorbiomechanical systems self organize in a coordinated way to achieve the infants goal. For example, when an infant reaches for the toy, grasps it, brings it to midline in hand-to-hand play, and then to the mouth, his attention is not on planning each of these actions. Instead, the infant is focused on assimilating the toys actions and perceptual features, organizing his or her movement around that goal. Therefore developmental outcomes reflect both an infants self organization and the opportunities in the environment. Gibson (1988) denes early action as both exploratory (seeking information) and consequential (causing a consequence). The infants actions are based on affordances of the environment. Affordance denes the t between the child and her environment (Gibson, 1979, Gibson, 1988). The environment and objects in it offer infants opportunities to explore and act. The infants performance is based on not only what the environment affords, but also her perceptual capability to recognize those affordances. For example, most infant toys provide opportunities for manipulation because they have movable parts, rounded surfaces, and easily t into an infants hand. Individual nger movements, thumb opposition, hand-to-hand transfer, and eyehand coordination are facilitated by the infants perception of the physical characteristics of the toy and his desire to explore those perceptual qualities. CaseSmith, Bigsby, and Clutter (1998) found that toys with movable parts afford higher-level skills than a cube or pellet. The movable parts provide a variety of surfaces for the infant to explore. The toys reciprocal action gives feedback to nger movements and sustains the infants attention. The perceptual-motor experience of a toy with movable parts is much more interesting than that of a cube (Figure 7-1). The rst actions of the infant directly relate to his interest in acquiring perceptual and sensory information (infants rst explore objects with their eyes and then hands). Through object manipulation, infants develop haptic perception (i.e., an understanding of objects shape, texture, and mass). Specic motor skills are necessary to develop haptic perception. Researchers (e.g., Bushnell & Boudreau, 1993; Lederman &
Figure 7-1 Movements are guided by object affordances. Toys with movable parts elicit a variety of grasping patterns.
120
Part II Development of Hand Skills BOX 7-1 Three Stages of Learning to Acquire a New Skill
Klatzky, 1987) have demonstrated that young infants develop the hand skills that are necessary to explore an objects sensory qualities. For example, infants rst hand skills enable them to squeeze soft objects, run their ngers back and forth over textured objects, rotate, turn, and transfer objects with interesting shapes. Bushnell and Boudreau (1993) noted that infants learn to identify an objects sensory qualities (e.g., texture, consistency, contour) only when they develop the motor skills to explore each different sensory quality. Therefore an infant does not accurately discriminate texture until she can explore texture by moving her ngers back and forth. She also cannot discriminate hardness until 6 months when she can tighten and lessen her grip while holding an object (Bushnell & Boudreau, 1991). Because congurable shape requires that two hands are involved in exploring the objects surfaces, infants typically cannot accurately perceive shape until 12 months.
1. Exploratory activity Learn about objects and tasks A variety of patterns and approaches tried Lower levels of skills used Focus on perceptual learning about the tasks to gain information 2. Perceptual learning and feedback acquired from previous tasks performed Actions initially tried and ineffective are discarded Continue to gain perceptual knowledge about the task Performance is variable, demonstrating higher and lower levels of skill 3. Discovery of the optimal solution by selecting the action pattern that will best achieve the goal Pattern selected is comfortable, efcient, and indicates increased self-organization Demonstrates flexible consistency in performance Tends to use a stable pattern for a task (e.g., stack blocks), but can easily adapt the pattern according to tasks requirement (e.g., with larger blocks, heavier blocks) High adaptability characterizes well-learned tasks Mature movement patterns are characterized by adaptable stability Synergist movements (muscles and joints working together) are softly assembled around the goal of the task Specic movement patterns are observed (e.g., a tripod grasp) Generalizes movement patterns to other tasks when well learned for one task
objects and tasks. Most skill acquisition begins with exploration, when a variety of patterns and approaches are tried. New challenges tend to elicit lower levels of skills because these more basic skills can be accessed easily and require less energy and effort than higherlevel skills (Gilfoyle et al., 1990). By using lower-level skills to explore a new task, the child can focus on perceptual learning about the tasks to gain information that will allow mastery with experience. In the second phase of learning a task, the infant uses the perceptual learning and feedback he acquired from attempting to perform the task. Actions that were initially tried and were ineffective are discarded. During this phase, the infant continues to gain perceptual knowledge about the task. Learning potential is high when the task is perceptually interesting and the skill demands are within the capability of the infant. At this transitional phase, the infants performance is variable in that he demonstrates higher and lower levels of skill. For example, Connolly and Dalgleish (1989) found considerable variability when infants rst attempted to
Hand Skill Development in the Context of Infants Play: Birth to 2 Years 121
use a spoon. McCarty, Clifton and Collard (1999) noted that the transitional stage for spoon feeding is between 14 and 19 months with an optimal solution emerging by 19 months. In the third phase of learning, an infant discovers the optimal solution by selecting the action pattern that will best achieve the goal. The pattern selected is comfortable and efcient and indicates increased selforganization. During this last stage of learning, the child demonstrates flexible consistency in performance. The infant tends to use a stable pattern for a task (e.g., stack blocks), but can easily adapt the pattern according to the tasks requirement (e.g., with larger blocks, heavier blocks). High adaptability characterizes a welllearned task and mature movement patterns are characterized by adaptable stability (Gordon & Forssberg, 1997; Thelen, 1995; Thelen et al., 1987). Synergistic movements (muscles and joints working together) are softly assembled around the goal of the task, allowing the infant to adapt the pattern he has learned when task variables change. Specic movement patterns are observed in most children, such as a tripod grasp; once a tripod grasp is well learned, it is easily adapted to pens and pencils of different sizes and weights. When movement patterns are well learned for one task and are performed with flexible adaptability, the infant also generalizes them to other tasks. McCarty and coworkers (2001) demonstrated that infants who learned to hold a spoon with a radial grasp consistently generalized this pattern to other tools and tasks with self-directed goals. By 14 months, the infants consistently used a radial grasp on tools that were selfdirected (e.g., a hairbrush), recognizing it as the most efcient grasp for using the tool. A century of research on infant motor development has provided a detailed description of the sequence of hand skills development and a conceptual understanding of how infants develop hand skills. Knowledge about the sequence allows therapists to identify infants who may benet from intervention and to establish goals that reflect the next skill expected to emerge. The theories that explain how infants develop hand skills form the basis for intervention and educational approaches. One recurring theme in human development research, the relationship between skill development and environmental context, is discussed in the following section. makeup and after birth provide his learning environment. Children develop skills through participation in their familys and communitys cultural practices. Cultural practices are the routine activities common to a community or people and reflect how they play, recreate, and interact in social occasions. The infants cultural, social, and physical contexts expand greatly through the rst 2 years of life. The widening context affords the infant an increasing variety of experiences, challenges, and opportunities. In most cultures, the rst 6 months of life are characterized by closeness to the caregiver. Often children are held and when they are positioned for play, they are immobile for all practical purposes. The infant is quite dependent at this point in life, not only to have his basic needs met, but to bring play objects within reach. In cultures with high interdependence and strong appreciation of extended family, the infant may be continually held by a variety of family caregivers beyond the parents. Hand skills may be practiced on the caregivers lap by reaching for and grasping hair, jewelry, or clothing items. First reach and grasp may be practiced on the mothers breast. A familys culture background influences the objects made available to the infant. In some cultures, toys are not valued or not available; as a result, young infants do not experience these learning objects. The contexts for play expand for infants after they gain mobility (e.g., around 8 months). Because the infant now can move to play objects, her sense of autonomy increases and she has increasing choice about play with objects. Once the infant is mobile, she is unlikely to spend play time on her parents lap and is more likely to play on the floor or in a seating device with the caregiver nearby. Being able to move to a location or object affords the infant greater variety of play objects, enables the infant to develop selfdeterminism, and expands the infants perception of form, space, direction, and depth. Cultural traditions influence how much the infant is held, the space afforded to him or her for exploration, and the complexity of the environment available. Infants of families with low economic status may not have appropriate spaces to explore and may be restricted for safety reasons. Families of cultures that value infants exploration and play may have more toys and activities available. The effect of poverty on motor skills development is equivocal. Peterson and Albers (2001) found that poverty had a small negative effect on motor development in girls. In contrast, boys whose families had lower income demonstrated higher motor skills than boys from more affluent families. Using a large sample of different ethnic and economic groups, Bradley and co-workers (2001) found that poverty per se did not have a negative effect on infants motor develop-
122
ment; however, variables sometimes related to ethnicity and economic status (i.e., availability of learning materials and degree of parental responsiveness) did relate to motor development. A number of studies have found differences in hand skill development when children from different cultures are compared. In a study that examined motor performance in Chinese and American children, American children demonstrated higher scores in most gross motor skills and Chinese children were higher in ne motor skills (Chow, Henderson, & Barnett, 2001). The authors suggest that Chinese children may not have the same amount of space available for play and exploration and Chinese parents also may not value gross motor skill development as much as ne motor skill because early prociency with chopsticks and writing implements is expected. Yim, Cho, and Lee (2003) found that hand strength of children in Korea was lower than in children from America and other Western countries. Although these studies of Chinese and Korean children examined older children (preschool and elementary ages), the results have implications for infants because hand skill and strength develop incrementally from infancy. Differences in caregiving practices across cultures appear to affect infant skill development. When evaluated using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 3- to 5-month old Brazilian infants were less skilled in grasping and sitting than American infants (Santos, Gabbard, & Goncalves, 2001). Santos and co-workers attributed these differences to the tradition that Brazilian mothers hold their infants almost constantly for the rst 6 months. Because the infants are totally supported for an extended period, their delay in hand skill development may relate to delay in postural stability development. These studies illustrate differences that have been observed in different ethnic groups; however, these differences have not been systematically studied in ethnic groups that live in America, limiting generalizability to children of different cultures who live in the United States.
POSTURE
The rst stable posture of the infant is lying on his back. Laying supine offers optimal stability; the infant must reach against gravity, which constrains reach with grasp. Because posture is unstable in the rst months after birth, the 2-month-old infant primarily demonstrates asymmetric posturing, reinforced by the influence of the asymmetric tonic neck reflex (Gesell et al., 1940). This asymmetric posture limits his or her visual eld and reinforces visual inspection of the hands (Bower, 1974). To reach and grasp objects, infants must maintain stable vision of the target as they lift their arms. Thelen and Spencer (1998) found that head control is critical to successful reaching. In their study reaching did not emerge in any of the infant participants until several weeks after good head control emerged. By 3 months, the infant has an emerging sense of midline, and when supine brings the head to midline and the hands toward midline. Symmetric weight bearing in prone and increasing head control contribute to establishing a sense of midline. Neck and shoulder stability develops as a prerequisite for control of reach and hand movements in space. Symmetry is the predominant characteristic of the infants posture between 4 and 6 months. Head and hands come to midline, enabling a hands-together posture and visual inspection of both hands. As a result, the infant spends much of the time in hand-to-hand play, rst on the chest and then in space at the midline. Head and trunk control and postural stability change dramatically during this quartile. Thus the infant gains important axial support for reach and use of hands in space. Stability through the neck and shoulders helps the infant gain control of the arms; therefore in supported positions he or she can hold her hands in space while grasping an object. The movements of neck, trunk, and arms appear to be coordinated early in life. Van der Fits and Hadders-Algra (1998) found that complex postural adjustments accompany the infants reach by 4 months, when successful reaching emerges. Therefore as reach and grasp emerge and later mature, postural stability provides a base for these movements. By 6 months, the infant demonstrates increased postural control in the prone position, pushing onto extended hands and shifting weight side to side. When on elbows, the infant is able to lift one arm entirely from the weight-bearing surface for reach to an object. This complete lateral weight shift provides proprioceptive input through the hands across the palmar surface. It also results in asymmetric sensory experiences. Prone
Hand Skill Development in the Context of Infants Play: Birth to 2 Years 123
Figure 7-2
Figure 7-4
Figure 7-3
positions help the infant strengthen arm and hand musculature and provide tactile proprioceptive information that appears important to the hands perceptual development (Boehme, 1988) (Figure 7-2). Although the increased postural control of the 6-month-old child supports symmetric movements of the hands in space, it does not appear adequate for skilled asymmetric or unilateral movements. In the following months, when trunk stability is sufcient for independent sitting, the infant develops an increased repertoire of arm and hand movements that includes both symmetric and asymmetric patterns. Gains in postural control allow the 7-month-old child to sit independently (Figure 7-3). In the next several months sitting becomes a favorite play position because the hands are free to hold objects, and the infant can control weight shift forward or to the sides to obtain objects (Figure 7-4).
Increased axial control seems to support the use of one-hand reach and bimanual ngering (exploration) of an object held at midline. Trunk rotation has developed in fully supported positions (i.e., rolling from supine to prone and prone to supine) and begins to develop in sitting positions. Related to these skills, the infant demonstrates crossing the midline and begins to use the hand in crossed lateral space. In a review of the research literature, Bertenthal and von Hofsten (1998) reported that reaching skills signicantly improve between 6 and 7 months of age. At this age, infants become highly accurate in reaching for a moving target, a task that requires rapid adjustments of arm movement and the postural stability to allow for those adjustments. Infants at 7 and 8 months also assume the quadruped position and begin to creep. The on-handsand-knees position results in frequent weight bearing on the hands. This position tends to be dynamic and mobile, thereby providing tactile and proprioceptive input across the hand (Figure 7-5). The frequency of play in prone position (in and out of quadruped) strengthens the arms and hands. The infant shifts weight across the hands in a diagonal direction while moving from quadruped to side sitting (Boehme, 1988). Strengthening of the arms also occurs through pulling to stand and through supporting himself while erect (Figure 7-6). Postural stability increases such that the 12-monthold infant has greater control of arms in space while sitting independently. The internal stability of the arm allows the infant to prehend a small object using a superior pincer grasp (i.e., use a pincer grasp without
124
Figure 7-5 Creeping on hands and knees provides tactile and proprioceptive input to hands.
SENSORY SYSTEMS
The sensory systems that most influence hand skill development are visual, tactile, and proprioceptive. By the third month the head is held at midline, which frees the range of vision. During this same period the infant learns to control eye movements, and visual inspection becomes a key strategy for learning about the environment. Visual attention to specic events and objects indicates the infants ability to focus and assimilate important information from the environment (Bower, 1974; White, Castle, & Held, 1964). Although visual attention becomes more discriminating (von Hofsten & Rosander, 1996), hand skills remain primitive in that the hand does not adapt to the specic sensory qualities of the object it grasps, and control of release has not been established (Figure 7-7). The infant from birth through 3 months is often prone lying and has frequent opportunities for tactile or proprioceptive input to the hands and forearms. He presses into a prone propped position with the head erect, resulting in deep proprioceptive input to the arms. Hand opening while weight bearing, prone-onelbows, provides specic tactile input to the palms. Mouthing of the hand allows tactile exploration of the hand and provides tactile or proprioceptive input to the
stabilizing the arm on the surface). Postural stability is an important factor in the development of an accurate and well-directed reach (Corbetta & Thelen, 1996). With increasing trunk stability and rotation the infant is able to reach to the bodys contralateral side. Postural stability also enables the child to reach overhead and behind when sitting.
Hand Skill Development in the Context of Infants Play: Birth to 2 Years 125
Figure 7-7
Figure 7-9 Infant at 4 months explores a toy with hands and eyes.
hand. When the infant is supine, the hands nd each other on the chest, clasping and engaging in mutual ngering (Figure 7-8). These tactile or proprioceptive experiences contribute to the development of grasp and release patterns, as do the visual experiences that contribute to the development of visually guided hand movements. Sensory experiences continue to be a primary basis for movement in the 3- to 6-month-old infant. The infant delights in the sensory world and begins to integrate the information from more than one sensory system. Rochat (1987) reported that infants this age perceive hardness when compared with soft consistencies. Bushnell and Boudreau (1993) concluded that infants as young as 3 months can perceive hardness,
size, and temperature. Mouthing and ngering behaviors increase signicantly from 3 to 6 months, increasing an infants perceptual learning (Ruff, 1984) (Figure 7-9). Fingering behaviors are associated with visual inspection. At 4 and 5 months of age infants increasingly make successive oral and visual contacts with the object, thereby integrating information from two different sensory systems. Beginning at 5 and 6 months, infants use both hands to explore objects. They explore textures, rotate and transfer objects, and alternate looking with mouthing (Rochat, 1989). Ruff and Kohler (1978) demonstrated that after 6-monthold infants tactually explore objects, they tend to visually prefer those objects. Their results provide evidence that an infant visually recognizes an object that was previously held and tactually experienced but not visualized. Sensory play at this time consists of mouthing, hand-to-hand ngering, and intense visual inspection. The role of vision in guiding manipulation has an increasingly important role after 6 months and then throughout development (Bushnell & Boudreau, 1991). Whereas tactile input had primary influence on grasp and manipulation, vision becomes a primary sense for guiding the infants manipulation. McCall (1974) reported an increase in manipulation with visual regard at 812 months. Castner (1932) observed that the duration of regard increased at 8 and 9 months, as did the infants accuracy in reach and grasp of a pellet.
126
Figure 7-10 Infant at 8 months integrates visual and tactile information from toy with movable parts.
Active mouthing decreases as manipulation with visual regard increases in the second half of the rst year (McCall, 1974). This active mouthing appears to be replaced with ngering. The increasing importance of vision in manipulation complements rather than diminishes the importance of the tactile system. The infant is now able to integrate visual and tactile information, using both senses simultaneously to learn about the objects properties (Corbetta & Mounoud, 1990; Ruff, 1984) (Figure 7-10). lntermodal transfer of tactile and visual information (visual recognition of an object after handling it without vision) becomes possible at this age (Ruff & Kohler, 1978; Steele & Pederson, 1977). Changes in discrimination of the objects weight and shape enable the 9- to 10-monthold child to hold a cracker without crushing it and lift an object with the appropriate amount of force. At 12 months the infant continues to use vision as a primary guide to object manipulation. The infant can visually recognize the physical properties of the object and act on it appropriately. For example, a 12-monthold infant bangs and hits a rigid object and squeezes or presses a spongy object (Bushnell & Boudreau, 1993; Gibson & Walker, 1984). Fingering and hand-to-hand manipulation become the primary modes for exploring the sensory qualities of an object (Ruff, 1984) (Figure 7-11). Integration of senses continues and the infant becomes increasingly able to recognize objects visually that had been explored only through the tactile sense. Infants learn anticipatory control; that is, they plan their
movements after visualizing the object. Anticipatory control means that the infant opens his hand according to the objects size and shape before prehension. Through their prehension experiences infants also begin to anticipate the force necessary to grasp and lift an object (Gordon & Forssberg, 1997; Johansson & Westling, 1988). In the second year of life, the infant becomes interested in the functional use of objects and functional goals become the prime motive for manipulation (Gibson, 1988). The child continues to integrate visual, tactile, and proprioceptive sensations by practicing perceptual motor skills, demonstrating increased abilities to use information from these sensory systems to correct and rene movements. Thus increased precision of movement results from increased perceptual ability, as well as improved motor skill. The child can now recognize the tactile and auditory properties of the object through visual inspection and therefore approaches an object with an appropriate response (i.e., shaking a rattle, squeezing a sponge, crumpling paper, or using more force to lift a large object). By 2 years of age, improved sensory discrimination and integration enable the child to demonstrate increased variety and control of perceptual-motor skills. The 24-month-old child is able to assimilate multimodal sensory information and make appropriate adaptive responses. Success in perceptual-motor skills such as stringing beads and simple dressing tasks illustrates the childs ability to integrate and use sensory information.
Hand Skill Development in the Context of Infants Play: Birth to 2 Years 127
input to the hand. He or she begins to actively explore objects using specic movements to create sounds and visual effects. By 6 months the infant can purposely roll and initiate rolling to experience movement. Toys that react to simple movements are favorites in play. Rattles are good examples, in that almost any movement produces a sound, reinforcing the infants play and exploration (Piaget, 1952). Toys that are activated by generalized responses continue to be preferred to those that require specic, more localized responses; for example, a rattle is preferred to a busy box requiring differentiated push, pull, and press of ngers (McCall, 1974). From 6 to 12 months, infants spend most of their playtime in object exploration. Interest in and awareness of the environment increases (as described in the previous section). Visual and tactile exploration of objects predominates. These exploratory behaviors are characterized by a rich variety of manipulative skills. Cause and effect are well established, and rather than repeating the same actions on a toy, the infant tries new strategies to create different reactions (Piaget, 1952). Play involves imitation of actions observed, including toy manipulation. The physical properties of the object guide responses, because the infant does not yet understand the specic functional uses of objects. The infant begins to bang objects together and place one object in proximity to another. These behaviors signal the advent of tool usage and specic actions of one object in relation to another (Bruner, 1970; Lockman, 2000). In the rst year, infants also engage in social play that is focused on attachment, or bonding, to the primary caregivers. Infants play social games with parents and others to elicit responses. These may involve pat-acake, squeezes, and kisses. Although infants at this age engage readily with individuals other than family, they require their parents presence as an emotional base and return to them for occasional emotional refueling before returning to play. Therefore an infant remains near to caregivers, who assist in opening containers, turning knobs, and providing physical assistance as the infant investigates his environment (Pierce, 1997).
Newborns tightly flex their ngers around a flexed thumb, only occasionally opening the hand in association with active extension of the trunk or arms. The neonates sted hand is consistent with the overall
128
predominance of physiologic flexor tone that dominates upper- and lower-extremity movements. He or she frequently brings the sted hand to the mouth when prone, pulling the hands toward midline while assuming an overall flexed position. The rst reflexive response of the arm and hand, termed the traction response, is demonstrated by the neonate when proprioceptive input or traction is applied to the arm. When the arm is pulled away from the body, synergistic flexion of the ngers, wrist, elbow, and shoulder results. As described by Twitchell (1970), stretch to the flexor and adductor muscles of shoulder is a sufcient stimulus for eliciting this response. In the rst couple of weeks of life, the grasp reflex has not yet emerged. The neonate may posture with sted hands, but responses to touch on the hands result in opening or partial opening. It is not until the second to fourth week of life that the infant automatically closes the ngers around an object (or adults nger) placed in his palm. This rst grasp reflex requires that pressure (proprioception), as well as tactile input be applied to the palm and is accompanied by the traction response. A grasping reflex is not elicited in response to a visual stimulus. By 4 weeks the grasp reflex can be elicited with a contact stimulus to the palm or ngers. A moving stimulus is most effective in producing this local grasp reaction, which is immediately followed by the traction response. By 8 weeks two distinct phases of the grasp reflex are observed. The rst is the catching phase, which is an immediate flexion of the ngers and thumb. In the second or holding phase the nger flexion is sustained. This holding is intensied if the object is lightly pulled. The traction response declines at this time but can be elicited when the arm is pulled from the body (Twitchell, 1970). By 3 to 4 months of age a true grasp reflex has developed and the traction response no longer automatically accompanies this response, although dorsiflexion of the wrist continues to accompany the nger flexion. When an object is placed in the hand and is moved medially, the ngers flex in a sustaining grasp. A palmar grasp is observed with the ngers flexing tightly and pressing the object into the palm. Although in past research an ulnar palmar grasp was documented to emerge rst, more recent research shows that the index nger is active rst and has a leading role in the rst grasping patterns (Lantz, Melen, & Forssberg, 1996). The grasp reflex becomes diminished at 4 to 5 months of age and fractionation of the grasp reflex begins (Twitchell, 1970). One or two ngers flex in isolation from the others, given specic stimulation of their volar surfaces. At 5 to 6 months an instinctive grasp emerges, which combines the fractionated grasp and the orienting response (Twitchell, 1970). At this time the
Purposeful Grasp
The transitional behaviors described previously lead to the emergence of voluntary prehension (Gilfoyle et al., 1990). Between 4 and 6 months the infant develops control of grasp (Figure 7-13). Using both tactile and visual information, she becomes skillful in adjusting the hand to the object. The infant begins to use visual input to prepare the hand for grasp by opening and shaping the hand before grasp according to the objects size and shape (Corbetta & Mounoud, 1990; Forssberg, 1998). These beginning abilities to grasp, orient, and adjust the hand to objects based on tactile and visual information signify the beginning of purposeful grasp. The infant becomes capable of using a variety of grasping patterns that are selected based on the affordances of
Figure 7-13
Hand Skill Development in the Context of Infants Play: Birth to 2 Years 129
the objects and his or her playful intentions. Initially the infant uses only a few grasping patterns and uses them indiscriminately. As the infant gains experience and matures, a variety of patterns can be observed. At 20 weeks most infants touch, but do not grasp, a cube placed before them. The infant who successfully secures the cube does so by pulling it to the other hand or the body and squeezing it against another surface. Squeeze grasp develops by 20 to 24 weeks. The infant presses the cube using total nger flexion against the palm. Because his or her proprioceptive system and motor control remain crudely developed, the cube is squeezed tightly. Success in retaining the object is limited by his or her ability to adjust the object within the hand or differentiate nger movement. The thumb does not actively participate in this grasp and tends to lie in the palmar plane. Finger and hand movements without object grasp contribute to the development of grasp (Castner, 1932; Halverson, 1931). The 4- to 5-month-old infant often is observed scratching the supporting surface when prone on elbows. The infant uses alternating nger flexion and extension of the digits together. Scratching also may occur on the caregivers clothing when holding the infant upright against the shoulder. The scratching motion allows the infant to practice the full range of reciprocal nger flexion and extension. Scratching also provides the infant with rich tactile information about different textural surfaces. Halverson (1931) observed rubbing of the hand on the surface as an additional method for obtaining tactile input in the infant at 16 to 28 weeks. As the infant continues to use scratching, nger movements become differentiated such that one or two ngers move in isolation of the others. Halverson documented pianoing or raising and lowering of each nger alternately on the table in infants 16 to 24 weeks of age. Pianoing appears to be an automatic movement rather than a purposeful isolated motion of each digit. As with other hand skills, isolated movements of the ngers occur rst in these automatic behaviors elicited by the sensory stimulation of the hand resting on a flat surface. A palmar grasp is most frequently used by the 24-week-old infant. The palmar grasp is characterized by a pronated hand and flexion of all ngers around the object. The thumb may slide around the object passively rather than actively holding it (see Figure 7-13). Halverson suggested that when thumb opposition rst appears at 28 weeks, it is used only in association with a palmar grasp. By 28 weeks the infant holds the object in a radial palmar grasp (Gesell & Amatruda, 1947) or what Halverson (1931) termed a superior palmar grasp. The radial ngers and thumb press the cube against the palm (Figure 7-14). Therefore when held in a
Figure 7-14
supinated hand, the object can be brought to and put into the mouth. The object can be banged against another surface, and the object becomes accessible for object transfer from hand to hand. The radial palmar grasp is a hallmark in grasp maturation because the infant now differentiates the sides of the hand, using the ulnar side to provide stability for the grasping movement and the radial side to prehend and hold the object. This early pattern signies the initial development of radial ngers as the skill side of the hand. Knobloch and Pasamanick (1974) emphasized the versatility observed in manipulation patterns at 7 months: He grasps it, brings it to his mouth, withdraws it again for inspection, restores it again for mouthing, transfers it to the other hand, bangs it, contacts it with the free hand, retransfers it, mouths it again, drops it, rescues it, mouths it again (p. 60). Between 32 and 36 weeks the infant demonstrates grasp of the object in the ngers rather than the palm, and by 36 weeks the infant exhibits a radial digital grasp (Gesell & Amatruda, 1947) or inferior forenger grasp (Halverson, 1931) (Figure 7-15). At this time the infant can prehend a small object between the radial ngers and thumb. With the object held distally in the ngers (proximal to the nger pads), the infant can adjust the object within the hand and as a result can use the object for various purposes while holding it. The adjustments allow for greater success in relating two objects or in bringing the object to the mouth for nger feeding. The movement of the object distally and to the radial ngers gives the infant greater control of the object and enables release control. When the 36-week-old infant grasps a very small object (pellet size), a scissors grasp is used. Gesell and
130
Figure 7-15
Automatic Release
As with grasp, the rst object release observed is a reflexive behavior. Finger extension is observed as the neonate withdraws and abducts the ngers in response to touch of the hand (Twitchell, 1970). This response, termed the avoiding reaction, is usually only a slight withdrawal of the neonates hand. By 3 weeks and continuing to about 8 weeks, the avoiding response is elicited easily. When the dorsum of the hand is touched, the ngers abduct and extend. The hand also may pronate to withdraw from a contact stimulus. This response is elicited when the contact stimulus is lighter and more quickly applied than the rm palmar stimulation that elicits the grasp reflex. Twitchell (1970) described an instinctive avoiding response that is similar in nature to the instinctive grasp response, in that it represents a transitional behavior between reflexive and voluntary responses. The instinctive avoiding response emerges between 12 and 20 weeks of age. It is characterized by pronation and adduction away from a stimulus on the hands ulnar border and supination with abduction to stimulation of the hands radial side. The instinctive avoiding reaction generally is fully developed by 24 to 40 weeks of age (Twitchell, 1965, 1970). At this time the infant withdraws from light contact stimulation, using a variety of hand movements, including flexion, extension, abduction, adduction, and rotation. Avoiding reactions are seen more frequently when the infant is irritable or when generalized tactile defensiveness is present. The avoiding response serves as an automatic mechanism to reinforce hand opening and facilitate nger extension to balance the effects of the grasp reflex. According to Gesell and Amatruda (1947), release requires inhibition of the flexor muscles with contraction of the extensors, which is a more mature, later-developing neuromotor pattern. More recent theories (Thelen et al., 1987, Thelen & Smith, 1994) that recognize the interaction of systems in development attribute initial hand opening to per-
Figure 7-16
Amatruda, as edited by Knobloch and Pasamanick (1974), dened a scissors grasp as prehension of a small object between the thumb and lateral border of the index nger after a raking movement of the ngers. The hand is stabilized on a surface during this grasp, and the ulnar ngers are flexed to provide stability of the thumb and radial nger movement (Figure 7-16). Forenger grasp (Halverson, 1931) or inferior pincer grasp (Gesell & Amatruda, 1947) is observed at 40 weeks. This is a ngertip grasp in which the infant stabilizes the forearm on the table as a base while grasping the cube. The ngers that prehend the small object are more extended than flexed. By 52 to 56 weeks the infant prehends and holds the object between the thumb and forenger tip. Successful prehension using a superior pincer grasp (Halverson, 1931; Illingworth, 1991) is achieved without the forearm stabilizing on the surface. At this time the ngers adjust to the size and weight of the object. The object is now in a position that it can be used readily in a play activity or as a tool. Because the infant no longer needs to stabilize to grasp, he can easily prehend objects from a variety of
Hand Skill Development in the Context of Infants Play: Birth to 2 Years 131
ceptual and biomechanical influences. The hand may rst open with wrist flexion, which produces tension of the nger extensors. The hand also may open to rub or pat objects to perceive their sensory qualities (Bushnell & Boudreau, 1993). release is often accomplished by flinging the object combining elbow, wrist, and nger extension in a synergistic, ballistic movement. The infant now purposefully drops food and toys from his or her highchair and takes great pleasure in practicing this newfound skill. The object is released with the hand above the table surface, using full nger and thumb extension. Object-releasing activity is reinforced by the auditory and visual consequence of dropping the object. This new skill is also reinforced by the development of object permanence and the infants interest in observing objects disappear and reappear. By 52 weeks the infant demonstrates greater prociency in releasing the object. With increasing control of nger extension, the infant begins to demonstrate graded hand opening when releasing. At this time she is practicing precision release for stacking one block on another or placing a form in its form space. Graded hand opening with controlled nger extension is rst observed with the proximal hand base and forearm stabilized on a surface.
Purposeful Release
From 5 to 6 months the infant begins a transition from reflexive to purposeful release. The infant demonstrates release accidentally or involuntarily in association with movements, tactile stimulation to the hand, or contact with another surface. At 6 months release is observed during mouthing and bimanual play. The infant brings an object or nger food to the mouth with both hands and may release one or both once the object is stabilized in the mouth. When the infant holds an object with two hands, one hand may fall from the object. Meanwhile, the infant practices nger extension in other activities. For example, extended ngers may be observed in patting the bottle or toy (Figure 7-17). Additional facilitation of nger extension in the 6- and 7-month-old child (see Figure 7-2) also occurs in the prone-on-hands position. At 28 weeks, the child releases an object when transferring it from one hand to the other. Initially object transfer is achieved by holding the object at midline with both hands and pulling it out of one hand into the other. Therefore the release is actually a forced withdrawal accomplished by the opposite hand. During this same developmental period the infant releases an object on a table surface or another resisting (Gesell & Amatruda, 1947) or assisting (Ammon & Etzel, 1977) surface. Release with the assistance of another surface enables the child to roll the object from the ngers or remove it from the hand by inhibiting nger flexion (i.e., without active extension). Between 40 and 44 weeks the infant demonstrates purposeful release in the context of play (Illingworth, 1991; Knobloch & Pasamanick, 1974). This rst active
Figure 7-17
132
Figure 7-18
Symmetric arm movements at 4 months. Figure 7-19 Unilateral approach to grasp object.
object is held between them (Figure 7-18). Almost universally, once the object is prehended, the infant brings it to the mouth or chest. The object may drop when transported to the mouth or may be captured against a body part. These behaviors are reinforced by the infants drive toward symmetric midline movements at this age and the desire to experience oral sensation. Lack of internal trunk stability at 4 months also results in bringing both hands together around the object for distal stability. The 20-week-old infant tends to use the simultaneous approach described earlier, in which both hands move toward the object at the same time. The infant attempts to prehend the object using both hands (Castner, 1932). Although the 5-month-old infant reaches for the object with two hands, he uses only one to grasp the object (Fagard & Peze, 1997). The second hand may support the rst after grasp is achieved, and often both hands bring the object to the mouth or hold it in space for visual inspection. Intermanual transfer has signicantly increased (Rochat, 1989), although active purposeful release has not yet developed. Compared with 2- and 3-month-olds, 4- and 5-month-old infants demonstrate signicantly better organized bimanual action with more holding and ngering of objects, The bilateral ngering behavior observed at this age has been described as grasping the object with one hand and touching it or scanning the objects surface with the other (Ruff, 1984).
initiates movement in the second hand as the rst hand ends its approach (Castner, 1932). Bilaterality versus unilaterality in approach seems to be determined by the objects size and the way it is presented. The 7-month-old infant uses a bilateral approach for large objects and a unilateral approach for small objects (Fagard, 1998) (Figure 7-19). Other authors suggest that approach is determined by the external support provided for the infants proximal stability during reach (Bushnell, 1985; Halverson, 1931). After grasping the object, the infant visually inspects it or brings it to the mouth. She may transfer it using the mouth as a stabilizer. The 7-month-old infant uses primarily bilateral movements for object manipulation (Goldeld & Michel, 1986; Flament, as cited in Corbetta & Mounoud, 1990). At this time the infant demonstrates associated, rather than independent, bimanual movements. Although the two hands act in concert, an increasing variety of exploratory and manipulative behaviors are observed (Figure 7-20). For example, the infant uses an extended index nger to poke or probe an object held in the other hand. This probing with one hand while holding with the other is a primary method of object exploration. As mentioned, by 7 months the infant holds the object in the radial digits and actively transfers it from hand to hand, while visually and tactilely exploring it. Active supination and isolated wrist movements enable the infant to partially rotate or turn the object for visual inspection. These isolated movements often are mimicked by the other hand. Manipulation of the object at this time is limited to transfers from hand to
Hand Skill Development in the Context of Infants Play: Birth to 2 Years 133
B
Figure 7-21 toys. A 7-month-old infant continues to mouth Figure 7-22 A, B. Infants can hold two objects simultaneously by 7 months.
hand or hand to mouth rather than within hand manipulation. Mouthing remains an important part of the infants exploration (Figure 7-21). After 7 months of age, infants begin to play with two toys at a time (Figure 7-22). The infant bangs two objects together as the rst indication of her capacity to associate objects (Corbetta & Mounoud, 1990). In the following weeks the infant adds to the repertoire of bilateral movements. In addition to visual inspection and hand-to-hand exchange, the infant waves toys in the air and bangs them on the table surface. By 9 months the striking change in manipula-
tion is not related to the development of any specic skill, but to the expanded range of behaviors observed. Now one hand holds the object and the second hand manipulates the object. In complementary bimanual activities, one hand positions the object and the other manipulates parts of it (Bruner, 1970). Halverson (1931) noted that 9-month-olds exhibited all of the following behaviors: transfer, visual inspection, release and regain, bang it on the table, and hold it with both hands. By 9 months object rotation, primarily achieved by transferring from hand to hand, allows the infant to perceive the shapes of objects (Lederman &
134
Klatzky, 1987). This type of rotation is possible because of increasing control of the radial digits and ability to grade supination and pronation as the object moves from hand to hand. This two-hand cooperation in turning an object is evidence of beginning dissociation of symmetric arm movements. Near the end of the rst year a change is observed in the linkage between two-hand movement (Goldeld & Michel, 1986). Whereas 7-month-old infants move their hands in the same direction, 11-month-olds move them in complementary directions. This change marks the initiation of mature bimanual skills.
Figure 7-23 Play includes distinct yet complementary movement of each hand.
Hand Skill Development in the Context of Infants Play: Birth to 2 Years 135
Figure 7-24
functions of the toy. Second, 2-year-old children now direct actions away from themselves. The objects used in play generally resemble real-life objects (Linder, 1993). The child places the doll in a toy bed and then covers it. The child pretends to feed a stuffed animal or drives toy cars through a toy garage. At 2 years of age, play remains a central occupation of the child, who now has an increased attention span and the ability to combine multiple actions in play. The emergence of symbolic or imaginary play with toys and objects offers the rst opportunities for the child to practice the skills of daily living (Parham & Primeau, 1997; Reilly, 1974). As the infant learns more about the capabilities and affordances of objects, his play become more elaborate. His manipulation skills match his need to open and combine objects in novel ways, sometimes imitating parents and peers and sometimes experimenting with object properties. In general, the functional purpose of toys determines the toddlers response: dialing the phone, turning the music box, unzipping a zipper, scribbling with a crayon, or pushing a car (Figure 7-24). With an increased interest in relating multiple objects, the child lls a container with small objects, places one object on or next to another, and scoops food with a spoon. These relational play activities often require stabilizing the toy or object with one hand while manipulating with the other. The childs understanding of cause and effect and object permanence results in increased interest in switches, hinges, push buttons, and pop-up toys. Switches require elaboration of the prehensile patterns developed and new combinations of arm and hand movements. Most play activities now require bimanual skills, and the child is able to use hands together simultaneously or reciprocally (Corbetta & Mounoud, 1990) (Figure 7-25). The child engages in longer and more complex play sequences that
Figure 7-25 Blended mobility and stability and use of isolated finger movements.
Figure 7-26 Cup drinking as an example of coordinated hand movements for a functional goal.
require new combinations of hand skills. Pushing, pulling, probing, rotating, and turning are combined into a new repertoire of play behaviors (Nicholich, 1977). With new understanding of tool use, the child engages in play activities that require mobility of the proximal arm and stability of the hand for grasping the object (Exner, 2005). The functional use of some objects, such as a cup, requires a series of combined mobility and stability of the arm and hand (Figure 7-26). The functional play that characterizes the child at this age correlates with an increasing purposefulness
136
Figure 7-27
in manipulation. Although the child continues to explore objects to learn their sensory properties, she also often uses objects for their specic function as part of a purposeful play activity. The 2-year-old child uses utensils with competency. He now has sufcient control of crayon or pencil grasp to make a vertical stroke. Most children insist on selffeeding at this stage. Although early attempts to spoon feed generally fail, the intent is clear. Self-feeding becomes more successful because the child does not turn the spoon as it enters the mouth (Figure 7-27). Spoon feeding and early drawing skills are made possible by integration of sensory and perceptual information into blended patterns of mobility and stability. With improved perceptual-motor integration, the child imitates a circular stroke, matches a form to a form space, holds an object with appropriate pressure, places and releases an object with accuracy, and demonstrates beginning eyehand coordination in ball play. All of these skills indicate an increased ability to integrate sensory experience and make accurate motor responses or adaptations to those sensory inputs (Connolly & Dalgleish, 1989).
PREHENSION: 12 TO 24 MONTHS
By 60 weeks prehension is deft and precise. The child plans and uses grasping patterns that enable him or her to act on the object after prehension (Gesell & Amatruda, 1947). Fingertip grasp is used unless the object is large and heavy or the situation is stressful for the child (e.g., being off balance or hurried). The hand is sufciently differentiated to hold two cubes in one hand (Knobloch & Pasamanick, 1974). The child can
Hand Skill Development in the Context of Infants Play: Birth to 2 Years 137
now able to adapt and adjust the hand opening according to the size, shape, and weight of the object. Controlled release in the 2-year-old child enables him to t puzzle pieces into their form space, place small objects in a container, turn pages of a book, stack blocks, and manage a cup and feeding utensils. He can construct a six-cube tower by precisely centering each cube and slowly releasing it, using gradual extension of his ngers. Object release continues to develop over the next 3 years with signicant increases in steadiness, precision, dexterity, and speed. rst decade of life. The complexity, speed, accuracy, and precision of the skills increase with experience, cognitive development, and neuromotor maturation. Table 7-1 presents the developmental sequence of grasp, release, and bimanual skills. Although the developmental ages for the listed skills vary, the sequence of development tends to remain consistent across children; therefore the months listed are estimated ages when the described skills are achieved.
SUMMARY
The childs play and the hand skills that enable that play undergo tremendous developmental changes in the rst 2 years of life. Exploratory play skills evolve from generalized movements that gather comprehensive sensory input to specic exploration of the sensory qualities of objects. After the rst year of life, infants exhibit functional play skills in which objects are used as means toward a functional goal. Infants learn to use tools as evidence of their expanding knowledge about how objects relate and how tools can serve functional goals. As play skills mature, the infants crude prehension patterns become precise grasping patterns that enable skillful manipulation of objects. The child holds objects rst in the palm, then in the ngers, and nally in the ngertips. As she holds objects more distally, coordination of two hands together evolves, enabling the child to achieve greater competence and skill in play and interaction within the environment. This chapter described how hand skills evolve from reflexive, stereotypical patterns into precise, well-controlled prehension and manipulation patterns. Current research has investigated how the infant develops hand skills. Posture, sensory functions, and perception appear to have essential roles in hand skill development. The activities and environments that surround the infant afford a multitude of manipulation opportunities. Current explanatory models explain how hand skills develop and elucidate what variables influence an infants developmental trajectory. These models emphasize the influence of contextual elements in addition to biological foundations and have application in early childhood intervention and education.
138
Table 7-1
Approximate Age
Neonate
Release
Avoiding reaction: hand opens with tactile stimulus to hands dorsum Avoiding reactions continue
Bimanual Skill
Smooth, alternating arm movements; reflexive arm responses to proprioceptive and tactile input Asymmetry of arm reaction; reflexive arm responses to proprioceptive and tactile input
1 months
Grasp reflex: local grasp reaction, followed by traction response Grasp reflex: catch and holding phases
2 months
3 months
Instinctive avoiding response; pronation and adduction from stimulus on ulnar side, supination, abduction from stimulus on radial side True grasp reflex; primitive squeeze of ngers; diminished traction response; orienting response Instinctive grasp; squeeze grasp, gropes for tactile stimulus; adjusts hand to object Palmar grasp; pronated hand and flexion of all ngers; adjusts hand using visual and tactile information Radial palmar grasp; superior palmar grasp; differentiation of ulnar and radial sides stable; radial ngers hold object Radial digital grasp; inferior forenger grasp; object held proximal to nger pads; ulnar side stable and radial ngers hold object Instinctive avoiding reactions continue; variety of hand movements used to avoid touch contact Release involuntary or accidental
Hands held together on chest, usually without object; symmetric, simultaneous arm movement
4 months
5 months
Two-hand reach, with unilateral prehension; object transfer, hand to hand; bilateral holding and ngering Simultaneous, symmetric, bilateral approach with bimanual or unilateral prehension
6 months
7 months
Purposeful release; transfer of object from one hand to the other; release against a resisting surface Purposeful release with assistance or resistance against a surface
Successive bilateral approach with unilateral prehension; bilateral object manipulation; associated bimanual movements
8 months
Continued
Hand Skill Development in the Context of Infants Play: Birth to 2 Years 139
Table 7-1
Contd
Grasp
Scissors grasp; able to hold small objects
Approximate Age
9 months
Release
Bimanual Skill
Object rotation by transferring it hand to hand; plays with two toys, one in each hand, banging together; dissociation of symmetric arm movement
10 months
Forenger grasp; tip of thumb and forenger used in grasp; grasping accuracy without stabilization
Active release; flinging of object by combining elbow, wrist, and nger extension; object release above surface Complementary and cooperative bimanual movement
11 months
12 months
Superior pincer grasp; tip of thumb and forenger used in grasp; grasping accuracy without stabilization Deft and precise grasp; a variety of grasps used
Coordinated, asymmetric movements; one hand stabilizes and one hand manipulates
15 months
Controlled release; increasing control when releasing Controlled release, increasing accuracy with limited precision of placement; tends to extend ngers all at one time Greater precision and control of release; adjustment of hand opening according to objects size and shape
Beginning of two-hand tool use; continues pattern of one hand stabilizing and one manipulating Asymmetric, dissociated bimanual skills; blended stability and mobility; alternating sequences of two-hand movements
18 months
Increasing dissociation, strength, and perception enable child to use tools and manipulate objects
24 months
Increasing competence in two-hand tool use; increasing complexity in movement patterns; cooperation of two hands
140
REFERENCES
Ammon JE, Etzel ME (1977). Sensorimotor organization in reach and prehension. Physical Therapy, 57:714. Andre-Thomas AJ (1964). The neurological examination of the infant. Clinics in developmental medicine, No. 1. Philadelphia, JB Lippincott. Bayley N (1993). Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 2nd ed. San Antonio, Psychological Corporation. Belsky J, Most R (1981). From exploration to play: A crosssectional study of infant free-play behavior. Developmental Psychology, 17:630639. Bertenthal B, von Hofsten C (1998). Eye, head and trunk control: The foundation for manual development. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 22:515520. Boehme R (1988). Improving upper body control. Tucson, Therapy Skills Builders. Bower TGR (1974). Development in infancy. San Francisco, Freeman. Bradley RH, Corwyn RF, Burchinal M, McAdoo HP, Coll CG (2001). The home environments of children in the United States Part II: Relations with behavioral development through age thirteen. Child Development, 72:18681886. Bruner JS (1970). The growth and structure of skill. In K Connolly (editor): Mechanisms of motor skill development. New York, Academic Press. Bushnell EW (1985). The decline of visually guided reaching during infancy. Infant Behavior and Development, 8:139155. Bushnell EW, Boudreau JP (1991). The development of haptic perception during infancy. In MA Heller & W Schiff (editors.). The psychology of touch (pp. 139-161). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bushnell EW, Boudreau JP (1993). Motor development and the mind: The potential role of motor abilities as a determinant of aspects of perceptual development. Child Development, 64:10051021. Bushnell EW, Boudreau JP (1998). Exploring and exploiting objects with the hands during infancy. In KJ Connolly (editor): The psychobiology of the hand (pp. 144161). London: MacKeith Press. Case-Smith J, Bigsby R, Clutter J (1998). Perceptual-motor coupling in the development of grasp. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52:102110. Castner BM (1932). The development of ne prehension in infancy. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 12:105193. Chow SMK, Henderson SE, Barnett AL (2001). The Movement Assessment Battery for Children: A comparison of 4-year-old to 6-year-old children from Hong Kong and the United States. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53:5561. Connolly K, Dalgleish M (1989). The emergence of a toolusing skill in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 25(6):894912. Corbetta D, Mounoud P (1990). Early development of grasping and manipulation. In C Bard, M Fleury, L Hay (editors): Development of eye-hand coordination across the life span. Columbia, SC, University of South Carolina Press. Corbetta D, Thelen E (1996). A method for identifying the initiation of reaching movements in natural prehension. Journal of Motor Behavior, 27:285293.
Hand Skill Development in the Context of Infants Play: Birth to 2 Years 141
Knobloch H, Pasamanick B (1974). Gesell and Amatrudas developmental diagnosis: The evaluation and management of normal and abnormal neuropsychologic development in infancy and early childhood. Hagerstown, MD, Harper & Row. Lantz C, Melen K, Forssberg H (1996). Early infant grasping involves radial nger. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 38:668674. Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL (1987). Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 19:342368. Linder T (1993). Transdisciplinary play-based assessment. Baltimore, Brooks. Lockman JJ (2000). A perception-action perspective on tool use development. Child Development, 71:137144. Manoel EJ, Connolly KJ (1998). The development of manual dexterity in young children. In KJ Connolly (editor): The psychobiology of the hand (pp. 177198). Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. London, MacKeith Press McCall RB (1974). Exploratory manipulation and play in the human infant. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 39:155. McCarty ME, Clifton RK, Collard RR (1999). Problem solving in infancy: The emergence of an action plan. Developmental Psychology, 35:10911101. McCarty ME, Clifton RK, Collard RR (2001). The beginnings of tool use by infants and toddlers. Infancy, 2(2):233256. McGraw MB (1943). The neuromuscular maturation of the human infant. New York, Columbia University Press. Newell KM, MacDonald PV (1997). The development of grip patterns in infancy. In KJ Connolly, H Forssberg (editors): Neurophysiology and neuropsychology of motor development (pp. 232256). Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Nicholich L (1977). Beyond sensorimotor intelligence: Assessment of symbolic maturity through analysis of pretend play. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 23:89102. Parham D, Primeau L (1997). Play and occupational therapy. In D Parham, L Fazio (editors): Play in occupational therapy for children (pp. 222). St Louis, Mosby. Peterson SM, Albers AB (2001). Effects of poverty and maternal depression on early child development. Child Development, 72:17941813. Piaget J (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, Norton. Pierce D (1997). The power of object play for infants and toddlers at risk for developmental delays. In D Parham, L Fazio (editors): Play in occupational therapy for children (pp. 86111). St Louis, Mosby. Reilly M (1974). Play as exploratory learning. Beverly Hills, Sage. Rochat P (1987). Mouthing and grasping in neonates: Evidence for the early detection of what hard or soft substances afford for action. Infant Behavior and Development, 10:435449. Rochat P (1989). Object manipulation and exploration in 2- to 5-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 25(6):871884. Ruff HA (1984). Infants manipulative exploration of objects: Effects of age and object characteristics. Developmental Psychology, 20:920. Ruff HA (1989). The infants use of visual and haptic information in the perception and recognition of objects. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 43:302319. Ruff HA, Kohler CJ (1978). Tactual-visual transfer in sixmonth-old infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 1:259264. Santos DC, Gabbard C, Goncalves VM (2001). Motor development during the rst year: A comparative study. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162(2):143153. Shirley MM (1931). The rst two years: A study of twenty ve babies, vol. 1. Locomotor development. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Smith LB, Thelen E (2003). Development as a dynamic system. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7:343348. Steele D, Pederson DR (1977). Stimulus variables which affect the concordance of visual and manipulative exploration in six-month-old infants. Child Development, 48:104111. Thelen E (1995). Motor development: A new synthesis. American Psychologist, 50(2):7995. Thelen E, Corbetta D, Kamm K, Spencer JP, Schneider K, Zernicke RF (1993). The transition to reaching: mapping intention and intrinsic dynamics. Child Development, 64:10581098. Thelen E, Kelso JAS, Fogel A (1987). Self organizing systems and infant motor development. Developmental Review, 7:3965. Thelen E, Smith LB (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Thelen E, Spencer JP (1998). Postural control during reaching in young infants: a dynamic systems approach. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 22:507514. Twitchell TE (1965). Normal motor development. Journal of the American Physical Therapy Association, 45:419423. Twitchell TE (1970). Reflex mechanisms and the development of prehension. In K Connolly (editor): Mechanisms of motor skill development. London, Academic Press. Van der Fits IBM, Hadders-Algra M (1998). The development of postural response patterns during reaching in healthy infants. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 22:7585. von Hofsten C (1986). The emergence of manual skills. In MG Wade, HTA Whiting (editors): Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control (pp. 167185). Boston, Martinus Nijhoff. von Hofsten C, Rosander K (1996). The development of gaze control and predictive tracking in young infants. Vision Research, 36:8196. White BL, Castle P, Held R (1964). Observations on the development of visually directed reaching. Child Development, 35:349364. Yim SY, Cho JR, Lee IY (2003). Normative data and development characteristics of hand function for elementary school children in Suwon Area of Korea: Grip, pinch and dexterity study. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 18:552558.
Chapter
OBJECT MANIPULATION IN INFANTS AND CHILDREN
Charlane Pehoski
CHAPTER OUTLINE
OBJECT MANIPULATION DURING INFANCY Movements Used in Object Exploration by Infants Exploratory Nature of Infant Object Manipulation Object Exploration by the Mouth and Hand Role of Vision in Infant Object Manipulation Handling Multiple Objects Summary and Therapeutic Implications OBJECT MANIPULATION DURING THE TODDLER YEARS Beginning of In-Hand Manipulation Control over Object Release Complementary Two-Hand Use Summary and Therapeutic Implications OBJECT MANIPULATION IN THE PRESCHOOL AND EARLY CHILDHOOD YEARS Studies of In-Hand Manipulation Role of Variability in Motor Skill Development Factors Contributing to the Improvement of In-Hand Manipulation Skills Summary and Therapeutic Implications OBJECT MANIPULATION IN OLDER CHILDREN SUMMARY
The hand is a wonderful tool that has the exploration and manipulation of objects as its primary purpose. The development of the hand in the service of object manipulation follows a long course. It is one of the ways
children experience success and the perception of competence. Bruner (1973) pointed out that competence includes not only social interaction but also mastery over objects. The theme of this chapter is how the child gradually gains control over the hand to manipulate objects. Infancy appears to be a time when reach is perfected and the basic grasp patterns are developed. At rst the infant can manipulate objects only by grasping the object, waving the arm, and moving the wrist because the object is held in a power grip that xes it in the hand (Napier, 1956). Gaining the ability to transfer an object hand to hand greatly expands the actions the infant can produce with the object, but it is the appearance of a precision grip (pad of radial ngers to pad of thumb) that marks a major change in the eventual skills of the hand. Landsmeer (1962) indicated that the purpose of a precision grip is to operate the object with precision by means of the ngers. The perfection of this skill covers a long developmental period. Voluntary release (e.g., releasing an object in a predetermined place) also develops in late infancy and is an important component to skilled object interaction. Like object release, many of the basic components for skilled hand use are seen during infancy, but their perfection takes many years. As an example, the child must learn to control the release of an object so he or she can place it with skill and accuracy. In-hand manipulation skills, or the movement of an object in the hand after grasp, are yet to be acquired, and although the infant has the rudiments of two-hand use, the ability to plan the movements of both hands at the same time is not yet present. This chapter discusses what is known about the development of these components. There are many gaps in our understanding of these changes and how they might impact on the childs gradual mastery of the
143
144
Part II Development of Hand Skills BOX 8-1 Ten Stages in the Development of Object Manipulation in Infancy
physical world. Given the importance of object manipulation to human behavior, it is interesting that so little study has been done on this motor skill. In looking at what has been written, we divided the children into four age groups: infancy (neonate to 12 months old), toddler (1 to 2 years old), preschool/ early childhood (3 to 6 years old), and the older child. In addition, themes that might help us understand the direction skilled hand use is taking at each of these stages are explored. One last note: The hand is the tool of the mind. It is the mind that directs and guides the hand in the context of the childs environment and culture. Object exploration or manipulation is the result of our desire to master the physical world. In infancy the basic drive to explore the world is present and, although the infants physical skills are limited, these skills are used to gain information about object properties. It is probable that this drive sets the stage for all future object exploration and the continued drive toward mastery.
ONE TO THREE MONTHS Stage 1: Rotation: An object is moved by twists of the wrist. Stage 2: Translation: There are movements of the arm that change the location of an object by increasing or decreasing the distance from self. Stage 3: Vibration: There are repeated, rapid bending motions of the arm as the object is held. THREE TO FOUR MONTHS Stage 4: Bilateral Hold: The object is held passively in one hand as the other hand holds or does something else to another object. Stage 5: Two-handed Hold: A single object is held with both hands. Stage 6: Hand-to-Hand Transfer: An object held in one hand is transferred to the other. FIVE MONTHS Stage 7: There is coordinated action with single object: One hand holds the object stationary and the other hand does something to it (e.g., strokes a doll or pulls at the hair). SIX TO NINE MONTHS Stage 8: There is coordinated action with two objects: Manipulation of two objects, each held in a separate hand, such as hitting two blocks together. Stage 9: Deformations: The object is made to change shape, such as tearing paper or pressing a toy to make a sound. Stage 10: Instrumental Sequential Actions: There is the sequential use of two hands in obtaining a goal, as demonstrated when the infant lifts a cup to obtain a cube.
Data from Kamiol R (1989). The role of manual manipulative stages in the infants acquisition of perceived control over objects. Developmental Review, 9:222225.
(Box 8-1). Three of these stagesrotation, translation, and vibrationwere related to the young infant less than 4 months old. If an object was placed in the hand of a 2- to 3-month-old infant, the earliest engagement Karniol noted was that the infant would rotate or twist the wrist, but only if the object happened to be visible to the infant. If the hand was not visible, the object was dropped. The next actions seen were translation movements, or a deliberate effort to change the location of an object by moving the arm toward or away from the body. Often this involved bringing an object to the mouth or was combined with rotation. Karniol believes that these movements assist the infant in combining changes in the retinal image of the object with proprioceptive feedback from the arm. The third method of engagement that Karniol observed in the very young
Figure 8-1 Mouthing of objects is assisted once an infant is able to use two hands to support the object (4-month-old infant).
mentary two-hand use stage. Karniol (1989) indicated that, when this action is rst seen, the infant often rotates the wrist and bends the arm with the object in one hand and then transfers it to the other hand and repeats the action. In recording the infants exploratory actions during a 90-second segment with a toy, Rochat (1989) found that the 5-month-old infants in his study transferred the toy a mean of three times, whereas the 2-, 3-, and 4-month-old infants transferred the toy a mean of less than once per trial. Therefore like Karniols infants, Rochats infants began to incorporate hand-tohand transfer into their exploratory play at about 5 months of age. By 6 months of age infants have a variety of actions at their disposal by which they can explore and manipulate objects. They can mouth, look, rotate, wave, bang, nger (run the ngers over the surface of an object), and transfer the object hand to hand. Nevertheless grasp at this stage is still dominated by a power grip. The thumb may be opposed to the ngers when picking up an object such as a block (Halverson, 1931), but when a smaller object is grasped, the ngers and thumb work together so the object is raked into the hand. By 9 to 10 months of age a major change occurs. Infants can now isolate the movements of the index nger and thumb from other movements of the hand and ngers. They can poke with the index nger and pick up a small object in a precision grip between the radial ngers and thumb (Folio & Fewell, 2000). When studying 6-, 9-, and 12-month-old infants, Ruff (1984) found an increase in ngering behavior in the older infants (running the ngers over the surface of an object), a function she felt was facilitated by the increased independence of the ngers and increased
146
Figure 8-2 Older infants can hold a cube with the ngers acting independent of the palm. The object no longer needs to be pressed into the palm but can be held out on the nger surface (10-month-old infant).
coordination of the two hands. Grasp of an object, such as a cube, has also changed; the cube can now be held with the ngers acting independent of the palm, so the object no longer needs to be pressed against the palm but can be held out on the nger surface (Halverson, 1931) (Figure 8-2). The ability to move the object out onto the nger surface, the development of a precision grip, and the beginning of the differentiation of individual ngers are critical to the further development of skilled manipulation by the hand. Another important development during this period is the beginning of controlled release. As an example, it is also at about 9 to 10 months that infants can release a cube into a cup (Folio & Fewell, 2000). Therefore because infants exploratory actions become more rened as they gain better control over their motor abilities, the variety of actions that can be taken on an object increases. Infants use these motor skills to explore the properties of the objects they grasp. That is, infants actions with objects are not purely random but have the characteristics of true exploration.
148
the other granular (same objects used in the studies mentioned previously). In a pretest period one of the objects was placed in the infants hand without the infant being able to see the object. The time until the object was dropped and the amount of pressure exerted on the object were measured. After this pretest period the object was placed back in the infants hand at the same time a smooth or granular visual object was presented on the table in front of the infant. Therefore the child was holding one object and looking at another object that was either the same or a different texture than the one being held. The holding time and pressure on the held object were measured again. The visual object was then removed and the holding time and pressure on the object that remained in the hand were measured. The authors found that the holding time when the texture of the held object and the visual object matched increased but holding time remained the same when the visual and tactile objects were mismatched. Molina and Jouen (2001) feel the results indicate that the infant is comparing the held object with the visual object. If the infant nds differences between the tactile and visual object, the process of comparison is stopped. That is, holding time decreases because the problem the child was given is solved. Alternately, as long as no differences are observed between the tactile and visual object, the process of comparison is ongoing and exploration time is increased. Therefore the authors feel that vision and touch are interconnected even at birth and that neonates can make some comparisons across these two modalities. The role of vision also can be seen in older infants. As indicated, Karniol (1989) found that when a 2month-old infant grasped an object, he or she would rotate it but only if the hand could be seen. If the hand was out of visual regard, the object would be dropped. In his study of 2- to 5-month-old infants, Rochat (1989) looked at what infants did rst with an object. Did they immediately bring it to the mouth or did they rst bring it to the eyes to look at it? (The infants were all seated in slightly reclining infant seats.) He found that at 2 to 3 months more than two thirds of the infants rst brought the object to the mouth. At 4 to 5 months the majority of the infants rst brought the object into the eld of vision for inspection. This was particularly true of the 5-month-old infants, in whom visual exploration was used rst in 90% of the sample. Rochat (1989) also indicated that ngering of an object by infants might be linked to vision. In one study using 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-month-old infants, the author found a signicant interaction between ngering and looking. To test this interaction further, he studied a different set of 3-, 4-, and 5-month-old infants as they manipulated objects in dark and light situations. The dark situation was accomplished using an infrared light
B
Figure 8-3 Changes in an objects texture and surface characteristics may increase higher-level manipulation such as ngering. This gure shows two infants who are approximately 9 months old using nger movements to explore (A) a yarn ball, or (B) bells attached to a toy.
Several studies (Church et al., 1993; Goyen & Lui, 2002; Ross, 1985; Ross, Lipper, & Auld, 1986; ThunHohenstein et al., 1991) have found preterm infants to
score lower than term infants on eyehand and ne motor items of developmental tests. Kopp (1976) found preterm infants to differ signicantly from fullterm infants on the duration of exploratory activity. In another study this same author (1974) found a greater percentage of preterm infants (age corrected for prematurity) to be clumsy in object manipulation when compared with term infants (70% of the preterm infants and 19% of the term infants). The clumsy infants also were noted to spend less time manually exploring objects and more time in visual exploration. Ruff and co-workers (1984) also studied the manipulative abilities of preterm and term infants. They divided the preterm infants into high- and low-risk groups depending on the infants early medical history. They then compared these two groups to a group of full-
150
term infants (preterm infants age corrected for prematurity). They found a signicant decrease in the incidence and amount of ngering, transfer, and rotation of objects in the high-risk group compared with the two other infant groups. Apparently for some infants, the delay in ne motor skills is long lasting. Goyen and Lui (2002) followed 54 high-risk infants (<29 weeks gestation or <1000 g) until 5 years of age. At 5 years, 64% of the children scored below 1 standard deviation on the Peabody Developmental Fine Motor Scales. The quality of an infants object interaction can provide important observational information and assist in providing caregivers with suggestions for an infants continued development. Infants learn about their physical world through their manipulative actions. These activities offer the infant an opportunity to experience a sense of success and mastery and may provide experiences on which later cognitive strategies can be based. These experiences may not be readily available to the physically handicapped infant, and this child needs to be assisted through proper positioning and the selection of appropriate toys. Assistance has been shown to increase object engagement in typically developing infants. Lobo, Galloway, and Savelsbergh (2004) found an increase in the number of contacts made to a toy by 2- to 3-month-old infants after 2 weeks of increased experience with toys. In this study the infants either were manually assisted in contacting an object at midline or the limb was tethered to an overhead toy with a ribbon so that limb movements moved the suspended toy. In another study, Needham, Barrett, and Peterman (2002) studied 3-month-old infants after an enrichment experience that consisted of 12 to 14 parent-led play sessions, each about 10 minutes in length. During the sessions the infants wore mittens with Velcro covering the palmar surface. They were then presented with small toys that had the alternate side of a Velcro strip attached to the toy. The study design also included a group of infants whose parents were instructed to follow their normal daily routine during the 2 weeks of the study. After the 2 weeks, the infants in the experimental condition produced more intentional swats at objects than the infants in the control condition. They also showed greater switching between visual and oral exploration. The authors conclude, Experiences acting on objects may be a critical factor in increasing infants engagement in objects and their object exploration skills. Not only do infants explore objects more after this experience, they employ more sophisticated object exploration strategies that involve more coordination between visual and oral exploration. Object exploration is an important part of development, even for the very youngest infants. The more we
152
manipulation tasks such as picking up and storing several objects in the hand. These functions improve as the child gains more control over the movement of individual ngers and renes the force of grip.
B
Figure 8-4 (A) Scissor cutting, and (B) bead stringing are two of the tasks that readily demonstrate a young childs ability to use both hands together in a task.
154
use the same grip pattern when the object is scaled to the size of the hand. Children at this age enjoy picking up and manipulating small items and they appreciate the opportunity to explore their ability to pick up and hold several small objects in their hand as long as care is taken that the objects cannot be swallowed (e.g., a flat plastic disc that is 112 inches in diameter or larger allows the small child to practice rened manipulation movements, and yet the object cannot be swallowed if placed in the mouth). Besides having large dolls or trucks available to play with, the child also can be furnished with small trucks and dolls that require more delicate movements of the hand. Therefore object size should be considered when planning activities for small children.
Figure 8-5 Buttoning is a task that requires both efcient use of the two hands together and the ability to differentiate the movements of individual ngers. It is a complex manipulative skill that is not accomplished well until the preschool years.
47 months of age, the children completed the task in 34 seconds. Folio and Fewell (1983) found similar results when they asked children to button and unbutton one button in 20 seconds. Only 2% of the normative sample at 30 to 35 months could accomplish the task, whereas at 48 to 59 months 65% of the children were successful. Therefore, despite the ability of many 212-year-old children to accomplish buttoning, the speed with which the activity is performed is so slow as to preclude it from being functional. Are the younger children slower because the basic movements themselves are not as efcient, or are they using less efcient methods than older children? Pehoski, Henderson, and Tickle-Degnen (1997) looked at this question using an in-hand manipulation task. They asked 153 children between the ages of 3 years and 6 years 11 months to turn over 10 small pegs in a pegboard using only one hand (a complex rotation task). A group of adult subjects also was presented this task to establish a standard against which the childrens performance could be judged. All the children sampled were able to accomplish the task, but the time they took for completion and the methods they used to perform this activity differed among the age groups. The time for completion decreased with age, as did the variability in time scores within an age group, but even at 6 years 11 months the children were signicantly slower than the adults. Of the age groups of children tested, the 3-year-olds were by far the slowest group and differed signicantly from the other age groups. Perhaps of more interest was the nding that the methods the children used to accomplish this task differed. In the sample of normal adults, Pehoski and co-workers (1997) found that all the subjects used the same method to perform this task. Each of the adults picked up the 10 pegs and rotated them using a series of individual movements of the two radial ngers and
Figure 8-6 In a study of in-hand manipulation in young children, the children were asked to hold a dowel in their nonpreferred hand to encourage activity in the dominant or preferred hand as they turned over small pegs in a peg board. Three methods were used to accomplish this task: A, the method used by adults in which the pegs were rotated in the ngers; B, use of an external surface to support the peg as it was rotated (this was done most often against the childs chest); and C, rotating the arm, and thereby excluding or simplifying the need for individual nger movements. The adult method increased in use with age (see Fig. 8-7).
the thumb. The methods used by the sample of children were more varied, and often the children mixed the use of more than one method in the repetitions of this task. Many of the children were able to demonstrate use of the adult method (Figure 8-6, A), but they also used two other approaches when solving this problem. One was to use an external surface against which the peg was turned, such as holding the peg against the chest as it was rotated (Figure 8-6, B). Inadvertent use of the other hand also was considered as using an external surface. (The children were instructed to hold a vertical post with their nonpreferred hand in order to encourage in-hand manipulation by one hand alone.) The other method was to rotate the arm before picking up the peg so that the peg was turned through the derotation action of the arm, thereby excluding or simplifying the need for individual nger movements (Figure 8-6, C). Use of the adult method increased with age, although even at 6 years this method was used only 80% of the time.
Of interest was the marked change to an adult method seen in 48- to 53-month-old children. The 3-year-olds in the sample relied heavily on the use of an external surface when turning the peg. This method was used an average of 40% to 50% of the time by the two youngest age groups. By 48 to 53 months this method had fallen to 25%, and the predominant method used was that of the adults (used 70% of the time). That is, by 4 years of age the children were rotating the peg in the ngers and used this method as the predominant solution to the problem (Fig. 8-7).
156
100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 3.0
Percentage
3.6
4.0
4.6
5.0 Age
5.6
6.0
6.6 Adult
Adult method
Internal rotation
Figure 8-7 Percentage of times each of three methods was used when attempting a simple rotation task by children 3.0 to 6.6 years of age. (From Pehoski C, Henderson A, Tickle-Degnen L [1997]. In-hand manipulation in young children: rotation of an object in the ngers. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51:544552.)
of self-feeding in toddlers (Connolly & Dalgleish, 1989), and the use of writing implements in 3- and 5-year-old children (Greer & Lockman, 1998). The performance of adults on these same tasks is much more stable. A dynamic systems approach to development indicates that infants and children initially explore different ways of accomplishing a task and that these trials are based on the intrinsic dynamics of a particular child (Thelen & Smith, 1994). These dynamics might include such things as muscle tone, body dimensions, and temperament. As children encounter their environment and explore different forms of an action for a given task, they eventually settle on one form that is most effective and efcient for them (Greer & Lockman, 1998; Thelen & Smith, 1994). In this dynamic systems theory of development, variability in performance is viewed as a sign that the system is in transition and working toward a more stable performance. Although the goal may be the same for each child (e.g., to hold a spoon in a manner that allows food to be brought efciently to the mouth, hold a pen to make a specic mark on a paper, or turn a peg over in the ngers), the various methods the child uses as he or she learns these skills depends on individual intrinsic dynamics. Therefore variability is seen as a developmental process that includes both physical change and experience. Children who are having difculty with this process and are slow to develop a stable performance may need more time or experience practicing a task. They also may benet from an attempt to analyze the intrinsic factors that may be limiting them so that changes or adaptations can be made to the implements or methods used.
158
faster from 6 to 12 years of age (Garvey et al., 2003), as does the reaction time from the start signal for a reach and the actual movement to reach (KuhtzBuschbeck et al., 1998). Muller and Homberg (1992) indicate that the maturation of the motor cortex and corticospinal efferents is the main determinant of speed in repetitive movements in children. They indicate that the conduction times for afferent pathways reach adult levels by the age of 5 to 7 years, and for efferent pathways by 10 years (Muller & Homberg, 1992). In reaching, the trajectory of the arm becomes smoother and less variable (Schneiberg et al., 2002) with age. The number of units per reach decline, so that by 12 years only one acceleration-deceleration is seen (KuhtzBuschbeck et al., 1998). Older children also are better at adjusting the grip size to the size of an object; 4year-olds use a wider opening than do 12-year-olds when grip opening is adjusted for hand size (KuhtzBuschbeck et al., 1998). The coordination of the forces necessary to lift an object from a surface and the force in the ngers to hold the object during the lift also improve with age (see Chapter 3). Accuracy is improving, as is the timing of motor acts. One form of timing has been called coincidenceanticipation, or the ability to time a movement with another moving object. Bard, Fleury, and Gagnon (1990) suggest that this skill may improve linearly with age until it levels off at around 15 years. However, the authors also state that further progress is sometimes noticed beyond this age in tasks with high degrees of stimulus uncertainty and motor response difculty, thus placing a greater burden on decision and motor processes. Another area in the literature that indicates continued changes in older children is in complementary two-hand use. As the child grows, the complexity of bimanual task that can be completed expands, as well as the efciency between the two hands. Brumi (1972) looked at the abilities of 5-, 8-, and 10-year-old children to string beads, wind a string on a spool, and clap the hands. The author found that the older children tended to keep one hand stable while the other moved (e.g., in winding the thread both hands did not rotate in mirror image of each other). Fagard (1990) suggests that one of the changes taking place in older children is an increasing ability to do asymmetric tasks with the hands. She suggests that improved interhemispheric communication may assist this process. We know that children get faster with age so that the timing of movements improves. Variability decreases. Reach is smoother. Bilateral hand skills also become more complex and efcient. The adjustment of grasp and the coordination of grasp and lift movements improve. Many of these improvements are the result of maturation in motor mechanisms combined with
SUMMARY
Efcient object manipulation depends on several factors. There is the necessity to be able to differentiate the movement of individual ngers and to perform this action with speed. Manipulation skills also depend on a grip force that is rm enough to keep the object from dropping, but loose enough so that the object can be moved with ease. This ability apparently is dependent on tactile mechanisms. In addition, an object also must be released with skill and the appropriate timing. The ability to use the hands together is important also. Without the ability to plan and use both hands together in a complementary fashion, the function of the hands is severely limited. Maturation in each of these abilities assists the childs mastery over objects and struggle toward competence. There is still much that is not known about the developmental course and changes in development that emerge as the child engages the objects in his or her environment. We need more information on how normal children develop manipulative skills. As an example, we know very little about the beginning of in-hand manipulation. There are no studies on the development of controlled release, a process that probably follows closely on how children grasp objects. The gradation of pressure as a child picks up, puts down, and manipulates objects deserves further study, as does the effect of grasp force on higher-level skills, such as holding a pen and writing. These are only a few of the areas needing future research. Object interaction is an integral part of human behavior, yet it is an area that has been poorly studied. A more complete understanding of this area of development would help both the evaluation and treatment planning of children having difculty in achieving competency in object interaction.
REFERENCES
Bard C, Fleury M, Gagnon M (1990). Coincidence anticipation timing: An age-related perspective. In C Bard, M Fleury, L Hay, editors: Development of eye-hand coordination across the life span. Columbia, SC, University of South Carolina Press. Bly L (1994). Motor skill acquisition in the rst year. Tucson, Therapy Skill Builders. Bower TGR, Broughton JM, Moore MK (1970). Demonstration of intention in the reaching behavior of neonate humans. Nature, 228:679681.
160
Ramsay DS, Weber SL (1986). Infants hand preference in a task involving complementary roles for the two hands. Child Development, 57:300307. Rochat P (1987). Mouthing and grasping in neonates: Evidence for the early detection of what hard and soft substances afford for action. Infant Behavior and Development, 10:435449. Rochat P (1989). Object manipulation and exploration in 2- to 5-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 25:871884. Rosenbloom L, Horton ME (1971). The maturation of ne prehension in young children. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 13:38. Ross G (1985). Use of the Bayley Scales to characterize abilities of premature infants. Child Development, 56:835842. Ross G, Lipper E, Auld PA (1986). Early predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome of very low-birth weight infants at three years. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 28:171179. Ruff H (1984). Infants manipulative exploration of objects: Effect of age and object characteristics. Developmental Psychology, 20:920. Ruff H, McCarton C, Kurtzberg D, Vaughan HG (1984). Preterm infants manipulative exploration of objects. Child Development, 55:11661173. Ruff H, Saltarelli LM, Capozzoli M, Dubiner K (1992). The differentiation of activity in infants exploration of objects. Developmental Psychology, 28:851861. Saida Y, Miyashita M (1979). Development of ne motor skill in children: Manipulation of a pencil in young children aged 2 to 6 years old. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 5:104113. Schneck CM, Henderson A (1990). Descriptive analysis of the developmental progression of grip positions for pencil and crayon control in nondysfunctional children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 44:893900.
Chapter
HANDEDNESS IN CHILDREN
Elke H. Kraus
CHAPTER OUTLINE
DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION OF HANDEDNESS Defining Handedness in Terms of Handedness Dimensions Classifying Handedness into Categories Description of Left and Switched Handedness PREVALENCE OF HANDEDNESS ASSESSMENT OF HANDEDNESS Tests for Hand Preference Tests for Hand Performance FACTORS DETERMINING AND INFLUENCING HANDEDNESS Neuroanatomical and Neurophysiological Foundations of Handedness Genetic Theories on Handedness Pathological Influences on Handedness Sociocultural and Environmental Influences Concluding Remarks THE DEVELOPMENT OF HANDEDNESS Birth 4 Months 6 Months 8 Months 12 Months 18 Months 24 Months 2 to 6 Years PEDIATRIC OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY AND HANDEDNESS
Handedness can be dened as the consistent and more procient use of the preferred hand, compared with the nonpreferred hand, in functional and skilled tasks (Annett, 1985). Established handedness generally is considered to be an important indicator of hemispheric specialization and callosal myelination necessary for development of motoric skills, language, and cognitive processes (Annett, 1998; Bishop, 1990a,b). Conversely, unestablished handedness, associated with developmental delay or even pathologic conditions, sometimes reflects inadequate hemispheric specialization (Coren, 1992; Gazzaniga, 1970). From a functional perspective, the establishment of handedness is critical for successful occupational performance and development of high manual skill levels (Hurlock, 1975; Mandell, Nelson, & Cermak, 1984; Vasconcelos, 1993). It is unlikely that a child will be able to develop optimal skill if hands are changed during tasks such as drawing or writing because the preferred hand will fail to specialize to the necessary prociency (Hurlock, 1975). Furthermore, evidence exists that motor and learning problems frequently occur in children who learn to write with the nonpreferred hand as a result of incorrect handedness classication (Ardila et al., 1988; Bishop, 1990a; Peters, 1990; Sattler, 1998, 2001, 2002). Occupational therapists should understand and meet the special needs of left-handed children, particularly in relation to handwriting. In this context, the correct identication of a childs handedness, its promotion, and the development of manual skill in children with unestablished or left-handedness are necessary and important aspects
161
162
in pediatric occupational therapy (Mandell et al., 1984; Sattler, 2001). Children with unestablished handedness are frequently referred to pediatric occupational therapy for other reasons, and their inconsistent hand use is usually noted informally during the process of assessment and treatment. In a survey interviewing 51 occupational therapists in Germany it was reported that overall 73% of referred children between 4 and 7 years presented with ambiguous hand use (Riedel, Knnemann, & Kling, 2002). However, handedness, particularly unestablished handedness, has received little attention within occupational therapy literature to date. Although the 1970s and 1980s resulted in an abundance of handedness literature in the eld of neuropsychology, this knowledge was not comprehensively applied to, or incorporated into, the occupational therapy frame of reference. Since this time, research studies of handedness have been much fewer, and particularly unestablished or mixed handedness has received little attention in neuropsychology. Within the holistic denition of occupational performance, handedness should not be perceived as an isolated unit within a hierarchy, but rather in relation to other skills relating to occupational performance in the wider sense. Unestablished handedness in the developmental context is considered to be an indicator of neuromaturational delay (Bishop, 1990a), and the degree to which handedness is established may indicate other forms of dysfunction or pathology (see Factors Determining and Influencing Handedness). Unestablished handedness may also coexist with other behaviors such as avoidance of midline crossing and poor bimanual motor coordination, which together affect functional hand use (Ayres, 1972; Cermak, Quintero, & Cohen, 1980; Dahl Reeves & Cermak, 2002). In addition, it is possible that one hand might be prevented from gaining sufcient practice to become adequately skilled in drawing and writing tasks. Consequently, unestablished handedness is likely to retard the development of highly integrated manual skill and ne motor coordination that rene occupational performance. This chapter presents an empirical, theoretical, and developmental knowledge base for the establishment and nature of handedness to provide therapists with a more comprehensive basis for assessing and treating childrens handedness. This knowledge base draws from different approaches and is divided into six sections. First, the denition of handedness is presented, differentiating between hand preference and hand performance, and considerations for evaluating these are reviewed. In addition, the process of classifying handedness and the description of two particular types of handedness conclude the rst section. The prev-
Hand preference
Hand performance
Dimensions of handedness
Defining HANDEDNESS
Classifications of handedness
Consistency
Across tasks
Within tasks
Continuous spectrum
Categories
Explicit left
Mixed
Explicit right
Variable left
Unestablished
Variable right
Switched
Pathological
Figure 9-1 Summary of aspects related to the denition of handedness. Handedness can be dened both in terms of dimensions and classication. An important distinction is made between hand preference and hand performance as two dimensions of handedness, each with a trained and untrained aspect. Classifying handedness can be subject to observing the consistency of hand preference during task execution (across and within tasks), but in essence handedness is viewed across a continuous spectrum, ranging from explicitly left handed, to various extents of handedness variability, to explicitly right handed. However, to draw comparisons for differences and similarities between different strengths of handedness, it is useful to divide the continuum into categories: explicit left, mixed, and explicit right. The mixed category can be divided further into variable left and right handers, and unestablished (switched and pathological) handers.
164
ferent assessments were used in studies supporting the preceding conclusions, which may be responsible for the contradictory ndings. A cause-and-effect relationship between preference and performance is far from clear, as Peters (1996) suggested when he asked
Is it the predominance of inherent biases interacting with environmental chance events, or is it the predominant environmental influence interacting with weak inherent biases which determines the nal pattern of behaviour? (p. 118).
Hand Preference
Several authors have dened hand preference in terms of types or components. Bryden (1982) proposed four types of hand preference: actions that require skill such as using a tool, reaching actions that do not require any skill, power actions such as carrying a suitcase (in which one is inclined to change hands because of fatigue), and bimanual actions in which both hands are involved. He found that hand preference is most signicant for tool use and bimanual actions and least signicant for power actions and reaching (Bryden, 1982). Healey, Liederman, and Geschwind (1986), and Geschwind and Galaburda (1987) suggested that one signicant dimension of hand preference was determined by the musculature involved in task execution. There is physiologic evidence that both the contralateral and ipsilateral hemispheres control proximal arm muscles via multisynaptic pathways, whereas distal control of the hand and ngers is executed by the contralateral hemisphere via the corticospinal tract (Brinkman & Kuypers, 1973; Glickstein & Buchbinder, 1998; Haaxma & Kuypers, 1974; Peters, 1995). Support for the distalproximal distinction was found by several authors who observed that ne manipulations performed by distal musculature appear to be more lateralized than gross motor tasks involving mainly proximal musculature (Bryden, Bulman-Fleming, & MacDonald, 1996; Peters & Pang, 1992). Other studies only partially supported these ndings, suggesting that the musculature used seems to be task dependent (Case-Smith, Fisher, & Bauer, 1989; Steenhuis & Bryden, 1989). Whether and to what extent hand preference is influenced by proximal and distal musculature is yet to be empirically established. Steenhuis and Bryden (1989) proposed that the position of an object in space (i.e., ipsilateral or contralateral) influences preferred hand use, an observation already made by Ayres (1972) years earlier. In addition, Steenhuis and Bryden argued that hand preference consists of two dimensions relating to skilled and unskilled tasks. Similarly, Bishop (1990a) postulated that when the two hands are equally skilled for a task, either hand may be selected. As skill level differences increase, so does the extent of preferred hand use.
To date there is no clear answer to this question. The literature exploring hand preference and performance and prociency distributions displays a variety of results in which some performance and preference tasks yield large differences between the hands (bimodal) and others do not (unimodal) (Annett, 1992; Borod, Caron, & Koff, 1984; Steenhuis, 1996). For example, there is greater discrepancy between the hands in handwriting prociency than grip strength (Provins & Magliaro, 1989). In addition, factors such as practice or task nature may influence the magnitude of the interhand performance differences (Annett, 1992). It might be assumed that hand preference and hand performance and prociency should be virtually interchangeable (i.e., the preferred hand is also the more skilled and procient one and vice versa). However, the correlation between hand preference and performance has been shown to be weaker than expected. Porac and Coren (1981) suggested that preference and performance have a common underlying factor, because their correlation, although not always strong, is still signicant. Furthermore, the correlations between preference and performance appear to be task dependent (see Porac & Coren, 1981, for a review). Interestingly, in some studies the correlation between preference and performance became signicantly weaker when the sample was divided into left and right handers (Bryden et al., 1994; Lake & Bryden, 1976; Tapley & Bryden, 1985), indicating different patterns of preference and performance in the two groups. Furthermore, Peters (1996) found that hand preference correlated more strongly with performance in consistent handers than inconsistent handers (see Classifying Handedness). The discrepancy between preference and performance is also likely to be compounded by incompatible assessments in which hand preference often is assessed subjectively, based on self-report or inventories, whereas hand performance is evaluated more objectively through task execution (Guiard & Ferrand, 1996). The relatively low correlation between hand preference and hand performance indicates that hand function is multifaceted and multidimensional (Steenhuis, 1996). Numerous authors have attempted to identify the factors determining hand preference and hand
Hand Performance
As with hand preference, various dimensions of hand performance have been proposed. Some researchers proposed that hand performance consists of two main factors: strength, and a combination of speed and accuracy or dexterity (Borod et al., 1984; Porac &
Untrained
Handedness
Untrained
Trained
Environmental influence
Trained
Figure 9-2 Hand preference and hand performance as two dimensions of handedness. The two dimensions of handedness, hand preference and hand performance, are both subject to genetically based predispositions and environmental influences. The predisposition is revealed in tasks that are not trained or practiced in any way (e.g., for hand preference: building with blocks, opening a small box; for hand performance: tapping, hammering for speed), although the environmental influence is manifested in trained and practiced tasks (e.g., hand preference: brushing teeth, eating with a spoon; hand performance: drawing, cutting).
166
often is varied to meet the researchers goals (Rigal, 1992). Others have dened left or right handedness as being 100% consistent across all tasks, and any variations from this standard were classied as mixed (Annett, 1970b). Another method to classify handedness is by means of a continuum. More specically, strength or the degree of preferred hand use frequently has been measured as a percentage or continuous variable. Annett (1998) summarized the predicament associated with classication as follows:
The basic problem is that researchers treat a continuous variable, degree of handedness, as if it were a simple binary one (left or right). There are many ways of dividing a continuous distribution to produce a discrete one and it is often unclear precisely what was done. It is usual to nd a statement of the effect that ambidextrous individuals were either discarded or counted with the left-handers, which appears to be a reasonable way of dealing with a small number of cases. However, the authors are usually confusing ambidexterity with mixed handedness and the true size of the problem of mixed handedness is simply not acknowledged. If some 33 percent of a sample can be treated arbitrarily, inconsistency of ndings is not surprising (p. 68).
Right or Left Handed. An unambiguous preference for either the right or left hand. When this hand also demonstrates superior performance over the other hand, handedness has been established. Unestablished Handedness. Hand swapping during and across tasks, presenting with mixed handedness. The term unestablished is used because children are still in the process of developing. Mixed Handers. Adults and older children showing a similar presentation as unestablished handedness. Switched Handers. When children are inherently lefthanded but learn to draw and write with the right hand. Pathologic Handedness. If there is evidence of prenatal, perinatal, or postnatal trauma, and one hand is signicantly weaker and inferior compared with the other hand but still shows some preference patterns. Ambidextrous. Individuals show no performance difference between the hands and can draw or write equally well with the left and right hands, although performing in the average or above-average normative range.
In this light, Annett (1970b) derived a subgroup classication to determine whether meaningful distinctions could be made among mixed handers. She dened eight classes of hand preference, with classes one and eight consisting of pure right and left handers, respectively, classes two, three, four, and ve were mixed right handers and classes six and seven mixed left handers. Annett found that the degrees of hand preference represented by the subgroups related reliably to degrees of hand skill (hand performance) that was assessed using a pegboard task.
Handedness Classication
Annetts work has demonstrated the usefulness of using categories of hand preference based on frequency of use. However, in line with the present denition of handedness consisting of both hand preference and hand performance, handedness categories also can be formulated in a broader sense, based on different types or presentations. Several of these presentations have been selected from various authors to provide a basis for distinction (Box 9-1). When a child presents with an unambiguous preference for either the right or left hand, and when this hand also demonstrates superior performance over the other hand, he or she has established handedness and is said to be right or left handed (Annett, 1998). Conversely, when a child swaps hands during and across tasks and thus presents with mixed handedness, this is called unestablished handedness (Whittington &
Richards, 1987), because children are still in the process of developing. Adults and older children showing a similar presentation are called mixed handers (Bishop, 1990a). When children are inherently left handed but learn to draw and write with the right hand, they are called switched handers (Coren, 1992). The most obvious difference between unestablished and switched handedness is the clear transition from predominantly left-handed use to right hand use because of sociocultural influences, mainly through pressure from parents, grandparents, and teachers. As discussed in the following, it is thought that hand preference can be altered by neural insult, depending on the locus and extent of lesion as well as timing (Harris & Carlson, 1988; Liederman, 1983; Satz, 1972). If there is evidence of prenatal, perinatal, or postnatal trauma, and one hand is signicantly weaker and inferior compared with the other hand but still shows some preference patterns, it is likely that this is a pathologic handedness presentation (Soper & Satz, 1984). Because the majority of people are righthanded, pathologic left handers are far more frequent than pathologic right handers. Finally, ambidextrous individuals show no performance difference between the hands and can draw or write equally well with the left and right hands (Annett, 1998), although performing in the average or above-average normative range. This is extremely rare,
Consistency
The left/right/mixed classication, whether categorical or continuous, has not been the only criterion for grouping a sample population. Consistency in hand use is another important means of categorization. Although several studies have investigated handedness consistency in relation to performance domains (e.g., consistency and intelligence; Kee, 1991), the denition of consistency differs among the studies. Bishop (1990a) stressed the importance of measuring consistency within-tasks as a separate variable. She argued that inconsistent or ambiguous hand use within a single task (e.g., alternating right or left hand use for throwing) might be more reflective of dysfunction than a hand preference score. Consistency also can be measured across tasks, whereby high consistency reflects exclusive left or right hand performance (Peters, 1990, 1996; Peters & Servos, 1989). Thus an individual might display inconsistency by using the left hand for
Task 1 Writing
Task 2 Pointing
Task 3 Sewing
Task 4 Throwing Across-tasks consistency (Peters, 1996) Uses left hand for all tasks
1st Trial
Left
Left
Left
Left
2nd Trial
Left
Right
Left
Right Across-tasks inconsistency (Peters, 1996) Uses left hand for some and right hand for other tasks
3rd Trial
Left
Right
Right
Right
4th Trial
Left
Left
Left
Right
Within-tasks consistency (Bishop, 1990) Always uses left hand for this task (writing)
Within-tasks ambiguous hand use (Bishop, 1990) Sometimes uses left, sometimes right
Figure 9-3 Summary of denitions for consistency. Within-tasks consistency displays consistent hand use within a single task (e.g., constant use of one hand when executing a task repeatedly, such as throwing a ball). If the same hand is not used during several executions of the same task, within-tasks inconsistency is demonstrated. Across-tasks consistency reflects the same hand use across a range of different tasks, such as writing, throwing, and cutting. Acrosstasks inconsistency is displayed by using the left hand for some tasks and the right hand for others, irrespective of withintasks consistency.
168
Unfortunately, research studies frequently do not differentiate between consistent and inconsistent handers within or across tasks. This might be an important classication in identifying problems associated with unestablished handedness, and therapists assessing handedness should take this into account. Furthermore, therapists particularly should have an understanding of how left and switched handers differ from right handers.
Switched Handedness
The concept of switched left handedness has received attention from several theorists (Collins, 1975, 1985; Olsson & Rett, 1989; Peters, 1990; Porac, Rees, & Buller, 1990; Sakano, 1982; Sattler, 1998, 2001; Steenhuis, 1996). Payne (1987) investigated older individuals and reported the incidence of switched left handers to be 46%, although another study found that 89% of innate left handers in the age group between 65 and 74 years had been switched, compared with 26.6% aged 35 to 44 years (Galobardes, Bernstein, & Morabia, 1999). The authors assigned the elevated percentage of switched handedness to increased sociocultural pressure in previous generations. However, it has been proposed that switched handers are not easily detected with the conventional handedness measures (Peters & Murphy, 1992; Sakano, 1982), so the prevalence may well be higher than 8%, as proposed by Porac and co-workers (1986). Individuals with an innate predisposition for left handedness are likely to present with a notable lefthanded preference during their early childhood years (Fischl, 1986; Olsson & Rett, 1989; Sakano, 1982; Sattler, 1998; Stutte, Schilling, & Weber, 1977). Parents, other family members, and teachers may exert social pressure on children to use their right hand for certain unimanual tasks that are culturally and socially important. Although there has been an increased acceptance for left handedness over the last decades, there is still evidence of existing right-biased social pressures in Western societies reflected in language and social customs (Collins, 1985; Harris, 1990; Porac et al., 1990; Sattler, 1998). Olsson and Rett (1989) suggest that some less strongly lateralized left-handed individuals are likely to succumb even to subtle pressures for right hand use, eventually resulting in switched handedness for socially important tasks (e.g., drawing, eating with cutlery, cutting with right-handed scissors). Untrained tasks, on the other hand, do not receive the same amount of attention and thus tend to be more resistant to environmental influence (Ida, Mandal, & Bryden, 2000; Olsson & Rett, 1989). With repetition and practice of task execution, the right nondominant hand can become the preferred hand for these untrained tasks (Fischl, 1986; Harris, 1990; Richberg, 1987; Sakano, 1982; Sattler, 1998; Stutte et al., 1977). However, switched handers are likely to
Handedness in Children 169 BOX 9-2 Some Problems Associated with Switched Handedness
Young & Knapp, 1966). These ndings appear to indicate that switching to the nondominant hand might have an unfavorable effect on cortical functioning (Sattler, 1998, 2001, 2002). Furthermore, it has been speculated that functional specialization of the hemispheres may be altered through switching handedness, which in turn might interfere with interhemispheric communication processes (Olsson & Rett, 1989; Sattler, 1998, 2001). Initially, many children with switched handedness compensate effectively and their problems may not arise until their performance is challenged as school pressure and demands increase (Fischl, 1986; Olsson & Rett, 1989; Richberg, 1987; Sattler, 1998, 2001, 2002; Stutte et al., 1977). The nature and extent of switching effects also seem to vary greatly among individuals, whereby some appear to adapt more easily to right handedness with minimal problems, compared with others who experience great difculties (Friedmann, 1987; Harris, 1990; Sakano, 1982; Sattler, 1998, 2001, 2002). The enormous range of variation in the presenting problems (from minimal to multiple) observed in switched handers poses a challenge in researching and understanding the handedness behavior of these individuals. Today it is generally accepted that forcing or converting left handers to become right handers should be avoided (e.g., Richberg, 1987; Sattler, 2002). Even Coren (1996), who appeared to favor pathologic causes as an explanation for left handedness, argued convincingly that forcing right handedness is not the answer:
Left-handedness is not a simple movement preference that has developed into a habit. It probably reflects differences in the patterns of neural circuitry in the brain (p. 261).
Decreased academic performance Inferior bimanual coordination performance Psychological abnormalities: Switching to the nondominant hand might have an unfavorable effect on cortical functioning, and functional specialization of the hemispheres may be altered through switching handedness, which in turn might interfere with interhemispheric communication processes Primary problems: Memory decit (i.e., recalling learned material), concentration difculty (i.e., tiring quickly, poor endurance), learning difculties (i.e., reading, spelling), position in space problems (including poor left-right concept), speech decit (especially stammering), and ne motor problems (e.g., handwriting) Secondary problems: Poor self-esteem, insecurity, social withdrawal, overcompensation with increased effort, oppositional and provocative behavior (e.g., playing the clown, temper tantrums), bed wetting and nail biting generally coexist with socioemotional difculties
continue preferring their left hand for many untrained tasks and for the leading role in bimanual actions, resulting in an incomplete shift of handedness (Olsson & Rett, 1989; Porac, Rees, & Buller, 1990). Only a few studies have addressed the consequences of switched handedness (Box 9-2). They have found decreased academic performance (Ardila et al., 1988; Bryngelson & Clark, 1933; Clark, 1957), inferior bimanual coordination performance (Vaughn & Webster, 1989), and psychological abnormalities (Young & Knapp, 1966). Based on a large number of case studies, Sattler (1998, 2001, 2002) identied primary and secondary problems after switched handedness. Primary problems included memory decit (i.e., recalling learned material), concentration difculty (i.e., tiring quickly, poor endurance), learning difculties (i.e., reading and spelling), position in space problems (including poor left-right concept), speech decit (especially stammering), and ne motor problems (e.g., handwriting). Interestingly, in numerous cases, these problems decreased or even disappeared when individuals started to write with the inherently preferred left hand, even as adults (Sattler, 1998, 2001, 2002). Secondary problems associated with switching were poor self-esteem, insecurity, social withdrawal, overcompensation with increased effort, oppositional and provocative behavior (e.g., playing the clown, temper tantrums), bed wetting and nail biting, or general socioemotional difculties (Sattler, 1998, 2001, 2002). Other authors have reported similar psychological problems as Sattler (Friedmann, 1987; Richberg, 1987;
Coren (1992) suggested that right hand training only produces mixed handedness or modied left handedness. It can be concluded that there is a general consensus in the literature that switched handedness is undesirable, and the importance of correct handedness classication is evident. However, the lack of specic empirical research into switched handedness and the underlying neuropsychological processes to date limit the conclusions that can be drawn on this group with variable handedness.
PREVALENCE OF HANDEDNESS
The lack of coherent denitions, standard assessments, and universal classication procedures for handedness (Annett, 1998; Bishop, 1990a) makes accurate estimation of the incidence of left, right, and unestablished
170
handedness difcult. As has been discussed, ndings of demographic studies have considered handedness as a trinomial phenomenon in terms of left, right, and mixed (unestablished) handers, whereby the cut-off point for the latter group is quite arbitrary. One of the more conservative estimates states that approximately 85% of the adult population are right handed, about 10% are left handed, and 5% show mixed handedness (Coren & Porac, 1977). Other studies have provided more specic distinctions between different handedness groups. Coren (1992) differentiated between strong and weak left or right handers, suggesting that 5% present as strong left handers, 72% of people are strong right handers, and the remaining 23% demonstrate ambiguous hand use. Annett (1998) made a distinction between ambidextrous and mixed handers, in which ambidextrous handers by denition have the same level of skill in either hand, whereas mixed handers use their left hand for some activities and their right hand for other tasks. Annett (1998) reported only 0.3% of ambidextrous handers, but as many as 30% of mixed handers, a gure supported by Amunts and coworkers (2000). Furthermore, the prevalence of left handedness has been estimated to be 25% higher in males than females (Heim & Watts, 1976; Seddon & McManus, 1993). This gender difference may result from complex factors leading to a differential expression of laterality in females (McManus, 1991), greater testosterone levels in utero (Geschwind & Galaburda, 1987), or a possible genetic influence on handedness (McKeever, 2000). However, other studies failed to nd a signicant gender difference (Beaton & Mosley, 1984; Bishop, 1989; Bryden, 1977; Salmaso & Longoni, 1985). All in all, there is a general consensus that among more liberal societies, including most westernized and Caucasian-based populations, 10% to 12% of individuals are left handed (Ardila et al., 1989; Connolly & Bishop, 1992; Ellis, Ellis, & Marshall, 1988; Harris, 1990; Nicholls, 1998).
ASSESSMENT OF HANDEDNESS
This section provides a brief overview of general assessments, as found in the handedness literature, that appear to be useful and relevant to occupational therapists. (Specic occupational therapy assessments related to handedness are discussed further on under Pediatric Occupational Therapy and Handedness, Assessment.)
Table 9-1
Summary of test-retest reliability of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (McFarland & Anderson, 1980)
Pearsons r (p < .05)
.95 .94 .90 .87 .85
Item
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Writing Drawing Throwing a ball Using a toothbrush Cutting with scissors
Item
6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Eating with a spoon Striking a match Sweeping with a broom Using a knife for cutting Opening the lid of a box
BOX 9-3
Tests for Hand Performance in Skill (i.e., Trained) and Ability (i.e., Untrained) Tasks
SKILL: Tracing and dotting: Can be performed in the context of the Motor Accuracy Test (MAc; Ayres, 1989) and the Hand Dominance Test (HDT; Steingrber & Lienert, 1971) ABILITY: Hammering (as a form of hand tapping) and tapping (as a form of nger tapping): See Knickerbocker (1980) for a timed hammering sample and Kraus (2003) for a tapping adaptation.
Skill
Tracing, a prociency task subject to training, performed with the preferred and nonpreferred hands can demonstrate the extent to which one hand has acquired superior control as reflected in assessment tasks (e.g., Ayres, 1989; Steingrber & Lienert, 1971). Similarly, several studies have employed timed dotting as a skilled task to assess superior hand performance (e.g., Annett, 1992a; Carlier et al., 1993; Steingruber, 1975; Tapley & Bryden, 1985). Although tracing requires continuous motor execution, dotting involves control of rapidly alternating stop-start movements and placing. Even though tracing and dotting require different types of motor prerequisites, the level of both tracing and dotting accuracy is closely related to the learned task of drawing and writing (Annett, 1992a; Steingruber, 1975; Tapley & Bryden, 1985), and they can thus be considered to be trained and skilled tasks. Tracing and dotting are two suitable skilled hand performance tasks, and they can be performed in the context of the Motor Accuracy Test (MAc; Ayres, 1989) test and the Hand Dominance Test (HDT; Steingrber & Lienert, 1971). The MAc
emphasises accuracy or steadiness of the visually directed hand use of a pen and is specically designed for comparison between the more- and less-accurate hands (Mandell, Nelson, & Cermak, 1984, p. 115).
The MAc requires timed tracing of a butterflyshaped line on an A3 paper, rst with the preferred hand and then with the nonpreferred hand. The standardized version of the HDT for children consists of three parts: (a) a mazelike angled path for tracing; (b) a path of irregularly spaced circles, 0.5 cm in diameter for dotting; and (c) rows of equally spaced adjacent squares, also for dotting. All three tasks have to be attempted at maximum speed and precision for 30 seconds. The distance of the traced path is
172
measured, and the number of successfully dotted circles and squares is counted. Both these standardized tests are suitable to assess hand performance skill, but they have their limitations. Kraus (2003) found that although the MAc performance level increased signicantly across all age groups, the interhand differences on the test were not found to be signicantly different between 3- and 5-year-old normal children. This might partly be a consequence of revisions to the MAc, including adjustments to decrease the difference between the hands (Smith, 1983). Although the MAc appears to be a valid tool for assessing performance levels, the interhand differences lack variability (Kraus, 2003), and thus sensitivity to detect more subtle differences between the hands. This needs to be considered when using the MAc as a hand performance measure. The HDT, on the other hand, has some structural drawbacks: It has angled paths for tracing, which encourages stop-start movements, and the scoring of both the tracing and the dotting task do not take the quality of the childs response into account (i.e., a dot can also be a line as long as it is placed inside the circle). Once again, these limitations have to be considered until a more comprehensive assessment is available (see, e.g., Kraus, 2003, for the Bear Tracing Task and the Bead Dotting Task).
Ability
Tapping as a motor performance task to assess innate motor ability is used most frequently in research to distinguish manual asymmetry in rapid repetitive upper extremity movements (McManus, Kemp, & Grant, 1986) as an innate and untrained task. Numerous studies have shown that the preferred hand taps faster than the nonpreferred hand (Peters, 1978, 1990; Peters & Durding, 1979; Watter & Burns, 1995). However, stipulations for tapping differ across studies, with some employing hand tapping controlled from the shoulder girdle (Peters, 1990) and others using nger tapping with stabilization of the wrist (Watter & Burns, 1995). No studies were found that investigated the difference or similarities between these two forms of tapping (i.e., whether and to what extent distally controlled tapping is indeed similar to proximally controlled tapping/hammering). For this reason, it is useful to include both hammering (as a form of hand tapping) and tapping (as a form of nger tapping) as tests to assess Ability hand performance. Knickerbocker (1980) proposed a Timed Hammering Sample to observe the
presence or absence of established hand dominance (p. 201).
For Knickerbockers test, a piece of carbon paper is stapled face down between two sheets of paper and
174
independent and random lateralization of manual praxis. Those individuals homozygous for the random factor have a 50% chance of being left or right handed. Two factors influence the handedness outcome and hemispheric specialization for speech: a genetic right shift (RS+) factor, and a random congenital but nongenetic factor that codes for speech representation in the left hemisphere. Right handedness is linked to left hemispheric speech representation, and thereby determined by the genetic RS+ factor, whereas the random factor implies that left handedness and left hemispheric speech representation are not inherited. According to Annetts model, approximately 25% of individuals presenting with atypical patterns of hemispheric specialization (i.e., right and bilateral cerebral speech representation) become left handers. However, Annett argued that the right-biased cultural and environmental influences increase the development of right handedness, so that the incidence of left handers is reduced to approximately 16%, which is congruent with her prevalence studies based on hand skill (Annett, 1998). Furthermore, Annett has proposed that the strength of handedness is inheritable, because some individuals may be homozygous for the RS factor (i.e., RS++), displaying a stronger handedness than individuals who are heterozygous (i.e., RS). Annetts model has been criticized for lack of empiric support for the 50% frequency of both dominant and recessive alleles, and the assumption that hand performance and hand preference covary (Hopkins & Rnnqvist, 1998; Porac & Coren, 1981). Similarly to Annett, the authors McManus and Bryden (1992) argued for a single gene with two alleles indirectly determining handedness, namely Dextral (D) and Chance (C). Individuals with a Dextral-Dextral (DD) genotype are right handed, whereas persons with a Chance-Chance (CC) genotype have an equal chance of being left or right handed. Heterozygous individuals (DC) received proposed additivity, having a 25% chance of being left handed as opposed to a 75% chance of becoming right handed. Unlike Annett, the authors proposed that handedness and hemispheric specialization are coded independently of one another, and the presence of a sex-linked moderator gene accounts for the increased incidence of left handedness in males. The central idea of the genetic models appears to be similar. Approximately half of the population inherits the potential to become either left or right handed, but only a proportion of these individuals eventually present as left handers. The genetic models could possibly explain the variation in strength of handedness because variable handers might include those individuals who have an equal chance of being left or right handed. However, twin studies have compounded the complexities involved in the inheritance of handedness,
176
McKeever, 1981; Orsini & Satz, 1986). To date, there is no agreement on the denition of pathologic left handedness. There are those researchers who suggest that pathologic left handedness appears to develop only with substantial damage to the left hemisphere (Annett, 1985; McManus & Bryden, 1992; Satz et al., 1985), in which case the incidence of pathologic left handedness is relatively low. Conversely, other researchers propose that pathologic left handedness is a result of relatively minor neurologic trauma. In the latter case, at least half of all left handers or even all left handers are thought to demonstrate left handed behavior with a pathologic origin (Coren, 1992). Taking an even more extreme approach in the absence of strong genetic evidence for left handedness, Bakan (1990) considered all left handedness to stem from some form of pathology. Hopkins and Rnnqvist (1998) emphasized that strongly lateralized and unusually consistent hand preference during infancy, rather than fluctuating asymmetry, may be indicative of underlying neuropathology. It has been specically suggested that poor performance of the nonpreferred hand might be suggestive of early brain damage (Bishop, 1984; Gillberg, Waldenstrm, & Rasmussen, 1984). This may affect the left or right hand. There is indeed evidence for the existence of pathological right handers (Kim et al., 2001), referring to a group of familial left handers who experience early right brain injury and consequently develop right hand preference. However, the incidence of pathologic right handers has been estimated to be low because of the restricted number of familial left handers (Satz, 1972, 1973). Finally, if handedness is a manifestation of the extent of interhemispheric communication via the corpus callosum, clinical research should reflect a link between variable handedness and callosal dysfunction. There is evidence that dyslexia, which also has been linked to a greater incidence of unestablished handedness (Satz & Fletcher, 1987), appears to be related to poor hemispheric lateralization (Galaburda, 1993; Satz, 1991), and poor interhemispheric communication (Gladstone, Best, & Davidson, 1989; Kerschner, 1983). However, other studies have failed to nd support for an association between learning disabilities and unestablished handedness (Bishop, 1990a,b). Also, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the corpus callosum did not reveal differences in callosal size between dyslexic and normal children (Larsen, Hien, & degaard, 1992). In summary, the proposition that unusual prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal conditions influence the cerebral lateralization process of the immature brain is supported by empiric evidence. Although many of the ndings remain inconclusive, the impact of early unfavorable conditions on hemispheric specialization has not been disputed to date. However, intrauterine
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In summary, hand preference can be perceived as a multicausal behavior that is influenced by a variety of mechanisms, including genetic and nongenetic factors. As Provins (1997) contended:
what is genetically determined is a neural substrate that has signicantly increased its functional plasticity in the course of evolution. What is ne-tuned is the relative motor prociency or skills achieved by the two sides in any given task according to the use and the demands made on them as a result of social pressure, other environmental influences or habit (p. 556).
In a neurodevelopmental context it seems appropriate to follow the emergence of handedness in relation to midline crossing and bimanual coordination. The different developmental stages are discussed in the following, rst in relation to handedness with reference to the developmental stage of the corpus callosum, then to midline crossing, and nally to bimanual coordination.
BIRTH
At birth, the corpus callosum is underdeveloped and nonfunctional (Gazzaniga, 1970; Hewitt, 1962), developing over the next 10 years at an unprecedented rate compared with its later development. Movement of the upper limbs has been described as uncontrolled and reflexive, and is performed both symmetrically and asymmetrically (Fagard, 1990, 1998), with the presence of the asymmetrical tonic neck reflex (ATNR) and the Moro reflex. These seemingly random movements are closely linked to the lack of postural control at this age. For example, when the head of a neonate is stabilized externally, reaching is possible (Amiel-Tison & Grenier, 1980). However, adequate postural control is necessary to enable independent reaching by the infant, so reaching does not occur spontaneously at this age (Shumway-Cook & Woollacott, 2001). Furthermore, the infant is unable to cross the midline, even when the body is fully supported and one limb is restrained (Provine & Westerman, 1979).
Although the origin and cause of manual lateralization are still debatable, the prevalence of left and right handedness appears to have existed fairly constantly since prehistoric times (Bradshaw & Rogers, 1996; Calvin, 1983; Corballis, 1983; Steele & Mays, 1995; Toth, 1985) and across most human societies (Hardyck & Petronovich, 1977; Harris, 1980, 1990; Peters, 1995). It could be concluded that handedness is a unique human trait, displaying a wide variety of degrees of presentation that are not yet well understood. In contrast, the development of handedness has been well documented since the 1940s, as reviewed in the following section.
4 MONTHS
According to Gazzaniga (1980), each hemisphere processes sensorimotor information independently of the contralateral side. This activity might indicate that the corpus callosum is starting to play a role in relaying information from one hemisphere (e.g., visual eld) to the other (e.g., controlling contralateral motor performance). Hand preference coincides with unilateral swiping of either hand (Gesell & Ames, 1947) and a decrease in the grasp reflex that is replaced with a crude but voluntary grasp (Case-Smith, 1995). Provine and Westerman (1979) found that this is the earliest time that infants are able to cross the midline when one hand is restrained (see also Murray, 1995, for a review). Bimanual movements are symmetrical or mirrorlike and simultaneous, resulting soon in bilateral body and object exploration, and hand interplay in midline (Fagard, 1990, 1998; Fagard & Pez, 1997).
178
6 MONTHS
Gazzaniga (1980) proposed that the corpus callosum rst demonstrates increased myelination, reflected in the emergence of unilateral reach. Alternating with the bilateral development, a rst (transient) preference for unilateral, usually the right hand, use becomes apparent (Gesell & Ames, 1947). As the infants postural control develops in sitting, weight is borne on one arm for pivoting, and the infant reaches with the other hand to the contralateral side using trunk rotation (Case-Smith, 1995; Gilfoyle, Grady & Moore, 1990). No active contralateral reaching has been recorded at this stage. There is a denite shift toward bilaterality (Gesell & Ames, 1947) from simultaneous to successive movement (Castner, 1932). For example, the infant holds an object in one hand and reaches with the other (White, Castle, & Held, 1964), or movement is initiated with one hand and completed with the other (Castner, 1932).
18 MONTHS
Around this age, the left hemisphere develops more rapidly than the right (Jacobson, 1978). The clear shift toward unilateral hand use continues, alternating with much bilateral activity, and inconsistent hand use is still apparent (Gesell & Ames, 1947). Other researchers have observed a clear hand preference in bimanual tasks after 14 months (Michel, Ovrut, & Harkins, 1985; Ramsey, Campos, & Fenson, 1979), concluding that unimanual hand preference precedes bimanual hand preference. More recently, Fagard and Marks (2000) compared unimanual and bimanual tasks in relation to hand preference in babies aged 18 to 36 months. They found that bimanual tasks elicited a stronger role differentiation than unimanual tasks even at 18 months. They deduced that hand preference is task related, and that certain bimanual tasks might display greater asymmetry than unimanual tasks in infancy. At this stage, the rst active contralateral reaching across the body is observed (White et al., 1964), without one hand being occupied or used for support. Children are now able to combine stabilizing the object with one hand and manipulating it with the other in an alternating manner (Gilfoyle et al., 1990), which leads to more mature bimanual coordination (Corbetta & Thelen, 1996; White et al., 1964).
8 MONTHS
The emergence of a more radial palmar and then digital grasp (Gesell & Amatruda, 1947) precedes a unilateral phase whereby there is increased left hand use, followed by a greater persistence of right hand use. Further renement of postural control is now evident (CaseSmith, 1995; Gilfoyle et al., 1990), but no active contralateral reaching has been recorded at this stage. Infants start to hold two objects simultaneously in each hand and combine this with a bimanual symmetric action, such as banging (DeSchonen, 1977; Fagard, 1990, 1998; Fagard & Pez, 1997).
12 MONTHS
As the corpus callosum continues to develop, the emerging pincer grasp coincides with another phase of more unilateral left hand performance, followed by a phase of using either hand (Gesell & Ames, 1947). Having achieved good postural control in sitting, the infant is now able to reach into either contralateral space using trunk rotation but without employing arm support. However, this midline crossing occurs mainly when one hand is occupied, not yet reflecting a preferred hand. Ipsilateral reaching is still preferred (Carlson & Harris, 1985; Case-Smith, 1995; Knobloch & Pasamanick, 1974), although Bruner (1969) suggested a diminished midline barrier at this stage. The hands begin to work together in an increasingly complementary fashion and coordinated asymmetric roles (Goldeld & Michel, 1986), in which one hand is more active, the other more passive. Bimanual hand preference emerges after 9 to 10 months of age, involv-
24 MONTHS
The corpus callosum appears to be functioning at a basic level and inhibitory function is emerging (Farber & Knyazeva, 1991). There appears to be a preference for bimanual activity in which the preferred hand is more active and the nonpreferred hand has a stabilizing and assistive role (Fagard & Marks, 2000). At this stage, most young children show a more denite preference for the right hand (Gesell & Ames, 1947) because the ngers and arms are increasingly dissociated for a large variety of functional skills (Case-Smith, 1995). Stilwell (1987) found that 2-year-old children actively cross the midline, more so with their preferred hand. The hands can now be used in all planes with good control (Gilfoyle et al., 1990). Two-year-old children can also perform a sequence of bimanual movements whereby the arm and hand stabilization and movement are controlled simultaneously (Knobloch & Pasamanick, 1974), such as holding a crayon and drawing, or threading beads.
2 TO 6 YEARS
MRI studies have supported age-related increases in cerebral white matter and myelination of the corpus callosum in children and adolescents (DeBellis et al., 2001; Giedd et al., 1999; Thompson et al., 2000). There is evidence that callosal transfer is not optimal until approximately 10 to 12 years (Yakovlev & Lecours, 1967), and that subsequent sensorimotor and cognitive development further increase the callosal interconnections between the hemispheres up to adulthood (Pujol et al., 1993). By the third and fourth year, the direction of hand preference is evident (McManus et al., 1988) and there is a tendency toward unilateral activity (Gesell & Ames, 1947). This stage appears to be followed by another period of well-differentiated bilaterality between 5 and 7 years of age. Hand preference becomes fully established between 6 and 9 years of age (Gesell & Ames, 1947; Tan, 1985). At the age of 6 years children use the preferred hand consistently to cross the body midline (Stilwell, 1987). However, more complex tactile tasks requiring crossed localization conditions demand a higher level of interhemispheric transfer via the corpus callosum (Fabbro, Libera, & Tavano, 2002). Children aged 5 to 6 years make signicantly more errors than 10-year-olds (Quinn & Geffen, 1986). Children are increasingly able to execute complex activities requiring differentiated hand performance, in which the asymmetrical and functional role differentiation becomes more rened throughout childhood (Fagard, 1990, 1998). Symmetrical in-phase coordination between the hands is evident at 5 years (Fagard, 1987), but inconsistent coordination patterns are still observed in children between the ages of 6 and 10 years (Haken, Kelso, & Bunz, 1985). Unimanual action such as grasping might strengthen the contralateral unilateral control system during infancy (Fagard, 1998). This allows one hand to take responsibility and lead, which in turn influences hand preference and the dissociation between the hands. Bimanual action, on the other hand, allows infants to use both hands in succession until they are able to coordinate their hands in an asymmetrical and simultaneous manner (Fagard, 1998). With maturation, reaching and grasp extend to midline and then to the contralateral space, possibly indicating a shift in interhemispheric communication from extracallosal to callosal control (Liederman, 1983). This contralateral reaching or midline crossing has been dened as
hand movements that approach and/or cross the centre longitudinal axis of the body (the body midline) (Stilwell, 1994).
In summary, the development of handedness appears to fluctuate between unimanual and bimanual preferences that seem to be individually paced. Hand function initially takes place only in ipsilateral and midline spaces, and later extends to the contralateral space. This developmental process supports the neurophysiological basis for an intricate relationship among hand preference, midline crossing, and bimanual coordination and appears to be closely linked to the development of the corpus callosum.
there is an advantage of using the SCSIT or SIPT to obtain a more holistic picture of handedness. The two tests combine the assessment of preferred hand use, hand performance, midline crossing, and bilateral motor coordination, in addition to other behaviors related to sensory integrative dysfunction. In the SCSIT and SIPT, midline crossing is closely related to preferred hand use: The therapist observes to what extent the preferred hand is used for contralateral reaching. In addition, hand performance is assessed in both hands by means of a tracing task, with scores
180
incorporating both time and accuracy. However, note that although the inclusion of handedness-related information was initially aimed at detecting the extent of hemispheric specialization (Ayres, 1980, 1989; Murray, 1991), contemporary sensory integration is primarily concerned with decits in the central processing of tactile, proprioceptive, and vestibular sensations and the integration of these into adaptive responses (Bundy & Murray, 2002; Windsor, Smith Roley, & Szklut, 2001). Although the SCSIT and SIPT test batteries still contain and use measures of preferred hand use, motor accuracy for both left and right hands, and a midline crossing measure, the purpose of these measures is to obtain information on laterality establishment in general rather than handedness, because it is considered to be an important component for detecting bilateral integration and sequencing (BIS) decits. In both the SCSIT and SIPT, preferred hand use (i.e., the measure of hand preference) is obtained by rst recording the hand that initially uses the pen to draw. However, it is essential not to assume that a highly trained task such as drawing and writing provides an accurate reflection of hand preference, because these tasks are subject to sociocultural influences (Ida, Mandal, & Bryden, 2000). The inclusion of an additional test with more opportunity to demonstrate hand preference across a range of functional tasks is thus necessary. It seems evident that the multidimensional nature of handedness requires a careful multifaceted assessment in which hand preference, hand performance, consistency, and interhand differences are recorded. In addition, an assessment of bimanual coordination and
I NTERVENTION THEORY
Unestablished Handedness
Occupational therapy intervention for unestablished handedness has its roots in perceptual motor theory (Keogh & Sugden, 1985; Kephart, 1971; Lerch, Becker, & Nelson, 1974), sensorimotor principles (Knickerbocker, 1980), and sensory integration (Ayres, 1972, 1989). Laterality has been dened by early perceptual motor theorists as
the internal awareness of the two sides of the body and their difference (Kephart, 1971, p. 88).
Inter-Hand Difference L V R R
Figure 9-4 Example of a handedness prole chart combining performance levels and interhand differences. Note: FHP = Functional Hand Preference, L+ = explicit left handedness, L = moderate left handedness, V = variable handedness, R = moderate right handedness, R+ explicit right handedness. This handedness profile is based on an 8-year-old boy with PDD who had left-handed tendencies but was encouraged at home and in therapy to use his right hand. (Kraus, 2004)
182
handedness seems appropriate, because an overall development of laterality may well assist in establishing handedness. However, older children presenting with unestablished handedness pose the greatest challenge, particularly so if a decision on handedness is eminent because of school entry. Based on the current handedness knowledge discussed so far, assessment results should be analyzed carefully before embarking on clinical decision making. How do we know if a child is inherently left or right handed? Are there other factors to consider before making a nal decision? What is the most benecial treatment for that child? In her doctoral thesis, Kraus (2003) methodically evaluated existing handedness measures, proposed several different reasons why children could present with unestablished handedness (or types of variable handedness), devised a novel assessment battery and suggest treatment guidelines in the context of her Handedness Prole. This process could be one way to deal with these questions, but it extends beyond the scope of this chapter. In the absence of evidence-based practice to substantiate certain treatment approaches, differential handedness assessment methods are crucial.
Left Handedness
In most aspects, there are no differences between treating left and right handed children in therapy, because motor problems are common in both groups and should be treated according to the same principles. However, two intervention areas require specic attention for left handers: writing and those ADL activities that involve utensils designed for right handers. Writing The act of writing from the left to the right is conducive to right handers, who engage in a pulling motion across the page whereby the written work is clearly visible. Left handers have to adhere to the same left-to-right direction in writing and thus should apply a pushing motion that is more difcult to control. Furthermore, if left handers employ the mirror image hand position of right handers during writing, the left hand obscures the written work, and if a fountain pen is used, smudges it. The pushing action and visual limitations seem to be the main reasons why many left handers develop compensatory positions that often result in an unfavorable, cramped writing grasp with wrist flexion. Although the pushing action may be more laborious when learning to write, this is no reason to switch a left-handed child to right-handed writing, because there is evidence that left handers are able to develop the same writing speed as right handers (Sattler, 2001). However, if a child learns to use a hooked or clawed writing position through compensation, this is more likely to impede on the speed, legibility, and ergonomics of writing. In therapy it is thus crucial to establish the correct writing pattern for left handers. The basic principles are the same as in right handers: 90-90-90 position at hips, knees, and feet, with table height two ngers above the adducted elbow; good upright posture The upper arm only abducts slightly when the forearm moves outward to the side, and the elbow does not protrude sideways Lateral support of the ulnar side of the hand and wrist extension Rened and relaxed tripod grip enabling intrinsic nger movement The following principles are specic to left-handed writing: Paper or exercise book placed slightly toward the left of the body midline with the left top corner slanted between 20 and 40 up to the left
Switched Handedness
When addressing switched handedness flag a note of caution. Although many of a childs presenting problems might be related to, or caused by, switched handedness (Fischl, 1986; Friedman, 1987; Harris, 1990; Olsson & Rett, 1989; Richberg, 1987; Sattler, 1998; Stutte et al., 1977), unswitching might not be favorable in every case because there appear to be certain preconditions for successful handedness retraining. According to Sattler (1998), these preconditions include the following: (a) full support for the retraining process of parents and teachers; (b) a relatively stressfree situation with flexible time constraints on writing, and limited writing volume; (c) sufcient motivation of the child; and (d) a skilled therapist experienced with handedness issues. In addition, based on my own clinical experience as an occupational therapist, average or above-average motor performance level of the left hand, regular occupational therapy sessions, monitoring of progress, and regular follow-up (including close contact with parents and teachers), also are necessary for a successful handedness retraining outcome. Age does not appear to be a major factor for successful retraining because numerous case studies exist of adult switched handers who have successfully retrained their original or dominant handedness (Sattler, 1998). A case study, based on the Handedness Prole (Kraus, 2003), illustrates the clinical decision making process for a child with switched handedness (Box 9-4). However, a note of caution: Until therapists are more familiar with the dynamics and associated
Handedness in Children 183 BOX 9-4 Case Presentation of Tim as an Example of Clinical Decision Making Based on Background Information, the Handedness Prole (Kraus, 2003)
incongruence between ability and skill, because the right hand performed notably better than the left in both ability and skill. For midline crossing the left hand was used more for contralateral reaching than the right, although Tim generally avoided crossing the midline. Ability was performed in the average range with the right hand, which is not unusual for left handers as a group. However, skill was performed better with the right than with the left hand but scored in the poor range. This might result from a mild motor-based decit, because both hands performed in the subaverage or poor performance level range despite the practice effect of the right hand. Bimanual coordination was scored in the average range with a stronger left-handed lead. This, together with average ability performance, suggests an absence of severe coordination problems. In the light of sociocultural pressure for right hand use, it can be assumed with reasonable condence that switched handedness is responsible for Tims variable hand use. CLINICAL DECISION MAKING It appears that Tims motor and perceptual problems have a developmental basis, and it is likely that these problems are exacerbated by his switched handedness. However, considering that his left hand performed in the subaverage range for the nonpreferred hand, and given the proswitching attitude prevalent in his family, the option of retraining handedness was rejected. Instead, a sensorimotor program addressing his gross motor problems, and a graded ne motor and graphomotor program appeared more appropriate.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Tim (6 years and 6 months old) presents with righthanded writing. A history of early left hand use is reported, and both father and sister are self-reported switched left handers. There are indications of sociocultural pressure for right hand use, with Tims father openly advocating the need to switch left handedness to right handedness. There is a history of birth-related stress and general mild developmental delay. HANDEDNESS PROFILE Untrained hand preference tasks: More left than right responses, below average performance, inconsistent within and across tasks Trained hand preference tasks: Slightly more right than left responses, below-average performance, inconsistent across tasks mainly Hand performance ability: Signicantly more right than left responses, average performance Hand performance skill: Signicantly more right than left responses, below average performance Midline crossing: Crosses more frequently with the left but overall avoids contralateral reaching Simple bimanual coordination (bimanual circle drawing): Leads more with the left, average performance Overall classication: Variable left hander DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS The handedness prole indicates both within-task and across-task inconsistency, in which the left hand is used more for untrained tasks (mild left) and the right slightly more for trained tasks (variable right). There was no
In general, wrist extension can be greater than in right handers; that is, closer to maximum extension (and not closer to neutral, as in right handers). This allows the writing hand to be placed below the written work and thereby ensures good visibility as well as a functional and rened pencil grasp. In practice, wrist extension might be closer to neutral when starting to write from the left side, and may increase as the hand moves toward midline. Mirror writing or reversals is another interesting aspect often observed with left-handed writing. There seem to be two reasons for this. First, there appears to be a natural tendency for a pulling motion during drawing and writing, which, for left handers, extends from right to left. Second, there is evidence that right handers tend to process visual information in a left-toright direction, whereas left handers process in the opposite right-to-left direction (Sattler, 1998). These tendencies may result in reversals but do not necessarily presuppose problems, unless the child also has visual perceptual processing problems. It is a matter of practice and habit to adopt the left-to-right visuomotor
processing direction, but left-handed children might thus undergo a more extensive phase of reversals and mirror writing. Activities of Daily Living Although many activities of daily living (ADL) tasks can be performed by left handers in a mirrorlike fashion to right handers (e.g., brushing teeth, getting dressed, doing buttons, tying laces), there are several ADL tasks that involve utensils with a right-handed bias, or that are performed in a right-hand-biased environment. These include cutting with scissors and one-sided bladed knives, pencil sharpeners, computer mice with clicks for the right index nger, playing the piano (with the more difcult part usually on the right), reading and using measuring jugs, tightening of screws with a screwdriver, and opening lids and taps with external wrist rotation that usually require greater strength. Clearly, there are differences in prociency levels involved in these tasks, and many left handers quite easily learn to perform low-level skill tasks with their right hand. For higher skill levels, such as cutting with scissors, it is
184
advisable to provide left-handed scissors. (Incidentally, the so-called two-bladed scissors that are advertised for both left and right handers may have a good cutting action, but vision is obscured for left handers because the scissor blades are assembled for right handers.) However, if a left-handed child has already taught herself or himself to cut with good results with the right hand, and if he or she resists changing to the left, this is usually in order. If a left-handed child experiences difculties in other ADL tasks, there are several shops for left handers advertised on the internet, in which information on left handers is available and equipment and utensils can be ordered (e.g., info@lefthanderconsulting.org; info@sinErgo.com).
REFERENCES
Aboitiz F, Scheibel A, Fisher RS, Zaidel E (1992). Morphometry of the sylvian ssure and the corpus callosum with emphasis on sex differences. Brain, 115:15211541. Amazeen EL, Amazeen PG, Treffner PJ, Turvey MT (1997). Attention and handedness in bimanual coordination dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(5):15521560. Amiel-Tison C, Grenier A (1980). Evaluation neurologique du nouveau et du nourrisson. Paris, Masson. Amunts K, Jncke L, Mihlberg H, Steinmetz H, Zilles K (2000). Interhemispheric asymmetry of the human motor cortex related to handedness and gender. Neuropsychologia, 38:304312. Annett M (1970a). The growth of manual preference and speed. British Journal of Psychology, 61(4):545558. Annett M (1970b). A classication of hand preference by association analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 61(3):303321. Annett M (1972). The distribution of manual asymmetry. British Journal of Psychology, 63:343358. Annett M (1976). A co-ordination of hand preference and skill replicated. British Journal of Psychology, 67(4):587592. Annett M (1978). Genetic and non-genetic influences on handedness. Behavioural Genetics, 8:227249. Annett M (1985). Left, right, hand and brain: The right shift theory. Hillsdale, NJ, LEA. Annett M (1992). Five tests of hand skill. Cortex, 28:583593. Annett M (1994). Handedness as a continuous variable with dextral shift: Sex, generation, and family handedness in subgroups of left- and right-handers. Behavioural Genetics, 24(1):5163. Annett M (1995). The right shift theory of a genetic balanced polymorphism for cerebral dominance and cognitive processing. Cahiers de Psychologie, 14:427480. Annett M (1998). The stability of handedness. In KJ Connolly, editor: The psychobiology of the hand, vol. 147. London, MacKeith Press. Ardila A, Ardila O, Bryden MP, Ostrosky F, Rosselli M, Steenhuis R (1989). Effects of cultural background and education on handedness. Neuropsychologia, 27(6):893897. Ardila A, Correa P, Zuluaga J, Uribe B (1988). Spatial abilities in forced left-handers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 4:147150. Ayres AJ (1972). Sensory integration and learning disorders. Los Angeles, Western Psychological Services. Ayres AJ (1976). Interpreting the Southern California Sensory Integration Tests. Los Angeles, Western Psychological Services. Ayres AJ (1980). Southern California Sensory Integration Tests: Manual, Revised. Los Angeles, Western Psychological Services. Ayres AJ (1989). Sensory Integration and Praxis Test. Los Angeles, Western Psychological Services. Ayres AJ, Marr DB (1991). Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests. In AG Fisher, EA Murray, AC Bundy, editors: Sensory integration: Theory and practice. Philadelphia, FA Davis. Bakan P (1977). Lefthandedness and birth order revisited. Neuropsychologia, 15:837839.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Considering the complexity of handedness, it seems unlikely that there is one standard treatment approach that could effectively enhance the establishment of handedness, or that a certain combination of approaches is effective in all cases. Although the appropriateness and effectiveness of these treatment approaches in addressing unestablished handedness has still to be determined, it is proposed that the therapist should be familiar with different types of intervention, applying one or more approaches as deemed most benecial to each individual child. Furthermore, the development of handedness, in relation to the development of midline crossing and bimanual coordination, provides valuable guidelines for therapy.
SUMMARY
This chapter has demonstrated that handedness is a variable, complex, interactive, and multidimensional phenomenon subject to hereditary, environmental, and social influences. To understand and assess handedness not only in this context but also in terms of function within occupational performance, those behaviors closely linked to handedness, function, and environment (i.e., bimanual coordination and midline crossing) should be assessed. The development, publication, and standardization of a comprehensive handedness assessment tool that satises these criteria is still pending, as is the analysis of the results for clinical decision making. A comprehensive assessment procedure is a crucial research tool for investigating the nature of unestablished, left and right handedness as well as the effectiveness of different treatment approaches. It can be concluded that handedness is a pediatric specialist area in occupational therapy that is in need of much empirical evidence and support.
186
Colbourne KA, Kaplan BJ, Crawford SG, McLeod DR (1993). Hand asymmetry: Its relationship to nonrighthandedness. Journal of Clinical Experimental Neuropsychology, 15:6781. Collins RL (1975). When lefthanded mice live in righthanded worlds. Science, 187:181184. Collins RL (1985). On the inheritance of direction and degree of asymmetry. In SD Glick, editor: Cerebral lateralization in nonhuman species. Orlando, FL, Academic Press. Connolly KJ, Bishop DVM (1992). The measurement of handedness: A cross-cultural comparison of samples from England and Papua New Guinea. Neuropsychologia, 30(1):1326. Corballis MC (1983). Human laterality. New York, Academic Press. Corbetta D, Thelen E (1996). The developmental origins of bimanual coordination: A dynamic perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(2):502522. Coren S (1992). The left-hander syndrome: the causes and consequences of left-handedness. New York, The Free Press. Coren S (1996). Pathological causes and consequences of left-handedness. In D Elliott, EA Roy, editors: Manual asymmetries in motor performance. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press. Coren S, Porac C (1977). Fifty centuries of right handedness: The historical record. Science, 198:631632. Coren S, Porac C (1980). Birth factors and laterality: Effects of birth order, parental age, and birth stress on four indices of lateral preference. Behavioural Genetics, 10:123128. Cowell PE, Allen LS, Yalatimo NS, Denenberg VH (1992). A developmental study of sex and age interactions in the human corpus callosum. Developmental Brain Research, 66:187192. Dahl Reeves G, Cermak SA (2002). Disorders of praxis. In AC Bundy, SJ Lane, EA Murray, editors: Sensory integration: Theory and practice, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, FA Davis. Deacon TW (1997). The symbolic species. New York, WW Norton. DeBellis MD, Keshaven MS, Beers SR, Hall J, Frustaci K, Maselehdan A, Noll J, Boring AM (2001). Sex differences in brain maturation during childhood and adolescence. Cerebral Cortex, 11(June):552557. Delacato CH (1963). The treatment and prevention of reading problems: The neuropsychological approach. Springeld, IL, Charles C Thomas. DeSchonen S (1977). Functional asymmetries in the development of bimanual coordination in human infants. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 3:144156. Dunaif-Harris J (1984). Doubling the brain: On the evolution of brain lateralisation and its implications for language, vol. 3. New York, Peter Lang. Eglington E, Annett M (1994). Handedness and dyslexia: A meta-analysis. Perceptual Motor Skills, 79:16111624. Ellis SJ, Ellis PJ, Marshall E (1988). Hand preference in a normal population. Cortex, 24:157163. Ettinger G, Blakemore C, Milner AD, Wilson J (1972). Agenesis of the corpus callosum: A behavioural investigation. Brain, 95:327346. Fabbro F, Libera L, Tavano A (2002). A callosal transfer decit in children with developmental language disorder. Neuropsychologia, 40:15411546.
188
Kim H (1994). Distributions of hemispheric asymmetry in left-handers and right-handers: Data from perceptual asymmetry studies. Neuropsychology, 8(2):148159. Kim H, Yi S, Son EI, Kim J (2001). Evidence for the pathological right-handedness hypothesis. Neuropsychology, 15:510515. Kimball JG (1999). Sensory integrative frame of reference, 2nd ed. In J Hinojosa, P Kramer, editors: Frames of reference: Pediatric occupational therapy. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins. Knickerbocker BM (1980). A holistic approach to the treatment of learning disorders. Thorofare, NJ, Slack. Knobloch H, Pasamanick B (1974). Gesell and Amatrudas developmental diagnosis. New York, Harper & Row. Koomar JA, Bundy AC (1991). The art and science of creating direct intervention from theory. In AG Fisher, EA Murray, AC Bundy, editors: Sensory integration: Theory and practice. Philadelphia, FA Davis. Koomar JA, Bundy AC (2002). Creating direct intervention from theory. In AC Bundy, SJ Lane, EA Murray, editors: Sensory integration: Theory and practice. Philadelphia, FA Davis. Kraus EH (2002). Clinical observations of children with variable hand use. Munich, unpublished mansucript. Kraus EH (2003). The development of a normative prole to determine the extent of handedness in children. Doctoral dissertation. Melbourne, Australia, La Trobe University. Lake DA, Bryden MP (1976). Handedness and sex differences in hemispheric asymmetry. Brain Language, 3:266282. Larsen JP, Hien T, degaard H (1992). Magnetic resonance imaging of the corpus callosum in developmental dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 9(2):123134. Lerch HA, Becker JE, Nelson JA (1974). Perceptual-motor learning: Theory and practice. Palo Alto, CA, Peek Publications. Levine K (1991). Fine motor dysfunction. Tucson, AZ, Therapy Skill Builders. Liederman J (1983). Mechanisms underlying instability in the development of hand preference. In G Young, SJ Segalowitz, CM Corter, SE Trehub, editors: Manual specialisation and the developing brain. New York, Academic Press. Luria A (1973). The working brain. New York, Basic Books. Maloney M, Ball T, Edgar C (1970). Analysis of the generalizability of sensory-motor training. American Journal of Mental Deciency, 34:458469. Mandell RJ, Nelson DL, Cermak SA (1984). Differential laterality of hand function in right-handed and lefthanded boys. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 38(2):114120. McFarland J, Anderson J (1980). Factor stability of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory as a function of testretest performance, age and sex. British Journal of Psychology, 71:135142. McKeever WF (1981). Evidence against the hypothesis of right hemisphere language dominance in the Native American Navajo. Neuropsychologica, 19:595598. McKeever WF (2000). A new family handedness sample with ndings consistent with X-linked transmission. British Journal of Psychology, 91:2139. McManus IC (1984). Genetics of handedness in relation to language disorder. Advances in Neurology, 42:125138. McManus IC (1991). The inheritance of left-handedness. In GR Bock, J Marsh, editors: Biological asymmetry and
190
Satz P, Orsini DL, Saslow E, Henry R (1985). The pathological lefthandedness syndrome. Brain and Cognition, 4:2746. Satz P, Soper HV, Orsini DL (1988). Human hand preference: Three nondextral subtypes. In DC Molfese, SJ Segalowitz, editors: Brain lateralization in children: Developmental implications. New York, Guilford Press. Schachter SC (2000). The quantication and denition of handedness: Implications for handedness research. In MK Mandal, MB Bulman-Fleming, G Tiwari, editors: Side bias: A neuropsychological perspective. Netherlands, Kluwer. Schuhmacher RE, Barks JDE, Johnston MV, Down SM, Sher MS, Roloff DW, Bartlett RH (1988). Right-sided brain lesions in infants following extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Pediatrics, 82:155160. Seddon BM, McManus IC (1993). The incidence of left handedness: A meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript. London, University College. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH (2001). Motor control: Theory and practical applications. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Smith SM (1983). Performance difference between hands in children on the Motor Accuracy Test-Revised. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 37(2):96101. Soper HV, Satz P (1984). Pathological left-handedness and ambiguous handedness: A new explanatory model. Neuropsychologia, 22:511515. Sperry RW (1974). Lateral specialisation in the surgically separated hemispheres. In F Schmitt, F Worden, editors: The neurosciences: Third study program. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Steele J, Mays S (1995). Handedness and directional asymmetry in the long bones of the human upper limb. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 5:3949. Steenhuis R (1996). Hand preference and performance in skilled and unskilled activities. In D Elliott, EA Roy, editors: Manual asymmetries in motor performance. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press. Steenhuis RE, Bryden MP (1989). Different dimensions of hand preference that relate to skilled and unskilled activities. Cortex, 25:289304. Steenhuis RE, Bryden MP, Schwartz M, Lawson S (1990). Reliability of hand preference items and factors. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 12(6):921930. Stein JF (1994). Developmental dyslexia, neural timing and hemispheric lateralisation. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 18:241249. Steingrber H-J, Lienert G (1971). Hand dominance test. Gttingen, Hogrefe-Verlag fr Psychologie. Steingruber RE (1975). Handedness as a function of test complexity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40:263266. Steinmetz H, Volkmann J, Jncke L, Freund HJ (1991). Anatomical left-right asymmetry of language-related temporal cortex is different in left- and right-handers. Annals of Neurology, 29:315319. Stephens LC, Pratt PN (1989). School work tasks and vocational readiness. In PN Pratt, AS Allen (editors): Occupational therapy for children. St Louis, Mosby. Stilwell JM (1987). The development of manual midline crossing in 2- to 6-year-old children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 41(12):783789. Stilwell J (1994). The meaning of manual midline crossing. Sensory Integration Quarterly, 21(4):15.
Chapter
SELF-CARE AND HAND SKILL
Anne Henderson
10
CHAPTER OUTLINE
IMPORTANCE OF INDEPENDENCE IN SELF-CARE Importance to the Child Self-Care in Disability MEASUREMENT Nonstandardized Measures Standardized Instruments FACTORS IN THE ACQUISITION OF SELF-CARE Social and Cultural Influences Sex Differences Maturation Mastery Motivation Motor Factors CHRONOLOGY OF SELF-CARE ACQUISITION Eating Dressing Hygiene and Grooming DISCUSSION Hand Skills in Self-Care Perceptual Factors in Self-Care Cognitive and Personality Factors in Self-Care SUMMARY
The performance of self-care activities is so universal that its relevance to all aspects of living is often overlooked. Eisen and co-workers (1980) in their Health Insurance Study conceptualized child health as including physical, mental, and social health. They dened physical health in terms of functional status, which in turn was dened as the capacity to perform a variety of
activities that are normal for an individual in good health (p. 7). Thus they considered self-care performance to be a critical aspect of the health and wellbeing of a child, and included the categories of eating, dressing, bathing, and toileting. These are the basic activities of self-care. They, with the inclusion of grooming and hygiene, are the subject of this chapter. We recognize the equal importance in the health of the individual all the functional status activities identied in this chapter as basic, as well as those identied as activities of daily living (ADL) and independent activities of daily living (IADL) skills or self-maintenance skills (American Occupational Therapy Association, 1994). However, it is independence in basic self-care that usually is achieved in childhood. The child entering school is expected to be toilet trained and self-sufcient in eating, dressing, hygiene, and simple domestic tasks. These self-care activities are among the rst achievements of childhood, and they provide independence, social approval, and a sense of mastery for the child. This acquisition of self-care skills in childhood is intricately involved with the development of motor skill. The motor skills discussed in this chapter are limited to those of the hand. We recognize that postural control is essential for all self-care and oralmotor control is essential for eating and refer the reader to several excellent discussions of their role in basic self-care (Case-Smith, 2000; Shepard, 2001). The reader must also incorporate the information in this chapter into an overall framework of physical, mental, and social development. The purpose of this chapter is to review what is known about the development of self-care in relation to the development of hand function. We begin with comments on the importance of self-care, its measurement, and on factors such as culture and personality that influence its development. We then present a developmental overview of eating, dressing, and hygiene and grooming behavior and end with a discussion of
193
194
hand skills and other factors affecting the achievement of particular skills.
SELF-CARE IN DISABILITY
The timely achievement of abilities in self-care tasks is important in the daily life of all children in the US culture and the inability to perform a skill is a major barrier to school and home living for children with special needs. In the development of a childs potential
acquiring daily living skills may be as important as academic qualications (Gordon, 1992, p. 97).
The degree of disability in self-care among children with special needs varies with type and degree of impairment both within and among disabilities. In a London school district a survey conducted of special needs children (primarily with cerebral palsy or multiple handicaps) reported that about 65% needed help in dressing and 25% in eating (Inglis, 1990). A study of young adults with cerebral palsy also reported a high degree of continuing dependence: Fewer than half were independent in basic self-care (Senft et al., 1990). As expected, these researchers found a greater degree of dependence in persons with quadriplegia: The majority of persons with hemiplegia were independent. Another study of young persons with hemiplegic cerebral palsy found most had achieved mastery in self-care, including the bimanual activities, but some expressed reluctance to perform them because the adaptive method made them look different (Skold, Josephson, & Eliasson, 2004). Children with developmental coordination disorder usually are evaluated for achievement in drawing, writing, and schoolwork. Less attention has been given to their self-care needs, but descriptive studies have shown that their impaired motor abilities sometimes interfere with eating and dressing independence (Gubbay, 1975; May-Benson, Ingolia, & Koomar, 2002; Walton, Ellis, & Court, 1962). The possible delay in self-care acquisition is now considered one criterion for diagnosis of the disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 1994; Cermak & Larkin, 2002). Many disabilities of childhood interrupt the typical sequence of independent performance in self-care skills. Their importance in early childhood in the presence of a disability sometimes is underestimated because infants and preschool children are naturally dependent and easy to tend. Parents may not be too concerned about delays in activities such as dressing, but as a child grows and siblings are born, extended dependency can add signicantly to the stress within a household (Wallander, Pitt, & Mellins, 1990).
MEASUREMENT
NONSTANDARDIZED M EASURES
Since the early years of the profession, therapists have been concerned with the assessment and treatment of dysfunctional self-care performance. One of the rst known checklists of self-care performance was published in 1935 (Wolf, 1969); since that time assessment of function has been traditional in both occupational and physical therapy. Assessment forms were published from time to time in the early years, but more often treatment settings designed forms to meet the needs of their particular caseloads and treatment settings. Developmentally oriented functional assessments that incorporated information on child growth and development came into use in the 1940s, and developmental scales that included basic self-care were published a few years later. For example, an upperextremity motor development test that included agekeyed items on feeding, dressing, and grooming, as well as hand use, was developed at the New York State Rehabilitation Hospital (Miller et al., 1955). Such instruments used information on ages at which children typically master skills, and grouped the skills by the age at which achievement might be expected. One of the reasons therapists have continued to construct their own instruments is because of the need for greater detail in planning treatment programs for different disabilities. Breakdown of self-care activities is different for a child with a congenital amputation, cerebral palsy, spina bida, or mental retardation. Both center-made and published scales are designed for dayby-day guidance of intervention and are as detailed as available knowledge allows. Some published nonstandardized instruments have been designed for specic disability areas. For example, a comprehensive tool for evaluating childrens self-sufciency in self-care activities was developed by the Occupational Therapy Department at Childrens Hospital at Stanford,
STANDARDIZED I NSTRUMENTS
Derived normative age information for developmental scales is at best only fairly accurate, and the information on individual children is descriptive only. Meaningful overall scores are not obtainable because there is no way of weighing individual items. Therefore they are not appropriate for use in research or the documentation of overall progress. Two pediatric assessments designed for the functional evaluation of children with disabilities and the reliable documentation of change were developed and standardized in the 1990s and are now in wide use in the United States, as well as in other countries. They are the Wee Functional Independence Measure (WeeFim) (State University of New York at Buffalo, 1994) and the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) (Haley et al., 1992). Both include sections on basic self-care and have been demonstrated to be valid and reliable (Ottenbacher et al., 2000). The two instruments are highly correlated (Ziviani et al., 2001): Each has its advantages. The PEDI gives more depth of information but the WeeFim is easier and faster to administer.
196
The WeeFim evaluates functional independence of children ranging in age from 6 months to 7 years and is simple and fast to administer. Seven of the 18 items are self-care and the scale yields a single score for the level of independence in each of the domains of eating, grooming, bathing, dressing upper body, dressing lower body, and toileting. The instrument is being validated in other countries; for example, in Japan (Liu et al., 1998; Tsuji et al., 1999) and China (Wong et al., 2002). The PEDI evaluates self-care, mobility, and social function in much greater detail than the WeeFim. The items in basic self-care provide considerable information on a childs abilities and include the following areas: eating different food textures; use of utensils; use of drinking containers; tooth brushing; hair brushing; nose care; hand washing; washing body and face; pullover/front opening garment; fasteners, pants, shoes/socks; and toileting tasks. The PEDI has several strengths as a measurement tool for children. It has been carefully standardized and yields a total score that can be used to measure the overall progress of children with disabilities. Age expectations are given both for overall independence in separate domains and individual items. The user can select the level of expectation desired, such as the age range at which 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 90% of children without disabilities demonstrate mastery. The PEDI has been validated for use in other cultures, including Puerto Rico (Gannotti & Cruz, 2001). Research has shown that the PEDI can be used to document gain in self-care (Dumas et al., 2001). In summary, the selection of a measurement tool needs to be based on the major purpose of the tool. If multiple purposes are to be met, more than one tool should be used. Possible purposes are (a) diagnosticremedial, that is, to provide a blueprint for selecting and sequencing treatment activities; (b) description of self-care performance for communication with parents and professionals; (c) charting the acquisition of selfcare skills; and (d) evaluating the effects of treatment. Both center-made and published but not standardized evaluation instruments can be used for the rst three purposes; only standardized instruments are appropriate for the fourth.
The broad culture and expectations of the home and preschool all determine the degree and timing of a childs mastery of basic self-care skills. With the development and standardization of selfcare instruments in the United States, researchers in other countries have conducted studies to determine whether the measures can be used in their populations (Gannotti & Cruz, 2001; Wong et al., 2002). Studies also have provided information about differences between countries in ages of self-care acquisition. For example, younger Chinese children scored better than U.S. children in self-care on the WeeFim (Wong et al., 2002) and Puerto Rican children developed some self-care skills later (Gannotti & Handwerker, 2002). The timing of the mastery of self-care activities depends on the expectations for the child and these expectations differ among cultures. The U.S. culture places high value on self-sufciency, so that childrearing practices emphasize early independence. Many other cultures place a higher value on family interdependence, for example, in Puerto Rico child-rearing practices include later teaching of skills such as selffeeding (Gannotti & Handwerker, 2002). An obvious cultural factor is in the difference in food practices. In India food is eaten with the hand; in the United States utensils are used, and in Asian countries children use chopsticks. These three methods of selffeeding require different hand skills. Hand feeding requires less motor maturation than the use of a spoon, which in turn requires less motor maturation than chopsticks. The spoon is grasped in the st and can be carried to the mouth with the forearm pronated and the arm abducted, but chopsticks require individuation of the ngers and supination of the forearm. Another difference is the way in which knives and forks are used. In the United States, one scoops and spears with a fork and cuts meat with the knife in the right hand, then
SEX DIFFERENCES
Early literature reported several differences between girls and boys in the age at which self-care skills are acquired. Gesell and Ilg (1943) wrote that boys demand independence in dressing at a younger age than girls. Key and co-workers (1936) reported tentative sex differences in dressing ability between 212 years and 412. Girls were more skillful than boys and tended to dress faster, and the ability of boys generally was more variable than that of girls. Sources of the differences in the ages at which dressing skills are achieved have been proposed. It has been thought that girls dress themselves earlier than boys because their wrists are more flexible, they are better coordinated, and they wear simpler clothing (Coley, 1978; Gesell et al., 1940; Key et al., 1936). A difference also has been reported in the use of eating utensils in self-feeding (Gesell & Ilg, 1943). Girls shifted to an adult grasp earlier than boys, some as early as 3 years. Some boys, on the other hand, continued to use a pronated grasp at 8 years of age. Boys also were reported to sometimes demand to feed themselves before they were competent to do so. One recent study has also shown a difference between the sexes. In China, younger girls were reported to score higher than boys on the self-care subscores of the WeeFim (Wong et al., 2002). However, no sex differences in overall functional ability were found in research in the United States on the PEDI (Haley et al., 1992).
MATURATION
Although culture and family expectations play a role, it seems clear that the greatest factor in the achievement of self-care skill in childhood is maturation. Certainly Gesell and his associates thought so, and self-care items are prominent in his developmental diagnosis (Gesell & Amatruda, 1965). This supposition was borne out by the research of Key and her associates (1936), who found the correlation between dressing ability and chronological age to be considerably higher than that for mental age or any other factor. Furthermore, the composite score of self-care, mobility, and social functions of the PEDI showed high and signicant correlation with age but not with demographic variables.
MASTERY MOTIVATION
The concept of mastery motivation has its roots in the writings of Robert White (1959), who proposed that the development of competence in young children grew out of a pleasurable sense of efcacy when they successfully manipulated objects. The toddler and
198
preschool years are important periods in this development of goal-oriented behavior, and wanting to be self-sufcient in the performance of early eating and dressing skills is one expression of effectance or mastery motivation (Bullock & Lutkenhaus, 1988; Geppert & Kuster, 1983). Early anecdotal accounts of achievement in self-care performance indicated that interest, self-reliance, and perseverance were important attributes. Wagoner and Armstrong (1928) found success on a buttoning task was correlated with teacher ratings of perseverance. Key and her associates (1936) reported that interest in dressing develops with ability in 2-yearold children and that enjoyment increased as mastery improved. However, at 3 years they found that interest shifted to desire for approval and achievement and also found wide differences among the children in the development of self-reliance and the perseverance needed for the performance of the more difcult tasks. These ndings were based on analysis of the childrens comments while they were dressing. Recent studies in mastery motivation have focused on its relationship to many different child factors such as cognition (Hauser-Cram et al., 2001) and parent factors such as negative and positive maternal behaviors (Kelley, Brownell, & Campbell, 2000). These recent studies measure mastery motivation in a test situation, usually with puzzles graded in difculty so that they provide a challenge for the level of each child. A longitudinal study of particular interest for this chapter showed that children with disability who scored higher levels of mastery motivation at 3 years of age achieved greater independence in self-care at 10 years (HauserCram et al., 2001). These researchers found mastery motivation to be important both for the development of a child and for the well-being of the parent.
MOTOR FACTORS
Coley (1978) identied sequences of gross and ne motor development leading to independence in selfcare tasks. Examples of necessary gross motor abilities needed for dressing are reaching above the head or behind the back while maintaining trunk stability. Selffeeding requires head and mouth control, as well as trunk stability. Coley identied steps in the motor control leading to many individual self-care skills, and they are discussed within each self-care domain. They include bilateral skills, nger manipulation, and tool skills. Children learn one-handed skills before bilateral skills, and some skills are achieved later because of the need for the two hands to work together. An early example is holding a bowl with one hand while scooping with the other. Children become functional in the performance of skills during their preschool years, but complete independence and adult levels of
Finger feeding and the use of a cup are early accomplishments and the basic components of selffeeding with a spoonlling the spoon, carrying it to the mouth without spilling, and removing foodare well mastered by 3 years of age. However, self-feeding takes concentration, and it is not until after the third or fourth year that the skill is sufciently automatic to allow eating and talking at the same time (Hurlock, 1964). The 5-year-old is skillful but slow. Skill continues to improve, for it is not until 8 or 9 years of age that the child has become deft and graceful (Gesell & Ilg, 1946), and it is not until 10 years that self-feeding is accomplished entirely independently, with good control and attention to table manners (Hurlock, 1964).
Finger Feeding
Self-feeding with the ngers begins in the second half of the rst year. Table 10-1 shows the development of the skill, which parallels the infants acquisition of hand skills. Initial feeding is of crackers held in the hand and sometimes plastered against the mouth with the palm and with the forearm supinated. As nger skill develops, bite-size pieces of food are picked up and put into the mouth with a pincer grasp. Even when spoon use has become skillful, children prefer to use ngers for discrete pieces of food such as peas or meat (Gesell & Ilg, 1943).
EATING
The progress of a childs self-feeding behavior requires both the acquisition of skill in the use of eating utensils
200
Table 10-1
Skill
Source
Haley et al. (1992) Coley (1978) Gesell and Ilg (1943) Coley (1978) Gesell and Ilg (1943) Coley (1978)
Picks up finger foods and eats Feeds self cracker, whole hand grasp Feeds self spilled bits from tray Feeds self finger foods, pincer grasp Finger feeds part of one meal Takes bite-size pieces from plate, delicate grasp, appropriate force, with demonstrated release
Table 10-2
Skill
Source
Haley et al. (1992) Gesell and Ilg (1943) Haley et al. (1992) Gesell and Ilg (1943) Gesell and Ilg (1943) Gesell and Ilg (1943) Haley et al. (1992) Coley (1978) Coley (1978) Gesell and Ilg (1943) Haley et al. (1992) Gesell and Ilg (1943)
Holds and drinks from bottle or spout cup with lid Tips bottle to drink Lifts open cup to drink, some tipping Holds cup alone, hands pressed on side Grasps with thumb and fingertips Holds cup and tilts by finger action Lifts open cup securely with two hands Lifts cup to mouth, drinks well, may drop Holds cup well, lifts, drinks, replaces Holds cup or glass with one hand, free hand poised to help Lifts open cup to drink with one hand Cup held by handle, drinks securely, one hand
Use of Utensils
Table 10-3 shows the chronology of the development of the use of spoons, forks, and knives. The many years necessary for learning to use utensils reflects the complexity of their use, particularly the knife and fork in cutting. The infant begins eating with a spoon held in a sted grasp, with the arm pronated and shoulder abducted. The adult nger grip, with forearm supination and rotation as needed, requires more ne motor control and dexterity (Haley et al., 1992) but does not develop until approximately 3 years in girls (Gesell et al., 1940); some boys continue to use a pronated pattern at 8 years (Gesell & Ilg, 1946). The sted grasp appears again in the use of forks and knives in cutting. It appears that the force needed for holding and cutting requires the power of the whole hand and the necessary power combined with the nger dexterity for cutting is not developed until a child is about 10 years old. Studies of Spoon Use The spoon is the rst tool used by most infants (Connolly & Dalgleish, 1989). Several studies of spoon use have been reported, two involving infants and one preschool children. The earliest study was of nursery school childrens eating behavior (Bott et al., 1928). The eating behaviors included in the study were (a) the proper use of utensils, (b) putting the proper portion of food on a utensil, and (c) coordination, as indicated by minimal spilling. They found improvement with age in all these behaviors, but the behaviors differed as to when they improved. The use and lling of the utensils improved primarily between 2 and 3 years of age, but spilling decreased more between 3 and 4 years. A cinemagraphic study of infant eating behavior conducted by Gesell and Ilg (1937) described both prespoon activity and early spoon use. Preparation for using the spoon began when a child was being fed. Between 3 and 6 months of age the child watched the spoon, and soon mouth opening began in anticipation of the spoon reaching the mouth. Later, head movements began with movement of the head toward the spoon and then away as food was removed. Whereas initially food was put in the mouth by the adults manipulation of the spoon, the child later removed food by lip compression. These movements of the head and lips were considered to make later spoon manipulation more effective. Gesell and Ilg noted that even as simple a tool as a spoon requires a sequence of perceptual and motor acts. One act is the discriminative grasp of the spoon handle. Infants rst grasped the lower third of the handle, later the middle to upper third, and nally the end. Grasp was at rst palmar, with the thumb wrapped around the spoon, but later the thumb was placed
along the handle. The adult grasp usually was not seen until 3 years of age. A second perceptual and motor act is the lling of the spoon. At rst the bowl of the spoon is merely dipped in the dish, often with the spoon handle perpendicular. Filling began with a rotary movement toward the body, and it was not until 16 months that children began lling the spoon by inserting its point into the food. Lifting the spoon was at rst accomplished with the arm pronated, and often with the bowl of the spoon tipping. By the end of the second year children were lifting their elbows and flexing their wrists. The insertion of the spoon into the mouth also changed from the side into the mouth to the point into the mouth. The third study reported by Connolly and Dalgleish (1989) conrmed many of the ndings of Gesell and Ilg. They conducted a comprehensive videotape study on the longitudinal development of spoon use. The research procedure was more formal, and the study can serve as a model for the investigation of the learning of complex motor skills. The authors rst presented an analysis of spoon use that included both intentional and operational aspects. The task was described as entailing:
(a) an intention to eat, which involves the childs motivation; (b) some knowledge about the properties of the spoon as an implement with which to effect the transfer of food from dish to mouth; (c) the ability to grasp and hold the spoon in a stable conguration; (d) the loading of food onto the spoon; (e) carrying the loaded spoon from dish to mouth; (f) controlling the orientation of the spoon during this transfer to avoid spillage; and (g) emptying the spoon and extracting it (p. 897).
On the basis of this analysis, Connolly and Dalgleish conducted a longitudinal videotape study of the development in the operation of a spoon during the second year of life. Among their descriptions was an analysis of change in the action sequences from only two actions to a complex sequence that included corrections. The actions of putting a spoon in and out of a dish and putting the spoon in and out of the mouth initially were unconnected. Box 10-1 shows the progression and change of action sequences in using the spoon. This change in action sequences seems to indicate that the child was learning skill both in the performance of single actions and in the use of complex movement sequences. Connolly and Dalgleish also report other changes in motor actions, such as a smoothing of the trajectory of the dish-to-mouth path, and the shifting of the angle at which the spoon was placed from side toward mouth, to point toward mouth. Children used primarily a palmar grasp: the wrist, shoulder, and elbow movements also were described.
202
Table 10-3
Skill SPOON
Grasps spoon in fist Dips spoon in food, lifts to mouth Fisted grasp, pronated forearm, turns spoon Scoops food, lifts with spilling Fills spoon, turns in mouth, spilling Spoon angled slightly toward mouth Tilts spoon handle up as removes from mouth Uses spoon well with minimal spilling Point of spoon enters mouth Inserts spoon into mouth without turning Fills by pushing point of spoon into food Grasps spoon with fingers (girls supinate) Fills spoon by pushing point or rotating spoon Holds spoon with fingers for solid foods Eats liquids, spoon held with fingers, few spills
Gesell and Ilg (1943) Gesell and Ilg (1943) Coley (1978) Haley et al. (1992) Coley (1978) Gesell and Ilg (1943) Gesell and Ilg (1943) Ha1ey et al. (1992) Gesell and Ilg (1943) Gesell and Ilg (1943) Gesell and Ilg (1943) Gesell and Ilg (1943) Gesell and Ilg (1943) Coley (1978) Coley (1978)
FORK
Spears and shovels food, little spilling Fork held in fingers 2212 yr 412 yr Ha1ey et al. (1992) Co1ey (1978)
KNIFE
Uses for spreading Spreads with knife Uses to cut soft foods (sandwich) Cuts meat with knife Uses utensils deftly and gracefully 5512 yr 67 yr 5512 yr 78 yr 8 yr Ha1ey et al. (1992) Coley (1978) Ha1ey et al. (1992) Coley (1978) Gesell and Ilg (1946)
Self-Care and Hand Skill 203 BOX 10-1 Progression of Action Sequences in Using the Spoon
Individual nger function comes into play in loosening laces, and full independence in dressing requires complex nger manipulation of buttons and ties. The need for nger dexterity and planning sequences underlies the slow acquisition of management of fasteners. Key and her associates (1936) studied the process of learning to dress among 45 nursery school children, ages 112 to 512 years. Overall dressing ability was highly correlated with chronological age. They reported the learning process to be continuous, increasingly difcult, and unstable, and that the most rapid period of learning was between 112 years and 212 years. Overall success rates increased over the ages studied as follows: 112 years, 40%; 2 years, 50%; 212 years, 80%; and 312 years to 512 years, 90%. Other authors also have reported that dressing skills develop rapidly between 112 and 312 years (Gesell et al., 1940). Self-help in putting on and removing clothes is highly dependent on the type of clothing worn (Key et al., 1936). The variability in the age of acquisition is undoubtedly in part a result of the type of clothes selected for children by their caregivers. Characteristics of clothing that facilitate self-dressing include loose tops with large neck openings and loose pants with elastic tops and loose cuffs. The type and size of fasteners should be appropriate for children and they should be in reasonable locations (front or side). However, it should be noted that peer fashions may be important even for young children and compromises may be needed. The overall development of dressing skill proceeds from undressing, to dressing without fastening, to managing fasteners. Taking off an item of clothing is easier than putting it on because putting on clothing is more complex both motorically and perceptually. For example, socks slip off easily, but the coordination between the two hands and between hands and feet together are needed for putting socks on. Moreover, the sock must be rotated correctly to match its heel to the heel of the foot. Information on the chronology of dressing is presented in four areas: antecedents of dressing skills, undressing without fasteners, dressing without fasteners, and managing fasteners.
The rst purposeful sequence was ve steps: Spoon to dish Remove from dish Lift to mouth Put in mouth Remove from mouth Later, two more actions were added: Filling the spoon Removing food with lips The nal action sequence included 11 steps that incorporated monitoring and correction through repetition of sequences: 1. Control of spoon 2. Spoon to dish 3. Steady dish with other hand 4. Remove spoon from dish 5. Check to see if there is enough food on spoon (if not, repeat 2 to 4) 6. Lift spoon 7. Put spoon in mouth 8. Empty spoon with lips 9. Remove from mouth 10. Check to see if spoon is empty (if not, repeat 7 to 9) 11. Pick up spilled food (repeat 6 to 8) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Connolly K, Dalgleish M (1989). The emergence of a tool-using skill in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 25(6):894912.
DRESSING
The development of self-care in dressing, undressing, and managing fasteners also parallels and depends on the development of hand skills. A sted grasp is sufcient for the tasks of removing hat and socks. Pulling up pants requires more strength and bilateral coordination than pushing them down and kicking them off.
204
Table 10-4
Skill
Source
PREPARES FOOD
Unwraps food Opens jars Fixes dry cereal Serves self Makes sandwich Prepares baked potato Vulpe (1979) Gesell and Ilg (1943) Vulpe (1979) Vulpe (1979) Brigance (1978) Gesell and Ilg (1946)
PREPARES DRINKS
Pours from small pitcher Obtains drink from tap Pours from large pitcher or carton Carries glasses without spilling 2212 yr 3312 yr 4412 yr 6 yr Vulpe (1979) Gesell and Ilg (1943) Haley et al. (1992) Brigance (1978)
OTHER SKILLS
Uses napkin Sets table with help Wipes up spills Sets table without help 4 yr 2123 yr 3 yr 45 yr Brigance (1978) Vulpe (1979) Gesell and Ilg (1943) Vulpe (1979)
Table 10-5
Skill
COOPERATION
Passive (lies still) Holds arm out Lifts foot for shoe or pants Attempts skill Tries to put on shoes Tries to assist with fasteners Helps push down pants Interested in lacing 1418 mo 2212 yr 2 yr 2123 yr Vulpe (1979) Haley et al. (1992) Coley (1978) Vulpe (1979) 36 mo 9 mo 1122 yr Vulpe (1979) Coley (1978) Haley et al. (1992)
TRUNK STABILITY
Reaches to toes Reaches above head bilaterally/unilaterally Reaches behind back, hands together Reaches behind head, hands together 1 yr 4 mo 25 yr 36 yr 46 yr Coley (1978) Coley (1978) Coley (1978) Coley (1978)
206
1943). These early actions of pushing with arms or legs are components of later self-dressing. Furthermore, actions such as holding arms or legs out demonstrate the childs understanding of the dressing process. Trying to assist (e.g., pulling at a zipper tab) may not be functional but is important because it demonstrates modeling behavior (Haley et al., 1992).
Table 10-6
Skill
Source
Table 10-7
Skill HAT
2 yr
SOCKS
Puts on with help on heel orientation Puts on heel correctly oriented Pulls socks to full extension 3 yr 3312 yr 4 yr Coley (1978) Haley et al. (1992) Key et al. (1936)
SHOES
Gets shoe on halfway Puts on, may be on wrong feet If laces are loosened Loosens laces and puts on Puts on correct feet Puts on boots if loose fitting Independent with Velcro fastenings 112 yr 3312 yr 2 yr 212 yr 4125 yr 34 yr 4125 yr Gesell et al. (1940) Haley et al. (1992) Gesell et al. (1940) Vulpe (1979) Haley et al. (1992) Vulpe (1979) Haley et al. (1992)
208
Part II Development of Hand Skills The Order of Difculty in the Ability of Children to Put on Clothing
needed. The last skills achieved are in the orientation of the heel of the sock, the front and back of garments, and, the most difcult, the distinguishing of left and right shoes. Children know when their coat is right side out when they are 3, but they have more difculty with other clothes. The 4- to 5-year-old gets the underclothes right side out, but it is not until 7 years that the inside and outside of all clothes are discriminated (Brigance, 1978). In addition to these perceptual skills, self-care dressing skills require complex motor planning. Gaddes (1983) described the difculty of some children with learning disabilities in dressing as a lack of the tactile and kinesthetic awareness essential to the task of putting on ones clothes, and commented that
small children are usually unable to put on their clothes without help not because they lack the physical strength but because they lack the necessary ideomotor image (p. 109).
BOX 10-2
The hand skills needed are primarily whole-hand grasp, a power grasp for pulling clothing on, and a high level of bilateral skill. Hands must work smoothly and in unison to pull socks up to full extension, pull on boots, and pull up pants. Hands must work cooperatively in holding a shirt or coat with one hand while nding the armhole with the other. Additional bilateral dressing skills have been identied by Thornby and Krebs (1992). Their interest was in expectations for independence for children with unilateral below-elbow amputations. The skills identied include grasping and pulling up trousers or skirt (212 to 3 years), and grasping clothing while zipping a zipper (3 years 3 months to 4 years). The children with amputations achieved these skills several years later than most children. A Study of Dressing Key and her associates (1936) studied the ability of children to put on the clothing that they wore to nursery school and found wide differences in the ability to put on separate garments. Overall, socks and leg garments were found to be the easiest, followed by upper body garments and dresses. Shoes, because of their fasteners, were the most difcult. In addition to looking at the overall ability to put on the garments, the researchers recorded the success rate of separate dressing units for each garment. These data provided an index of the difculty of the subskills needed for successful performance. An analysis of the percentage of success for each subskill at each age level shows the relative difculties of the components of putting on shoes, socks, pull-down garments, dresses, and shirts. This list excludes fasteners, and open-front and slipover shirts were not differentiated. The order of difculty
Put one leg in hole of pants Pulled up pants Shoe started on foot Opened shoe for foot Put head in neck hole of dress Put on dress correctly front to back Socks started over foot Put foot in shoe with heel down Pulled sock up on leg Kept tongue out of shoe while donning Put second leg in hole of pull-down garment Pulled sock up on foot Put pullover garment over head Put rst arm in dress hole Adjusted dress when on Put second arm in sleeve hole of dress Shirt on correctly front to back Adjusted pants when on Put rst arm in sleeve hole of T-shirt Adjusted shirt when on Put second arm in sleeve hole of T-shirt Pants on correctly front to back Adjusted heel of sock
Key CB, White MR, Honzik WP, Heiney AB, Erwin D (1936). The process of learning to dress among nurseryschool children. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 18:67163.
reported, based on the age group in which 50% or more of the children succeeded in the task, is listed in Box 10-2. Note that a part of an individual motor skill, such as putting on pants or socks, was easiest but complete achievement was the hardest. The difculty young children have in dressing is a mix of a challenging perceptual task, such as locating the front of a T-shirt or the heel of a sock, and sometimes a complex motor act, such as maneuvering an arm into a second dress hole.
Table 10-8
Skill
Source
BUCKLES
Unbuckles belt or shoe Buckles belt or shoe Inserts belt in loops
VELCRO FASTENERS
Manages shoes with Velcro
SNAPS
Unsnaps front snaps Unsnaps back snaps Snaps most snaps, front and side Snaps back snaps
ZIPPERS
Zips and unzips, lock tab Opens front separating zipper Zips front separating zipper Opens back zipper Closes back zipper Zips, unzips, hooks, unhooks, separates zipper
BUTTONS
Buttons one large front button Unbuttons most front and side buttons Buttons series of three buttons Buttons and unbuttons most buttons Buttons back buttons
210
require precision grip with manipulation and with both hands working cooperatively. Strength is another component of the management of fasteners. Snaps require considerable strength in the ngers. Koch and Simenson (1992) examined functional skills in spinal muscle atrophy. Children with 12to 2-lb pinch strength needed minimal help in dressing. Children with less than 12-lb pinch strength had trouble with tying and buttoning. Managing fasteners is also a perceptual task, particularly buttoning and tying. For both these tasks vision is important for learning. It is only after considerable skill has been developed that back buttons and back bows can be accomplished, using touch and kinesthesia alone. Buttoning The ability to button has been included in developmental tests for many years, and it has been studied more than other fastenings. The ability develops in preschool over 2 to 3 years of age, and achievement depends in part on the location of the button. Stutzman (1948) examined the ability of preschool children to button buttons on a strip on a table. Children under 2 years of age failed to button one button, but by 212 to 3 years of age 72% of the children succeeded, albeit slowly. However, Key and co-workers (1936) reported that only 50% of their 3-year-old children succeeded in buttoning their shirts or dresses, and only 33% their pants. Wagoner and Armstrong (1928) reported a study of buttoning skill in 30 nursery school children between the ages of 2 and 5 years. They standardized the task by making jackets that were adjustable in size and which had front and side buttons. The major ndings were: (a) children under 212 years seemed not to have the motor control needed to button; from 212 to 5 years speed of buttoning improved with age; (b) girls were better than boys, but the researchers noted that this result might have reflected an artifact of their sample; and (c) side buttons were much more difcult than front buttons; 25 children succeeded with the front buttons, but only 15 completed the side buttons (the authors noted that buttoning side buttons may require a more complex type of motor adjustment than do front buttons). Wagoner and Armstrong also reported correlation of buttoning speed with the Stanford-Binet Test (r = .33), the Merrill-Palmer Performance Tests (r = .62), and the Goodenough Drawing Test (r = .57). Thus buttoning appeared to be more related to performance tests than to intelligence. They also found success in buttoning to be highly correlated (.83 to .91) with teacher ratings on self-reliance, perseverance, and care of details.
Table 10-9
Skill
Hygiene
Age
1122 yr 1 2 yr 1122 yr 2123 yr 3 24 yr 3 2 yr 3 24 yr 3 yr 9 mo 4 yr 6 yr 5126 yr 4 yr 9 mo 89 yr 1122 yr 3 yr 3 24 yr 4 2 yr 12 yr 1122 yr 2212 yr 4 25 yr 4 25 yr 7 yr 1122 yr 22 2 yr 33 2 yr 1122 yr 6612 yr 2212 yr 33 2 yr 33 2 yr 33 2 yr 5 26 yr 5 yr
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Source
WASHING FACE
Washes and dries face thoroughly Without supervision Washes ears
BATHING BODY
Tries to wash body Bathes down front of body Washes body well Soaps cloth and washes
TEETH BRUSHING
Opens mouth for teeth to be brushed Holds brush, approximates brushing Brushes teeth, not thoroughly Thoroughly brushes teeth Prepares brush, wets and applies paste Brushes routinely after meals
NOSE CARE
Allows wiping of nose Wipes on request Wipes without request Attempts to blow nose Blows and wipes alone
TOILETING
Assists with clothing management Manages clothes before and after toileting Tries to wipe self after toileting Manages toilet seat, toilet paper, flushes Wipes self thoroughly Completely cares for self at toilet
212
Table 10-10
Skill HAIR
Grooming
Age
1112 yr 1112 yr 2123 yr 7 yr 7 yr 12 yr
Source
Holds head in position for combing Brings comb to hair Brushes or combs hair; combs with supervision Manages tangles and parts hair Combs using mirror to check style Uses rollers, hair spray
Haley et al. (1992) Haley et al. (1992) Haley et al. (1992) Haley et al. (1992) Coley (1978) Coley (1978)
DISCUSSION
Independence in the performance of the daily activities of basic self-care requires the mastery of complex hand skills that children learn over many years. The skills have varying degrees of manipulative, perceptual, and cognitive components and the action sequences are learned through extensive practice until they become automatic and efcient. We have some knowledge of the usual ages at which the skills are mastered, but very little knowledge of what Connolly and Dalgleish (1989) called the general patterns of behavioral change, which occur as children acquire specic selfcare skills. Most of the studies of the development of self-care skills cited in this chapter were conducted before 1940. There are not many, and recent studies are even scarcer. As noted by Amato and Ochiltree (1986), despite an increasing interest in the development of competence in childhood during the last decade, practical life skills have been virtually ignored. Interest in the study of childrens self-care skills over the years has been largely
limited to their use in identifying developmental milestones, and most of our knowledge is of that kind. The information in this chapter is a summary of what is currently known about the chronology of skill acquisition and is presented as a possible source for nding clues to the understanding of the process by which skills are acquired. Although the ages identied are approximate and represent an unspecied average behavior, they provide a tentative chronological order in which skills and subskills develop. However, it must be remembered the sequences of skill development that are suggested by the information in the tables may be an artifact of the use of group data. Of course, some of the steps in learning are clearly acceptable; that is, a partial skill precedes a complete skill and many of the sequences have been repeatedly observed and veried by teachers, parents, and therapists. However, individual differences among children could result in different routes to competence in an overall skill. Nevertheless, these overall sequences have value in that they provide information that could be used in planning longitudinal
Automaticity
Self-care literature provides a clue to the development of automaticity in skill performance. There appears to be a delay following a childs ability to perform a skill in eating and dressing before the skill can be performed while carrying on a conversation (Hurlock, 1964; Klein, 1983). This suggests that an automatic level of
214
skill execution does not develop until several years after a skill is rst mastered.
SUMMARY
This chapter has focused on how and when typical children learn the separate skills and subskills of selfcare. Knowledge of the sequences in which typical children acquire self-sufciency in daily activities can be valuable in understanding the roadblocks for children with physical or mental disability, and sequences of skill acquisition can provide guidance in selecting the level of skill at which to introduce training. However, the acquisition of self-care in typical children provides only a part of the picture needed for treatment planning. We must learn how skills are learned in the presence of different disabilities. We know that the presence of a specic disability can change the sequence in which a child will master self-care skills, but we have little information about what that sequence is. Most of our knowledge about the impact of disability on specic self-care skills comes from therapeutic accounts. Several recent publications have provided detailed task analyses of methods of dressing, eating, and hygiene keyed to different impairments and include multiple suggestions for adaptations. Some of these are designed for children (e.g., Case Smith, 2000; Shepard, 2001), and others for adults (e.g., Backman & Christiansen, 2000; Holm, Rogers, & James, 1998; Snell & Vogtle, 2000). The tables also provide useful knowledge about the acquisition of part skills. Typically children do not learn a skill all at once. Rather they are encouraged to do what they can long before they are developmentally ready to master a skill. Parents of children with disabilities should be encouraged to introduce part-skill practice early and to set expectations that their child do whatever he can. This will take more time but it will contribute to the childs sense of mastery and selfesteem and provide practice of the motor skill. It would be helpful to know more about the factors affecting such a learning process and the differences and similarities in the ways in which children with disabilities learn complex skills.
REFERENCES
Amato PR, Ochiltree G (1986). Children becoming independent: An investigation of childrens performance of practical life-skills. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38(1):5968. American Occupational Therapy Association (1994). Uniform terminology for occupational therapy, 3rd ed. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48:10471054. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (4th ed.). Washington, DC, Author. Backman C, Christiansen CH (2000). Assessment of selfcare performance. In C Christiansen, editor: Ways of living: Self-care strategies for special needs (pp. 2944). Bethesda, MD, American Occupational Therapy Association. Bleck EE, Nagel DA (1975). Physically handicapped children: A medical atlas for teachers. New York, Grune & Stratton. Bott EA, Blatz WE, Chant N, Bott H (1928). Observation and training of fundamental habits in young children. Genetic Psychology Monograph, 4:1161. Brigance AH (1978). Diagnostic inventory of early development. North Billerica, MA, Curriculum Associates. Bullock M, Lutkenhaus P (1988). The development of volitional behavior in the toddler years. Child Development, 59:664674. Carruth BR, Skinner JD (2002). Feeding behaviors and other motor development in healthy children (224 months). Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 21(2):8889. Case-Smith J (2000). Self-care strategies for children with developmental disabilities. In C Christiansen, editor: Ways of living: Self-care strategies for special needs (pp. 81121).
216
Hauser-Cram P, Wareld ME, Shonkoff JP, Krauss MW (2001). Children with disabilities: A longitudinal study of child development and parent well-being. William F Overton, editor: Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 66(3):1126. Holm MB, Rogers JC, James HB (1998). Treatment of activities of daily living. In ME Neistadt, EB Crepeau, editors: Willard and Spackmans occupational therapy, 9th ed. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Hurlock EB (1964). Child development, 4th ed. New York, McGraw-Hill. Inglis S (1990). Are there schoolchildren in Lewisham who are experiencing practical difculties at home and/or at school? British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53(4):151154. Kelley SA, Brownell CA, Campbell SB (2000). Mastery motivation and self-evaluative affect in toddlers: Longitudinal relations with maternal behavior. Child Development, 71(4):10611071. Key CB, White MR, Honzik WP, Heiney AB, Erwin D (1936). The process of learning to dress among nurseryschool children. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 18:67163. Klein M (1983). Pre-dressing skills. Tucson, AZ, Community Skill Builders. Koch BM, Simenson RL (1992). Upper extremity strength and function in children with spinal muscular atrophy type II. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73:241245. Liu M, Toikawa H, Seki M, Domen K, Chino N (1998). Functional Independence Measure for Children (WeeFIM): A preliminary study in nondisabled Japanese children. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 77(1):3644. Maccoby EM (1980). Social development: Psychological growth and the parentchild relationship. New York, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Maccoby EM, Bee HL (1965). Some speculations concerning the gap between perceiving and performing. Child Development, 36:367378. May-Benson T, Ingolia P, Koomar J (2002). Daily living skills and developmental coordination disorders. In SA Cermak, D Larkin, editors: Developmental coordination disorder. Albany, NY, Delmar Thomson. Miller A, Stewart M, Murphy MA, Jantzen A (1955). An evaluation method for cerebral palsy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 9:105111. Ottenbacher KJ, Msall ME, Lyon N, Duffy LC, Ziviani J, Granger CV, Braun S (2000). Functional assessment and care of children with neurodevelopmental disabilities. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79(2):114123. Parker ST, Gibson KR (1977). Object manipulation, tool use and sensorimotor intelligence as feeding adaptations in cebus monkeys and great apes. Journal of Human Evolution, 6:623641. Senft KE, Pueschel SM, Robison NA, Kiessling (1990). Level of function of young adults with cerebral palsy. Physical Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 10(1):1921.
Chapter
THE DEVELOPMENT OF GRAPHOMOTOR SKILLS
Jenny Ziviani Margaret Wallen
11
CHAPTER OUTLINE
GENERAL GRAPHOMOTOR COMPETENCY Acquisition of Graphomotor Skills Implement Grasp and Manipulation DRAWING The Nature of Drawing Computers and Drawing Drawing and Developmental Evaluation HANDWRITING Handwriting and Writing: Complementary Concepts The Developmental Nature of Handwriting Factors Contributing to Handwriting Performance Computers and Handwriting SUMMARY
letters, gures, or other signicant symbols, predominantly on paper. Both these activities can be used to record experiences or thoughts, as well as communicate these to others. Drawing and handwriting are complex motor behaviors in which psychomotor, linguistic, and biomechanical processes interact with maturational, developmental, and learning processes (SmitsEngelsman & Van Galen, 1997). The need to develop prociency in activities as fundamental as drawing and handwriting may be questioned in relation to the growing reliance on electronic communication devices. It is the position of this chapter that graphomotor skills represent more than a means of recording thoughts or conveying experiences. Developmentally these skills allow for experimentation and self-expression in the way a child interacts with the environment. Furthermore they are a means by which children learn basic tool use and are able to produce a product that is socially recognized and rewarded. As such they form an important part of the development of an individual.
This chapter provides information on the development and execution of graphomotor skills, as a basis for remediation. Concepts common to both drawing and handwriting such as motor learning theory and grasps used with writing and drawing tools are discussed rst. Following are detailed sections on drawing and then handwriting. The emphasis in these sections is on outlining research that broadens our knowledge of the development of drawing and handwriting and deepens our understanding of the factors that are associated with graphomotor difculties. Graphomotor skills comprise those conceptual and perceptual-motor abilities necessary for drawing and handwriting. Drawing is dened as the art of producing a picture or plan with implements such as pencils, pens, or crayons. Handwriting is the process of forming
217
218
Skilled Handwriting
Environment Writing materials (implements, paper) Furniture Ambient features (temperature, lighting, noise) Expectations of others Exposure to instruction and practice
used to modify and control subsequent handwriting. In open-loop control systems there is no afferent feedback and the central nervous system directs movement. Theorists have postulated that the acquisition of drawing and handwriting skills can be understood best within the framework of a closed-loop theory. That is, afferent feedback is relied on to learn the skill. However, once learned, it is postulated that handwriting moves into the domain of an open-loop skill (van der Meulen et al., 1991). This means that instead of remaining dependent on vision and other sensory feedback, the skilled writer is able to write so quickly that there is no time to modify performance on the basis of afferent feedback. Movements that are entrenched in memory may predominate as handwriting becomes a procient skill (Grossberg & Paine, 2000). In reality, the environmental and task demands of handwriting are diverse and dynamic and preprogrammed motor acts are not adequate to respond to the changing requirements of various handwriting tasks. Consequently it is more likely that closed- and open-loop systems work cooperatively, interacting with the various individual task and environmental factors to achieve handwriting output (Mathiowetz & Bass-Haugen, 2002).
Figure 11-1 Skilled handwriting demands interplay among the individual, the task, and the environment.
however, involves an interplay among the individual, task, and environment (Shumway-Cook & Woollacott, 2001). Figure 11-1 summarizes these with respect to handwriting (Jongmans et al., 2003; Shumway-Cook & Woollacott, 2001). Each childs individual capacity to mesh the task and the environmental contributions to handwriting determines the extent to which effective handwriting will be acquired.
Motor Learning
Handwriting and drawing have been conceptualized as learned motor tasks. Motor learning theorists explain the control of coordinated movement in terms of openand closed-loop systems (Mathiowetz & Bass-Haugen, 2002; McGill, 1998). The closed-loop system involves afferent feedback. In the case of handwriting, feedback is received from the pressures exerted on the writing implement and the writing surface, from the senses of touch and movement in the ngers, hand, and arm, and from visually monitoring written work. This afferent feedback is used to update the nervous system about the accuracy of the handwriting. The feedback is
Grasps
Many children acquire a dynamic tripod grip by about 612 years of age as their means of implement manipulation for drawing and handwriting. Children progress through a range of precursor gripspalmar, incomplete tripod (or palmar supinate), and static tripod before adopting the dynamic tripod grip (Dennis & Swinth, 2001; Rosenbloom & Horton, 1971; Saida & Miyashita, 1979). Schneck and Henderson (1990) propose a 10-grip scale to classify the developmental range of grasps. Level 1, or the lowest level of the scale,
220
but nonsignicant trends emerged between joint laxity and the failure to develop a dynamic tripod grip in 55 7-year-old children. Poorly established hand preference has been linked to developmentally immature grips (Rosenbloom & Horton, 1971; Schneck, 1989), but also can result from insufcient prerequisite experience. Poor hand preference is thought to impede the renement of the manipulative skills needed for good pencil control. This view is consistent with Exners (1990) posit that the development of in-hand manipulation skills is dependent on well-dened hand preference. In a practical and clinical sense, therapists are confronted by the issue of whether to assist children to modify the grip they are using as part of an overall strategy to facilitate an improvement in handwriting performance. The following points may be worth considering when this situation arises: 1. Mechanically the dynamic tripod grip offers a high level of precision and control (Elliott & Connolly, 1984). The dynamic tripod grip should be encouraged when the child is young enough and has not developed a xed writing posture. In fact some have argued that inadequate training in the use of a dynamic tripod grip is one of the reasons it is not used by greater numbers of children (Benbow, 1995). 2. Variations of the dynamic tripod grip do not, of themselves, contribute to handwriting difculties. In typically developing students there appears to be no difference in the speed or legibility of handwriting using the dynamic tripod versus atypical dynamic grasps (Dennis & Swinth, 2001; Sassoon, et al., 1986; Ziviani & Elkins, 1986). Differentiation should be made, however, between a modied version of the dynamic tripod grip and a grip that is developmentally immature. The latter may be part of a broader picture of developmental difculty. More research is necessary to determine if there is a relationship between typical and atypical grasps and legibility in children who are poor handwriters (Schneck, 1991).
DRAWING
THE NATURE OF DRAWING
When considering drawing, the simple copying of shapes and gures should be differentiated from the creation of pictures from memory or imagination. The present discussion is concerned primarily with copying skills (the perceptual-motor elements of drawing). Certain characteristics are thought to distinguish younger childrens drawings from those of adults. Childrens drawings have been described as being formula-like and depicting subjects as they are perceived to be rather than how they look (Freeman, 1980). Apart from exceptional children (Selfe, 1985), most children in their preschool and early school years construct their drawings from simple geometric forms and do not compose broad outlines that are then detailed. Fenson (1985), in a detailed longitudinal study of one child, found that a fundamental shift occurred between 3 and 7 years of age in the structure of drawing. The child moved from a constructional style to the use of contoured forms. The term constructional in this context relates to the assembling of simple geometric forms into a pictorial representation (e.g., the use of a circle for a face and a rectangle for a body when drawing a person). The term contoured, on the other hand, refers to the sketching of an outline, which is subsequently detailed to achieve the desired representation. Although no attempt is made to explain why a shift might occur from the former to the latter, it is postulated that the motivation is a quest for realism. This quest, in conjunction with greater skill in visually controlling actions and the ability to plan spatially and execute actions, constitutes the move from a juvenile to a more adult approach to drawing. Obviously such assumptions require further investigation. There has been little advance on the seminal work of authors such as Luquet (1927) and Kellogg (1969) when considering the maturation of childrens drawings. These authors considered that children between the ages of 2 and 3 years make scribbling marks on paper with no representational intent. The fascination is thought to be more with the process of experimentation and exploration of media than with an intended product. The drawing by a 212-year-old child in Figure 11-2 demonstrates how repetitious marks (in this case
Writing Implements
A further issue related to implement manipulation is the nature or type of writing tool used. Traditionally young writers are given lead pencils with a larger than normal lead and barrel for drawing and handwriting instruction. This practice is based on the premise that it is easier for their small hands to hold and manipulate a larger barrel. However, studies have demonstrated that the legibility of kindergarten childrens handwriting is not associated with the tool used (Oehler et al., 2000). The maturity of grasp employed, nevertheless, may vary with the specic tool used (Yakimishyn & MagillEvans, 2002).
Figure 11-2
circular) are employed in exploring the use of a drawing implement on paper. Only at the completion of these marks is a border introduced as a way of demarcation. Demarcating parts of a picture is argued to indicate the beginning of an interpretive phase, which occurs between the ages of 3 and 4 years. During this phase a child begins to interpret a drawing, but generally only after it has been produced. The representational intent is not there at the outset. For example, Figure 11-3 was drawn by a 312-year-old child. The task commenced with the scribbling at the top of the page with no apparent commitment as to the topic of the drawing. At the completion of the task the child was asked to talk about what had been drawn. The child nominated the descriptions that have been inserted in print but only after some reflection and consideration. In the next stage (4 to 5 years) the nature of the drawing is announced before its commencement, but the coordination of individual elements remains difcult. At this stage children label and sign their drawings (Devlin-Gascard, 1997). Words are incomplete and letters are often reversed, but the comprehension of symbol and meaning is observable. The drawing of a ship by a 412-year-old boy in Figure 11-4 demonstrates the use of word labels to describe the intent of the drawing. In this case it was to inform the viewer that the drawing was of the ship Oronsay, which had hit a rock and was badly damaged. The 6- to 7-year-old child is able to include all the characteristics of objects being drawn as they are known to him or her. This is not always consistent with
the way they are in an adult reality. Figure 11-5 demonstrates how a 6-year-old girl perceives her school. The drawing is not a realistic representation but it does contain features of her school and it highlights her understanding of a friendly environment. Finally, from around 8 years of age the child begins to take into account visual perspective; object position and orientation also become more important. This shift represents a progression from intellectual realism, in which the child draws what he or she knows about a stimulus, to a stage in which the drawing depicts what actually can be seen (Laws & Lawrence, 2001). This shift also has been associated with an increase in the amount of attention given to the object being drawn (Sutton & Rose, 1998), suggesting that realism is based on ability to attend to detail. The ability to produce and appreciate graphic perspective has received considerable attention (Freeman, 1980; Freeman, Eiser, & Sayers, 1977; Nicholls & Kennedy, 1992; Toomela, 1999). Some authors see the onset of perspective as evidence of cognitive maturation (Reid & Shefeld, 1990), whereas others argue that it is necessary to learn the rules about how to represent something in true perspective (Hagen, 1985; Orde, 1997). This latter view is based on studies that found little difference between the way in which children handle the three-dimensional plane and the methods adopted by adults. In both populations, individuals who have no special artistic talent or training reproduce the visual structures that they see in natural perspective along a continuum from orthogonal (no diminishing
222
Rain
Big tree
Driver
Road
Figure 11-3
Figure 11-4
Figure 11-5
Figure 11-6
projected size with increasing distance) to projective (image size decreases as distance increases). As with other skills that have learned elements, Messaris (1994) argues that enhancement of depth perception might lead to a more general stimulation of the capacity for perceiving and thinking about three-dimensional space, an important component of general intelligence. Figure 11-6 demonstrates the use of foreground and background, as well as three-dimensional perspective. Some uniformity exists in the way certain objects are drawn. Both convention and handedness have been implicated in this uniformity (van Sommers, 1984). For example, right-handed people tend to commence
the drawing of a free-standing circle at around the 12 oclock position and invariably draw counterclockwise, whereas a little more than 60% of lefthanded people draw a circle in a clockwise direction. Another interesting convention is the direction in which proles are facing. Most proles of faces, for instance, are drawn turned to the left, as are most cars. Glasses are drawn with the lenses to the left, pencils have points to the left, spoons and pipes have bowls to the left. On the other hand, most flags are drawn flying to the right, and cups and buckets have their handles to the right. The foundations for these uniformities have not been documented and neither have there been
224
any reports located that explore the impact of left handedness on these tendencies. Children maintain individuality in their drawings of the most common objects even though they may have constant access to other childrens drawings. When children do adopt stereotyped formulas, they frequently include their own versions alongside. The drawings of one child over time may be very repetitious in the treatment of the same subject material (van Sommers, 1984). The logic is that flexibility of drawing is lost because of the repetition of early drawing strategies. This is not to say that childrens drawings never change but that they evolve by gradually modifying existing drawing strategies, rather than by a revolutionary rethinking of their basic representational strategy. Following this line of reasoning, innovation in drawing is thought to occur late in the sequence of producing a drawing and not in the initial strokes (van Sommers, 1984). There has been some discussion in the literature about the role of coloring-in and the development of childrens graphic skills (Duncum, 1995). Debate seems to surround the use of coloring-in as a means of developing pencil control as opposed to being part of artistic development. Coloring-in, or the use of pencils, crayons, or other implements to provide a color ll within a space dened by lines, is widely undertaken by children and is promoted by teachers, parents, and commercial enterprises (King, 1991). For example, it is employed for the purpose of product promotion for movies and by fast food outlets, and as a means of keeping children occupied when they are on plane trips. Further, prociency of coloring-in is judged and rewarded as part of promotional competitions for various products. Distinction needs to be made about the use of coloring-in that is predetermined by the presentation of a gure and coloring-in that children choose to undertake after they have produced a drawing. The former, which opponents call dictated art (Herberholz & Hanson, 1985, p. 5), and place in the same category as paint-by-numbers, is thought to detract from appreciation of shapes and forms and their creation. Conversely, when children color-in their own creations they are more highly motivated and better able to adhere to the structures they create (Duncum, 1995). Jefferson (1969) proposed that coloring-in per se can be used as a means of improving ne motor skills associated with handwriting. This proposition has not been researched; therefore the practice, although widely adopted, seems to be based in convention more than research.
BUS A OW E N
JENNY MARK
computer mouse is considered the most child-friendly interface for accessing a wide range of software (Lane & Ziviani, 1997). The mouse is used in a variety of ways depending on the nature of the program. The range of tasks required of a mouse to achieve the desired outcomes includes tracking, clicking, and dragging (Lane & Ziviani, 1999). As with drawing, producing computer graphics makes varying demands on visual motor control. There have been preliminary attempts to assess childrens skill prociency using the mouse (Lane & Denis, 2000) but little documented about the spontaneous attempts of children to draw using a computer. Figures 11-7 and 11-8 are two examples of how children use this medium. The picture in Figure 11-7, by a 6-year-old boy, demonstrates many of the characteristics thought to manifest in pencil and paper drawings at this age. There is evidence of spatial realism with respect to the placement of the bus in relation to the road and the use of objects (i.e., helicopter) for
226
HANDWRITING
HANDWRITING AND WRITING: COMPLEMENTARY CONCEPTS
There is an important differentiation, but also relationship, between handwriting and writing. Handwriting refers to the process of transcribing letters to form words and words to form sentences. Writing, on the other hand, is the composition and content of the material that is handwritten. Procient writing relies on well-developed handwriting skills. Jones and Christensen (1999), for instance, reported that handwriting skills accounted for 50% of the variance in the quality of writing content in a sample of 6- and 7year-old students. Both handwriting and writing are complex abilities that are acquired hand-in-hand with childrens acquisition of language. As with drawing, the foundations for both handwriting and writing are the integration of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Extrinsic factors involved in handwriting include instruction in handwriting, the quality and extent of practice undertaken, the requirements of the task, and the materials used. Intrinsic abilities include orthographic coding, orthographic-motor integration, visual-motor skills, ne motor skills, cognition, linguistic skills, and motivation (Tseng & Chow, 2000). Orthographic coding involves developing a visual representation of letters and words, knowledge of the process of forming each letter, a verbal label for each letter, an accurate representation of the letters form in memory and the ability to access and retrieve this information from memory (Edwards, 2003; Jones & Christensen, 1999; Weintraub & Graham, 2000). Orthographic-motor integration is the way in which this letter knowledge can be motorically transcribed to form letters and words on paper. Writers who have poor orthographic coding and ortho-motor integration, and thus need to attend to the mechanics of handwriting (e.g., letter formation, spacing, alignment), have less attention and working memory that can be directed to composing written work and spelling, monitoring, and revision of the written work (Edwards, 2003; Swanson & Berninger, 1996). Childrens competence in writing depends, in part, on the mastery of handwriting (Graham, Harris, & Fink, 2000). The ability to write legibly and in a timely fashion is necessary for children to adequately document their knowledge and learning. Childrens documentation is largely the basis on which their knowledge acquisition is judged. Research has shown that lower
The Development of Graphomotor Skills 227 The First Nine Forms of the Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration in Order of Increasing Difculty
childs chronologic or developmental level and what factors constitute handwriting dysfunction? Handwriting difculties become apparent when children write too slowly to record sufcient quantities of work or when the written work is difcult to read. For instance, teachers report that failure to read student handwriting was the most important criteria in determining whether a child had handwriting difculty (Hammerschmidt & Sudsawad, 2004). Poor handwriters are more likely to have inadequate closure and line quality of letters, poor orientation to the writing line, poor spacing between words and letters within words, and inconsistent sizing of words and of letters within words (Malloy-Miller, Polatajko, & Anstett, 1995). Although children with handwriting difculty should be seen within their social and educational contexts, general developmental expectations do exist. One study documents the grade level expectations of children between 7 and 14 years of age in terms of handwriting size, horizontal alignment, spacing consistency, and letter formation (Ziviani & Elkins, 1984). Drawn from a population of Australian schoolchildren, these data support the assumption that letters become more accurately formed, spacing becomes more consistent, size diminishes (more particularly in girls), and handwriting attains better horizontal alignment. Information about developmental expectations and the factors contributing to handwriting illegibility provide a useful baseline measure for children exposed to similar educational instruction. Ziviani, Hayes, and Chant (1990) used the normative data discussed previously to help specify the nature of difculties experienced by children with spina bida who were able to attend regular schools. Their ndings indicated that speed, horizontal alignment, and letter formation were the handwriting characteristics most detrimentally affected. Meanwhile, handwriting size fell within two standard deviations of the normative means, and spacing consistency often was better than in the normative sample. Such ndings are useful in delineating handwriting dysfunction to target intervention and not just accepting a global disability. Handwriting quality appears to be an elusive concept to measure despite the development of both global and detailed handwriting assessments. A review of frequently used handwriting tools was written by Feder and Majnemer (2003). A global measure such as the Test of Legible Handwriting (TOLH) (Larsen & Hammill, 1989) compares the individuals performance with a series of model specimens and the important consideration in scoring is overall legibility (Feder & Majnemer, 2003). However, researchers have sought increasingly to break down handwriting samples into their component parts and over the years a wide variety of handwriting scales (Amundson, 1995; Phelps,
BOX 11-1
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Vertical line Horizontal line Circle Cross Right oblique line Square Left oblique line Oblique cross Triangle
Beery KE (1989). The Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, 3rd rev. Cleveland, OH, Modern Curriculum Press.
because it is faster than exclusively manuscript or cursive. Mixed handwriting that is predominantly cursive is used relatively less frequently than other forms (cursive, manuscript, or mixed but mostly manuscript). Despite this, mixed handwriting that is mostly cursive tends to yield more legible handwriting (Graham, 1998). Integral to the issues of handwriting development and understanding the developmental expectations for handwriting is the question of when young children are ready to begin handwriting instruction. A number of factors may be considered here: perceptual readiness, linguistic readiness, and the maturity of pencil control. Beery (1989) argued that young children are not ready to learn handwriting until they can correctly copy the rst nine forms of the VMI (Beery, 1989) (Box 11-1). Kindergarten children who can copy these forms also can copy signicantly more letters (Daly, Kelly, & Krauss, 2003; Weil & Cunningham Amundson, 1994) and have better handwriting in grade 1 (Marr & Cermak, 2002) than children who cannot achieve nine forms. Daly demonstrated that 56% of children, when tested in the rst quarter of the kindergarten school year, were able to copy these nine forms. This compares with 88% who copied the nine forms in the middle of the kindergarten school year in Weil and Cunningham Amundsons study. Thus if using the VMI as an indicator of handwriting readiness, most typically developing kindergarten children should be ready to succeed with handwriting instruction in the latter half of the kindergarten school year. As children develop the skill of handwriting, their performance changes both qualitatively and quantitatively. Handwriting quality and quantity translate, respectively, into legibility and speed. How do we judge if either or both of these aspects are appropriate for the
228
Stempel, & Speck, 1984; Reisman, 1993; Stott, Moyes, & Henderson, 1985; Ziviani & Elkins, 1984) and checklists (Alston, 1985) have been produced to reflect this approach. Most of these tools identify characteristics considered to contribute to handwriting legibility. In general, the handwriting characteristics specied in these detailed tools can be classied as giving form (letter legibility and formation, size) or spatial alignment (space between letters and words, alignment with lines) to handwriting. These tools provide a more comprehensive way of understanding legibility difculties than global handwriting assessments and offer a basis for designing appropriate remedial interventions. Graham, Weintraub, and Berninger (2001) reported that several factors were signicantly related to good overall text legibility. These factors include letter legibility, the absence of additional lines or strokes attached to letters, correct within-letter proportions, correct letter formation, and no rotations of letter parts. There are other factors, arguably overlooked, that relate to movement and that contribute to handwriting legibility (e.g., pressure while handwriting, frequency of pen lifts). Of all the elements, individual letter legibility (which incorporates letter formation, proportion, and shaping, and letter identication out of the context of a word) is considered the most important to overall text legibility (Graham et al., 2001; Mojet, 1991). Handwriting speed is not necessarily related to legibility; that is, handwriting speed is not predictive of legibility and vice versa (Wann, 1987; Weintraub & Graham, 1998). There is a trade-off, however, between handwriting speed and legibility when children are
Table 11-1
Author
Groff (1961)
School Grade 5 6
40.6 47 54 64 49.6 57 66
Hamstra-Bletz & Blote (1990) Phelps, Stempel, and Speck (1985) Sassoon, Nimmo-Smith, and Wing (1986) Wallen, Bonney, and Lennox (1996) Ziviani and Elkins (1984)
62
54.2 32.6
57.1 34.2
63.8 38.4
80.7 46.1
94.2 52.1
expression) improved after intervention that specically targeted orthographic-motor integration by teaching correct and automatic letter formation (Berninger et al., 1997; Graham, Harris, & Fink, 2000; Jones & Christensen, 1999). An essential educational goal is to provide handwriting instruction that develops automatic, fluent handwriting to free working memory for writing; that is, generating ideas, monitoring, and revising content (Berninger et al., 1997).
Handwriting Instruction
Handwriting is heavily influenced by the nature of the instruction received and the extent of practice undertaken by the individual. In fact, the main factor that influenced legibility in a study by Lamme and Ayris (1983) was the great variability in handwriting instruction provided by the teachers involved in the study. Handwriting probably receives insufcient emphasis in school curricula: Teachers (62% of sample) reported that they would like to spend more classroom time on handwriting instruction (Hammerschmidt & Sudsawad, 2004). Berninger and co-workers (1997) surveyed teachers who reported that students were becoming less procient at handwriting when they reached year 1 than students of previous years. The importance of focused handwriting instruction to both legible handwriting and writing has been demonstrated in a number of studies (Berninger et al., 1997; Graham et al., 2000; Jones & Christensen, 1999; Jongmans et al., 2003; Karlsdottir, 1996). Important components to include in handwriting instruction are listed in Box 11-2 (Berninger et al., 1997; Graham et al., 2000; Hayes, 1982; Jones & Christensen, 1999). It seems that providing more types of cues or perceptual prompting of letter formation may result in better outcomes. Adi-Japha and Freeman (2001) found that by 6 years of age childrens writing and drawing systems were differentiated. Children as young as 3 years of age produce different scribbles when asked to write their name than those scribbles generated when drawing a picture (Haney, 2002). Writing-specic cortical routes emerge probably as a result of practicing handwriting. Writing within a script context (e.g., words and letters on a page) rather than writing within a picture context produced more fluent handwriting (Adi-Japha & Freeman, 2001). The importance of handwriting practice in early learners and thus a differentiation and specialization of writing is reinforced by these ndings. Further, consideration needs to be given to the teaching and practice of handwriting within writing specic contexts; that is, using dedicated writing implements and books, and reducing drawing conditions when the aim is handwriting prociency. Working within a script context activates the writing system, and activation of
Working Memory
Swanson and Berninger (1996) demonstrated that individuals have a unique working memory. Working memory is the ability to temporarily retain information during the processing of other information. During handwriting, orthographic codes are retrieved from long-term memory and held in working memory while the writer is developing the text (Weintraub & Graham, 2000). More processing functions are available for idea generation, translation, and sequencing of ideas to text, and revision of writing when aspects of handwriting (including orthographic skills and even punctuation) are automatic (Jones & Christensen, 1999). Further, ideas that are held in working memory may be lost if a child needs to focus attention on the mechanics of forming a letter (Graham et al., 2001). Evidence for this derives from studies that have shown a relationship between orthographic-motor integration and written expression and have demonstrated that writing (written
230
BOX 11-2
Copying model letters Visual directional cues provided by arrows Verbal prompting of letter formation (both instructor and self-verbal prompting) Copying from memory Reinforcing letter names and practice of letters with a focus on committing these to memory
Berninger VW, Vaughan KB, Abbott RD, Abbott SP, Rogan LW, Brooks A, Reed E, Graham S (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4):652656; Graham S, Harris KR, Fink B (2000). Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4):620633; Hayes D (1982). Handwriting practice: The effects of perceptual prompts. Journal of Educational Research, 75(31):169172; Jones D, Christensen CA (1999). Relationship between automaticity in handwriting and students ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1):4449.
the writing processing system separately from a drawing context prepares for more accurate and automatic handwriting output. The outcomes of the studies that have focused on developing orthographic skills and automatic handwriting have all been positive. The results suggest that poor letter knowledge and orthographic skills are major contributors to handwriting difculties and are essential to consider in handwriting intervention. Other studies provide useful information to consider when planning handwriting intervention. One study examining the ability of children in years 1 to 3 to write manuscript letters reported that some letters were more difcult to form legibly (Graham et al., 2001). Overall these letters, in descending order of difculty, were q, z, u, j, k. Fortunately some of these letters are not frequently used in handwriting but may require more focus during handwriting instruction and should be introduced only after mastery of easier letters. Despite ongoing debate, it seems that teaching slanted or elliptical manuscript does not have advantages over traditional manuscript in legibility outcomes or assisting the transition to cursive handwriting (Graham, 1998). Karlsdottir (1996) showed that handwriting quality of older (10-year-old) students was signicantly enhanced by reintroducing each letter form with accompanying visual and verbal cues. Thus one should consider these orthographic factors even in more mature writers. Older writers also tend to personalize handwriting by mixing manuscript and cursive text, among other things. Generally this is to
232
to the outcomes are undetermined (Case-Smith, 2002; Peterson & Nelson, 2003).
SUMMARY
The process and products of childrens drawing and handwriting have intrigued occupational therapists, as well as others interested in child development, for a number of years. It is clear from this chapter that, although we now have certain structures in place to understand the developmental transitions in childrens drawings, there is still much to understand. The same can be said for handwriting. There remain aspects of drawing and handwriting acquisition that still tantalize; this chapter concludes by pointing to some issues that still beg investigation. Drawing is an important developmental experience for children. With the increasing use of computers by younger and younger children, some of the pencil and paper drawings with which we are most familiar are being accomplished using a computer. Are we able to translate our knowledge of paper-based outcomes to those on the screen? Preliminary research has indicated that handwriting and keyboarding have differing underlying components. Thus we are unlikely to be able to translate our knowledge of handwriting directly to keyboarding. A greater understanding of word processing, as an alternative form of recording work, is necessary to match it to the individual needs of students. Using a motor learning framework, we understand that handwriting is a learned motor task requiring interplay among the writer, the task, and the environment. A key environmental factor in its acquisition is the quality of instruction received and amount of practice undertaken. However, even in the presence of adequate instruction there are a multitude of factors pertinent to an individual that may affect the childs ability to develop handwriting. The association between some of these factors and handwriting has been better researched than others. For example, we know there is an association between visual motor integration and handwriting. We are less certain of the relationship between other factors such as kinesthesia and in-hand manipulation and handwriting. Cognitive, linguistic, and motivation factors also should inform research in this eld. We require a better understanding of the
REFERENCES
Adi-Japha E, Freeman NH (2001). Development of differentiation between writing and drawing systems. Developmental Psychology, 27(9):101114. Alston J (1985). The handwriting of 7- to 9-year-olds. British Journal of Special Education, 12:6872. Amundson SJ (1995). Evaluation Tool of Childrens Handwriting. Homer, AK, OT Kids.
234
Edwards L (2003). Writing instruction in kindergarten: Examining an emerging area of research for children with writing and reading difculties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2):136149. Elliott JM, Connolly KJ (1984). A classication of manipulative hand movements. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 26:283296. Exner CE (1989). Development of hand functions. In PN Pratt, AS Allen, editors: Occupational Therapy for Children. St Louis, Mosby. Exner CE (1990). The zone of proximal development in in-hand manipulation skills of non-dysfunctional 3- and 4-year-old children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 44:884891. Exner CE (1993). Content validity of the In-Hand Manipulation Test. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47(6):505513. Feder KP, Majnemer N (2003). Childrens handwriting evaluation tools and their psychometric properties. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 23:6584. Fenson L (1985). The transition from construction to sketching in childrens drawings. In NH Freeman, MV Cox, editors: Visual order: The nature and development of pictorial representation. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Folio MR, Fewell RR (2000). Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, 2nd ed. Austin, TX, Pro-Ed. Freeman NH (1980). Strategies of representation in young children. London, Academic Press. Freeman NH, Eiser D, Sayers T (1977). Childrens strategies in producing three-dimensional relationships on a two-dimensional surface. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 23:305314. Fu VR (1981). Analysis of childrens self drawings as related to self concept. Psychological Reports, 49:941942. Gardner MF (1986). Test of Visual-Motor Skills Manual. San Francisco, Childrens Hospital of San Francisco. Gesell A (1956). Developmental Schedules. New York, Psychological Corporation. Goodenough F (1926). Measurement of intelligence in drawings. New York, World. Graham S (1998). The relationship between handwriting style and speed and legibility. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(5):290297. Graham S, Harris KR, Fink B (2000). Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4):620633. Graham S, Weintraub N, Berninger V (2001). Which manuscript letters do primary grade children write legibly? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3):488497. Grifths R (1970). The abilities of young children: A comprehensive system of mental measurement for the rst eight years of life. London, Child Development Research Centre. Groff PJ (1961). New speeds in handwriting. Elementary English, 38:564565. Grossberg S, Paine RW (2000). A neural model of corticocerebellar interactions during attentive imitation and predictive learning of sequential handwriting movements. Neural Networks, 13(89):9991046. Hagen MA (1985). There is no development in art. In NH Freeman, MV Cox, editors: Visual order: The nature and development of pictorial representation. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
236
Scott L (1981). Measuring intelligence with the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test. Psychological Bulletin, 89:483505. Selfe L (1985). Anomalous drawing development: Some clinical studies. In NH Freeman, MV Cox, editors: Visual order: The nature and development of pictorial representation. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Short-DeGraff MA, Holan S (1992). Self drawing as a gauge of perceptual motor skill. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 12(1):5368. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH (2001). Motor control: Theory and practical applications, 2nd ed. Baltimore, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Smits-Engelsman BCM, Van Galen GP (1997). Dysgraphia in children: Lasting psychomotor deciency or transient developmental delay? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 67:164184. Stott DH, Moyes FA, Henderson SE (1985). Diagnosis and remediation of handwriting problems. Guelph, ON, Brook Educational. Sudsawad P, Trombly CA, Henderson A, Tickle-Degnen L (2002). Testing the effect of kinesthetic training on handwriting performance in rst-grade students. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56(1):2633. Summers J (2001). Joint laxity in the index nger and thumb and its relationship to pencil grasps used by children. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 48(3):132141. Sutton PJ, Rose DH (1998). The role of strategic visual attention in childrens drawing development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 68:87107. Swanson HL, Berninger VW (1996). Individual differences in childrens working memory and writing skill. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63:358385. Thelen E, Smith LB (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Toomela A (1999). Drawing development: Stages in the representation of a cube and a cylinder. Child Development, 70:11411150. Tseng MH, Cermak SA (1993). The influence of ergonomic factors and perceptual-motor abilities on handwriting performance. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47(10):919926. Tseng MH, Chow SMK (2000). Perceptual-motor function of school-age children with slow handwriting speed. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54(1):8388. Tseng MH, Murray EA (1994). Differences in perceptualmotor measures in children with good and poor handwriting. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 14:1936. van der Meulen JHP, Denier van der Gon JJ, Gielem CCAM, Goosken RHJM, Willemse J (1991). Visuomotor performance of normal and clumsy children. I. Fast goal-
Chapter
Charlotte E. Exner
12
CHAPTER OUTLINE
FRAMEWORKS FOR INTERVENTION WITH CHILDREN WHO HAVE HAND SKILL PROBLEMS Impact of Hand Skill Problems on Childrens Occupational Performance Intervention Approaches: Modifications or Adaptations and Motor Skill Remediation Factors to Consider in Intervention Planning GOAL SETTING FOR HAND SKILL INTERVENTION Considerations in Setting Goals Short-Term Goals for Hand Skill Intervention RESEARCH RELATED TO HAND SKILL INTERVENTION INTERVENTION STRATEGIES FOR HAND SKILL PROBLEMS Positioning of the Child and the Therapist Tactile or Sensory Awareness or Discrimination Tone and Postural or Proximal Control Isolated Arm and Hand Movements Grasp Voluntary Release In-Hand Manipulation Bilateral Hand Skills Integration of Skills into Occupational Performance ADJUNCTS TO DIRECT INTERVENTION: SPLINTING, CASTING, AND CONSTRAINT-INDUCED MOVEMENT THERAPY Splinting Casting Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy SUMMARY
FRAMEWORKS FOR INTERVENTION WITH CHILDREN WHO HAVE HAND SKILL PROBLEMS
I MPACT OF HAND SKILL PROBLEMS ON C HILDRENS OCCUPATIONAL PERFORMANCE
Hand function has great signicance for occupational performance. The greater the difculties with hand function, the greater the impairment in skills that allow for independence and participation in academic and social activities. Children with hand function difculties usually are limited in their ability to effectively or efciently complete daily life skills and develop skills that will support optimal occupational performance in the future. In addition, for some children even subtle difculties with hand skills may affect their social participation because of limitations in ability to engage in activities with their peers or messiness in task completion. Fine motor skills have a major impact on childrens school performance. McHale and Cermak (1992) found that all the classrooms observed [in their study] had a high level of ne motor demands, with ne motor tasks being carried out for 30% to 60% of the classroom day and the majority of these tasks involving writing activities. In preschool settings, children must be able to manage the classroom manipulatives, including puzzles, scissors, crayons, blocks, pegs, and beads. Elementary school-age children must be able to manage the entire writing process, which includes handling a pencil or pen effectively, using an eraser, tearing and folding paper, putting paper into notebooks and folders, and doing art projects. As children
239
240
reach middle school and high school age, they not only have a high volume of written work, but they also take courses that have labs (e.g., science, industrial arts, home economics) that require the ability to handle small materials with dexterity. Children of all ages need effective hand function to manage eating, dressing, hygiene care, and a variety of other self-care activities independently in multiple environments. Expectations for independence, and therefore procient hand use, increase throughout adolescence. Chapter 10 provides a thorough summary of the interaction of hand and self-care skills. In response to the frequent difculties that children show and the impact of these difculties on occupational performance, pediatric occupational therapists typically address childrens hand skills. Swart et al. (1997) report that intervention for ne motor skills is a top occupational therapy priority in working with children. In their study of approximately 200 pediatric occupational therapists, intervention for ne motor issues was rated as very important or important by 100% of the therapists. Almost 100% of these therapists reported that they consistently or often provide services that address ne motor issues, and at least 90% reported that addressing ne motor issues is unique or very unique to the profession of occupational therapy.
Modications and Adaptations for Hand Skill Problems Within the Context of Occupational Tasks
This type of intervention includes the use of alternative strategies for accomplishing tasks, including the use of adaptive equipment when necessary. Splinting is a common adaptation used to support hand function in children with moderate to severe disabilities. Although direct intervention may not appear to be crucial when adaptive strategies or splinting are selected as the primary method of intervention, children often need substantial intervention for these strategies to be used successfully. Family members or teachers may need ongoing guidance and the adaptive strategy or splint may need modications for function and optimal use. The success of this type of intervention often is linked to the follow-up provided to insure that the child and others are using the strategy and are satised with the adaptation and its applicability to the childs daily life task performance.
242
Pehoski (2005) provides a summary of key literature related to the importance of sensory functioning for skilled hand use (see Chapter 1). Research by Gordon and Duff (1999) illustrates the critical role of tactile functioning on grasping and lifting objects in typical children and adolescents and those with cerebral palsy (see also Chapter 3). They state that
the impairments in grasping in children with hemiplegic CP are largely but not exclusively due to disturbed sensory mechanisms which may have direct implications for therapeutic intervention (p. 586).
These ndings are supported by Krumlinde-Sundholm and Eliassons study (2002) in which specic types of sensory problems were related to dexterity difculties in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Case-Smith (1991) found that children with both tactile discrimination problems and tactile defensiveness had signicantly poorer performance on in-hand manipulation tasks than did other children. The individuals in the Skold et al. (2004) study noted the negative effect of their sensory problems on functional use of this arm and hand.
To address the issue of the role that motivation and interest may have in therapy sessions, DeGangi et al. (1993) conducted a study that focused on the childs active selection of activities used in the therapy session versus therapist-selected activities. They compared
This focus emphasizes occupational performance as the primary goal of intervention. Weinstock-Zlotnick and Hinojosa (2004) describe an approach to intervention that allows a focus on foundational issues (often called a bottom-up approach), as well as occupational performance (often called a top-down approach). They note
it is the ultimate goal of therapeutic intervention to encompass both poles of the component-function continuum, wherein, both the top and bottom of an individuals functional limitations are reached and successfully achieved or at least addressed (pp. 556557).
Case-Smiths study (2000) of intervention for preschool-age children also showed that play and peer interaction are important factors in the outcome of therapy for ne motor problems. In her study of occupational therapy intervention for 44 children across a school year, she found that in many cases therapists used play and peer interaction activities within therapy sessions that focused on ne motor skills. The study ndings support the conclusion that
play activities and peer interaction [within therapy sessions] were predictive of the ne motor/visual motor outcomes (p. 377).
Case-Smith notes that play activities are important in childrens motivation and focused involvement with activities and contribute to practice of skills in a variety of meaningful situations. The remainder of this chapter addresses structured approaches for hand skill intervention, primarily through or in conjunction with play and other occupational tasks of children. The importance of the environment also is stressed.
Thus the most effective approach when a child shows potential for motor skill improvement is to keep the childs occupational performance as the central concern while addressing particular motor skills that support the occupational performance. Generally, progress in particular motor skill areas is important only when the skills are or will be used within the childs daily activities. For both occupational performance and motor skills, consideration of the typical sequence of skill development approach is important, but the developmental sequence only rarely can be translated into or used as the primary guide for intervention goals. For example, in identifying development of a ngertip grasp or skill in using palm to nger translation as a goal area, the therapist should determine if the child has the developmental readiness for the skill and also relate this motor skill to specic occupational tasks that are developmentally appropriate for the child, such as playing a game with peers or handling money to purchase items independently. Similarly, for example, increasing the childs ability to do palm to nger translation with more objects has meaning only if the child needs to be able to use a more complex level of hand skills. Determining the appropriateness of establishing a goal for a particular hand skill entails an understanding of the childs development in a number of areas, as well as his or her environmental demands. The concept of the zone of proximal development can be useful in designing an intervention plan with goals that are realistic and achievable. Using this concept, the therapist is interested in determining those skills that are close or within reach, not the skills for which the child is still missing many prerequisites. Skills not within reach may be skills that the child needs. If so, adaptations or compensations may be needed to reach these goals. When attempting to improve ne motor skills, however, the child needs to have the prerequisite
244
skills or be able to be facilitated in using a particular ne motor skill before that skill is established as a goal. Setting goals for hand skills intervention involves prioritizing the areas that should be addressed while determining those areas most likely to be responsive to direct intervention and those that may need adaptation. Collaborative goal setting with others is vital to the success of the intervention program. Goal setting with parent(s) and teachers (when appropriate) has been recognized as a central consideration in intervention. The childs perspective on intervention also is important. Although there is little documentation of the role of the child in selecting intervention goals and methods, Missiuna and Pollock (2000) found that young school-age children were able to identify occupational tasks with which they have difculty and, based upon this assessment, could choose occupational therapy goals and priorities. Although these goals and priorities may not necessarily converge completely with the parents goals and priorities (Missiuna & Pollock, 2000), such collaborative goal setting with children as young as possible is important for the interventionplanning process.
Intervention for Children with Hand Skill Problems 245 Sample Short-Term Goals for Grasp, Voluntary Release, In-Hand Manipulation, and Bilateral Hand Skills
In addition to a variety of nonmotor elements the therapist considers in planning intervention, the therapist usually attempts to select activities to address a variety of motor factors that contribute to selected hand skills. For example, when the focus is upon the child being able to use a radial digital grasp pattern with varying amounts of pressure, intervention may address radial-ulnar dissociation within the hand, wrist stability, ability to extend the ngers with the wrist in a neutral position, ability to grade nger opening for an object, ability to use a small range of nger flexion (rather than full flexion), or ability to sustain interphalangeal (IP) extension with metacarpal-phalangeal (MP) flexion so as to grasp a flat object. The therapist perhaps should prepare the child to work on these skills by addressing other motor-related issues such as tone, strength, cocontraction, and range of motion. The amount of time for intervention not only influences the number of different skills that may be addressed, but also the number of practice opportunities. Within a session the therapist may focus on a variety of hand skills or only one or two. The eight areas outlined in the following may be addressed when the therapist can work with the child directly for 45 to 60 minutes; the order of the suggested interventions is such that skills can build on one another. Obviously some areas are omitted or addressed only briefly when a shorter session is used or when intervention is being provided in a classroom setting or through consultation. However, the therapist always needs to consider the intervention setting and its features (the environment), attempt to create a supportive physical environment, and develop or provide cognitive and social supports for the childs performance. In addition, the childs positioning and ways in which the skills may be integrated into occupational performance must be considered for each intervention session. Box 12-2 lists a typical sequence of areas that may be addressed within an intervention session that focuses on hand skill problems.
BOX 12-1
SAMPLE SHORT-TERM GOALS FOR GRASP The child will: Use a power grasp on tools such as eating utensils, toothbrush, hammer Modify use of a radial nger grasp according to pressure requirements for small objects to pick up and hold various nger foods Supinate the forearm slightly during approach and maintain this during a radial nger grasp to allow for visual monitoring of tasks such as putting items in a cabinet, handling game board pieces, and opening packages Use a full palmar grasp with wrist extension and varying degrees of elbow flexion/extension while completing dressing tasks SAMPLE SHORT-TERM GOALS FOR VOLUNTARY RELEASE The child will: Release objects that are stabilized by a supporting surface (e.g., a peg into a pegboard or a spoon into a dishwasher container) Voluntarily release lightweight objects onto a flat surface (e.g., a class paper into the teachers desk tray) Place an object within 1 inch of other objects without disturbing these by using minimal nger extension (e.g., a glass on a table or a container in a medicine cabinet) Release objects while maintaining the forearm in midposition to allow for upright object placement SAMPLE SHORT-TERM GOALS FOR IN-HAND MANIPULATION The child will: Use shift skills in handling fasteners on clothing Use shift skills in managing paper for cutting with scissors Use translation and shift skills in handling money Use simple rotation (or complex rotation) to position a crayon or pencil appropriately in the hand Use simple rotation to open and close bottles Use translation skills (with or without stabilization) to nger feed effectively SAMPLE SHORT-TERM GOALS FOR BILATERAL HAND SKILLS The child will: Carry objects with both hands (e.g., carry a bag of groceries or a tray of food) Stabilize an object using grasp, while manipulating with the other hand (e.g., grasp a crayon box while putting crayons into it) Stabilize materials effectively with one hand while manipulating with the other (e.g., stabilize paper effectively with one hand while handwriting) Manipulate objects with both hands simultaneously (e.g., shifting paper with the nonpreferred hand while using scissors to cut with the other hand)
BOX 12-2
A Typical Sequence of Areas That May Be Addressed Within an Intervention Session That Focuses on Hand Skill Problems
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Positioning of the child and the therapist Tone and postural/proximal control Tactile/sensory awareness/discrimination Isolated arm and hand movements Grasp Voluntary release In-hand manipulation Bilateral hand skills Integration of skills into occupational performance
246
In sessions that focus on improving the childs hand skills in one or more of these areas, the therapists role is to: Address positioning for task engagement Select materials that allow for ease of handling Provide sufcient time for task completion Use (if appropriate) cuing for these hand skills While promoting improved motor control, attention also can be given to addressing tactile or proprioceptive awareness and discrimination, as well as related perceptual and cognitive, play, and social skills.
Intervention for Children with Hand Skill Problems 247 Some Typical Activities Used for Sensory Awareness and Discrimination
quality of grasp did not improve as a result of the weight-bearing intervention. Thus the components that changed as a result of the weight-bearing intervention were those inherent in the weight bearing itself. These components are important for good-quality hand function and should be emphasized. However, intervention that specically focuses on supination and hand function is needed also. The focus of the remainder of this chapter is primarily on using structured activities and some degree of handling to address childrens hand skill problems.
BOX 12-3
1. Rubbing lotion on the ngers one at a time 2. Finding objects in beans, rice, or sand (graded nger movements are used to get the grains of rice or sand off the objects) 3. Pulling pieces of clay off a ball of clay 4. Pushing ngers into therapy putty or clay 5. Stretching rubber bands around the ngers 6. Playing games to identify objects held in the hand
248
Intervention to enhance use of supination can include positions and activities in which supination is easiest to use versus those in which it is more difcult to use. Supination is easiest when the humerus is adducted (close to the side of the trunk) and the elbow is flexed. When the humerus is in 90 degrees of flexion and the elbow is fully extended or when the humerus is in full horizontal adduction and the elbow is extended (as in crossing midline), supination is more difcult to elicit. Planning intervention for supination may use concepts from the process that normal babies appear to use in developing supination control. In normal development, babies rst use supination when the elbow is in a great deal of flexion. Supination can be observed as babies bring their hands and toys to their mouths when in supine, and in supported-sitting and prone-onforearms positions. In the latter position they also begin to move the forearms from full pronation into varying degrees of supination while weight shifting. Gradually babies use more supination in sitting with the elbows in about 90 degrees of flexion. For example, by about 8 or 9 months of age, the normally developing baby can bang two objects together; this skill illustrates at least two aspects of motor development (and other areas of development as well): the ability to use a nger surface grasp and the ability to hold at least one forearm in midposition so that the surfaces of the two blocks can come together. In another month or so the baby is able to clap the hands together, thus demonstrating the ability to sustain full nger extension with supination to midposition in both hands. Babies also begin to use this range of supination (0 to 90 degrees) to carry out simple activities such as holding a cup, nger feeding, and visually inspecting objects they are holding. The baby now can reach with supination to midposition. When the baby is reaching laterally (using abduction), a greater degree of supination may be observed as compared with forward reaching (using shoulder flexion). Specic suggestions for enhancing supination, in general order from least to most difcult, include the following: 1. Encourage mouthing of toys (if age appropriate) and nger feeding. 2. Facilitate supination with the forearm on a surface, such as in weight bearing on the floor or on a mat or while seated at a table. While the child is sitting, the therapist may nd it helpful to place an object in the childs hand with the childs forearm pronated, then use his or her hand to stabilize the ulnar border of the childs forearm so the child has a surface to work against for the rotation (and so that the child can see the object placed in the hand) (Figure 12-1). This strategy also may be helpful if
Figure 12-1 Therapist facilitates the childs use of supination by providing stability at the ulnar border of the childs forearm and cues the child to look at the object in the hand.
the child attempts to compensate for difculty with supination by using wrist hyperextension. 3. Encourage the use of 45 to 90 degrees of supination followed by grasp of an object with the elbow in 90 degrees of flexion, with at least the elbow supported on a surface. The object should be presented in a vertical orientation to facilitate the use of forearm rotation. Some children respond well to the verbal cue keep your thumb up because this provides them with visual information about the desired arm or hand position. The child may be encouraged to sustain this position if he or she must transport the object a short distance before placing it into a container or board that requires the forearm to be held in supination. An example of this sequence is reaching and grasping large birthday candles, then putting them into a pretend cake. If the child can accomplish supination to midposition with both hands, banging objects together may be possible. He or she also may be encouraged to hold large blocks or nesting cans by putting one hand on either lateral side of the block or can and stacking these. In this activity the child is being asked to supinate, then initiate grasp and maintain the supination while engaging in a simple activity. 4. Encourage lateral reach followed by grasp. Most children with limited use of supination nd it easier to combine humeral abduction with external rotation and supination than to use humeral flexion with external rotation and supination. Perhaps objects initially should be presented laterally to the childs body to allow the child to use abduction but to move out of internal rotation (and into external rotation), which allows for the use of supination. Objects may be presented low (relative to the childs body) initially and gradually raised higher
G RASP
In clinical practice, intervention for grasp problems generally is interwoven with intervention for voluntary release problems or in-hand manipulation problems. However, to support clarity of intervention descriptions, strategies for each of these skills are addressed separately. In preparation for addressing grasp skills with a child, the therapist should: 1. Assess the childs current use of a wide variety of grasp patterns, and 2. Determine the problem(s) most interfering with one or more functional grasp patterns. The more specic the analysis of the problems affecting the childs hand function, the more specic can be the intervention. The therapist needs to determine if an opposed grasp pattern is possible for the child, and if so, the sizes of objects with which it can be used (e.g., larger, medium-size, or small and tiny ones). Some children can functionally use an opposed grasp pattern on larger objects but not on small or tiny ones because of the lesser degree of stability that these objects provide and the necessary index nger control. For some children, use of the intrinsic muscles of the hand is particularly difcult. These children may be able to use the long nger flexors and extensors (e.g., a palmar or hook grasp) but be unable to effectively use the intrinsic muscles of the hand to allow for more variety and function in grasp. Difculty with intrinsic muscle control may be particularly obvious if a child is unable to hold a ball using a spherical grasp (which requires the combination of long flexor activity with dorsal interossei and lumbrical activity) or to hold a piece of paper with a pattern of MP flexion and IP extension (which requires use of the palmar interossei and lumbricals). In addition, many children lack adequate thumb stability for opposition; instead they substitute with thumb adduction. Some children are unable to activate any thumb abduction or opposition as their thumbs are pulled into adduction by an overactive adductor pollicis. In addition to the outcome of an analysis of the childs functioning, information from an analysis of the childs functional needs should be considered in determining the types of grasp patterns to be emphasized in
Figure 12-2 An object is presented laterally to the childs body and lower than shoulder height to facilitate the use of external rotation and supination during reaching.
(Figure 12-2). The therapist may nd it possible to gradually present objects diagonally to the childs body (in 60 degrees of horizontal abduction, then 45 degrees, then 30 degrees) to assist the child in moving toward a more anterior reaching pattern. 5. Encourage forward reach using shoulder flexion and some degree of external rotation. The object is positioned in front of the childs shoulder, not at midline. The object may be placed anywhere between the childs leg (in sitting) and the shoulder, depending on the childs ability to control external rotation and supination while completing the reach. With increasing height of the object in front of the childs body, the child will have a greater tendency to substitute with shoulder elevation, humeral abduction, and internal rotation. Positioning of the object at the optimal height for the child and using slight facilitation at the childs elbow to help the child initiate and complete the external rotation during the reach may help the child to achieve the supination needed. 6. Encourage reach to midline, following the strategies suggested for reaching in front of the shoulder. 7. Facilitate reach across midline, following the strategies suggested for reaching in front of the shoulder. The therapist who is working with a child on supination, as with any other skill, needs to be sensitive to the childs zone of proximal development in determining the most appropriate level or levels for use in intervention. The therapist may nd it possible to
250
intervention. Some children have an adequate grasp with the nger pads but are not able to effectively use a full palmar grasp pattern for many dressing activities. Some children have only a palmar grasp pattern and thumb adduction, so they cannot pick up small or tiny objects in a functional manner. Thus activities such as nger feeding, cup drinking, and fastener use are negatively affected. Grasp use within functional activities, not only grasp on standardized test items, should be assessed as a basis for intervention planning.
252
Figure 12-3 To promote use of an opposed grasp pattern, the therapist stabilizes the dorsum of the childs forearm and presents an object held with her nger pads directly to the childs ngers.
Level 1: Grasp from therapists ngers. The child is in a sitting position (usually in a chair) with the humerus adducted and the forearm stabilized on his or her leg or on the table surface. The childs hand is in front of the shoulder, not at midline. The therapist holds the object in his or her ngers and places the object just at the childs ngers (Figure 12-3). The child positions the hand for grasp, then grasps the object and carries it a short distance before voluntary release. The therapist notes the degree and quality of wrist extension and nger and thumb positioning in the grasp. If the child does not use sufcient wrist extension, the therapist may nd it helpful to stabilize the dorsum of the childs forearm and to hold the object just slightly higher for the next object presentation. If the ngers are too flexed, other preparation of the hand to decrease tone may be needed before the next object presentation. If the quality of the pattern appears good, the therapist will probably nd it helpful to give several other presentations in this manner to ensure that the child can consistently maintain this quality before moving to the next level. Level 2: Grasp from palm of therapists hand. The childs arm and hand are positioned as in the rst level. The therapist positions the object in the palm of his or her hand with the hand sufciently cupped to stabilize the object. Then he or she places this hand just under the childs hand. In this way the child is required to position the hand for grasp and grasp the object that is just slightly less stabilized than when it was in the therapists ngers. Again the therapist
Figure 12-4 Use of a thick, flat object may assist the child in developing grasp with metacarpal-phalangeal flexion and interphalangeal extension.
activities that involve holding thick flat objects may be helpful (Figure 12-4). Verbal cues about the desired pattern also may be useful in helping the child to perform the desired pattern.
nger flexion necessary (and the degree of differentiation in radial-ulnar nger positions) is less; gradually the size of this object may be reduced. Similarly, the size of the objects grasped with the radial ngers and thumb may be decreased as the childs prociency increases. The therapist also may consider carefully selecting or modifying the diameter and shape of objects to be held with a power grasp. Tools with thin or rounded handles are more difcult for the child to grasp well; children with instability may grasp handles that are slightly larger in diameter or have ridges or indentations more effectively. Also the degree of power needed within the activity should be graded because increased demands for power tend to cause the child to move from a more rened power grasp pattern to a palmar grasp pattern. After grasping an object, the child may use the object to complete a task (e.g., use a hammer to pound a nail), use in-hand manipulation to adjust the object after grasp (e.g., turn a key to t it into a lock), or
254
voluntarily release the object (e.g., put coins into a machine to buy a candy bar).
VOLUNTARY RELEASE
Motor control problems with voluntary release typically result from three key areas of difculty: (a) poor arm stability; (b) increased flexor tone, which causes sting or difculty with grasp using the nger surface; and (c) lack of effective use of the intrinsics. In the latter case, problems are seen in poor IP joint extension or poor MP joint control. A typical pattern seen in poorquality voluntary release is MP joint extension with or without IP joint extension. Problems with stability and lack of extensor activity appropriately balanced with flexor activity interfere with the effectiveness and efciency of voluntary release. Some children with these problems resort to using tenodesis action by flexing at the wrist to initiate the voluntary release (and may use the same pattern to initiate grasp). Arm instability is often a key contributor to voluntary release problems in children with involuntary movement or tremors. However, instability also may negatively affect voluntary release in children with low or high tone who do not have excess movement. For effective voluntary release the child needs to release where and when he or she wants to do so. The arm is important in transporting the hand to the location for release. Holding the arm in a stable position during hand opening contributes to accurate timing of the release. Several strategies may be used with children who have stability problems that affect voluntary release. Upper extremity weight bearing, particularly on extended arms, may help the child to develop improved cocontraction at the scapulohumeral area, elbow, and wrist. Reaching activities that involve touching a desired target and holding that position for a few seconds also may be helpful, particularly if the reaching is done in a variety of planes of movement. For the child who has marked instability or needs to function despite some instability, teaching the child to stabilize the arm against the body or on a surface before opening the hand may be a helpful compensatory strategy. Many of the stability problems that affect voluntary release are related to problems with wrist stability during nger extension; stabilizing in wrist extension allows nger extension without using tenodesis action and supports accuracy of release. Some children show wrist flexion during elbow flexion, but they are able to voluntarily release with the wrist in extension if the elbow is extended. For these children, and even those who have signicant flexor tone at the wrist and ngers when the elbow is flexed, an effective strategy can be to facilitate releasing objects away from midline and with the elbow extended. As with the strategy discussed for
Figure 12-7 Allowing for elbow extension by placing a container on or near the floor may encourage use of wrist and nger extension for voluntary release.
facilitating supination, humeral abduction and external rotation may make it easier for the child to use elbow extension and slight supination, which may in turn allow voluntary release with wrist extension to occur. Releasing into a container placed on the floor, or at least lower than the seat of the childs chair, also may allow the child with high tone or little voluntary control to learn to take advantage of gravity or at least relax the nger flexors (Figure 12-7). Gradually the container used for release can be brought onto a table surface (if initially down low), closer to the childs body (if initially further away from the body), and closer to midline (if release initially in front of the shoulder or lateral to the childs body). However, these strategies are unlikely to be benecial for the child who can release with adequate control at the shoulder, elbow, and wrist but has difculty grading nger extension. In addressing problems of voluntary release caused by poorly graded nger extension, the therapist should consider the quality of the childs grasp. Voluntary release quality can be no better than the quality of the grasp. However, the quality of voluntary release can be poorer than the quality of grasp. Therefore when the child holds an object in a palmar grasp, voluntary release is initiated with full extension (or almost full extension) of the ngers. If, on the other hand, the child holds an object with the nger pads, he or she may release with just slight nger extension or excessive nger extension may be seen. Because voluntary release quality depends so much on grasp quality, the two skills often can be worked on
position. Also, the therapist can address precise grasp with the child when using the tweezers and other small materials.
I N-HAND MANIPULATION
In-hand manipulation skills seem to be the most complex of all ne motor skills. In-hand manipulation involves the adjustment of objects by movements of the ngers so that the objects are more appropriately placed within the hand for the task to be accomplished (Exner, 1990a, 1992). In-hand manipulation occurs within one hand. Five basic types of in-hand manipulation skills have been described (Box 12-4) (Exner, 1992). Each of the in-hand manipulation skills may occur with no other object in the hand at the time of the manipulation or while the ulnar ngers are holding one or more objects in the center or ulnar side of the palm (Exner, 1990a, 1992). When other objects are held in the hand during manipulation, the skill has the term added with stabilization. Although almost any child with a disability that affects motor or sensory functioning has difculty with inhand manipulation skills, not all of these children are candidates for intervention for in-hand manipulation problems. To be considered for intervention specically for in-hand manipulation problems, the child needs to have: Index nger isolation Good skills in basic grasp and release patterns including the ability to grasp a variety of objects and to accommodate the hands to these objects effectively. The child needs to be able to grasp objects at least on the nger surface, not only use a palmar grasp.
They suggest that the therapist could vary the task demands to address accuracy and speed separately and then introduce activities to combine varying degrees of accuracy at different speeds. Eliasson and Gordons study (2000) provides some evidence for children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy being able to improve their grading of the grip forces necessary to allow for a more accurate release. In keeping with these suggestions, children with mild motor control difculties may benet by using a variety of sizes of objects, including small ones, and objects that are less solid (paper balls rather than solid rubber balls, cotton balls rather than paper balls). Inexpensive toys, which tend to be lighter in weight than sturdy high-quality toys, can be particularly useful. Games in which the accuracy of placement is important and obvious to the child can be selected or developed. For example, some childrens game boards have large areas for the game pieces, whereas others have small areas. Activities that involve the child holding tweezers to grasp and release objects may help the child focus on graded pressure and graded release with a steady arm
BOX 12-4
1. Finger-to-palm translation: Movement of an object from the ngers to the palm 2. Palm-to-nger translation: Movement of an object from the palm to the nger pads 3. Shift: Slight adjustment of the object on or by the nger pads 4. Simple rotation: Turning or rolling the object 90 degrees or less, with the ngers acting as a unit 5. Complex rotation: Turning an object over (turning it 90 to 360 degrees) using isolated nger and thumb movements
From Exner CE (1992). In-hand manipulation skills. In J Case-Smith, C Pehoski, editors: Development of hand skills in the child (pp. 3545). Rockville, MD, The American Occupational Therapy Association.
256
Other skills that are useful include: Supination to at least midposition Thumb opposition Finger pad grasp patterns Radial-ulnar dissociation; this skill is important for use of in-hand manipulation with stabilization of other objects within the childs hand. In general, in-hand manipulation activities are realistic only for children who have mild motor disabilities; most children with moderate disabilities lack the ability to use adequate grasp patterns and lack the associated intrinsic muscle control to make in-hand manipulation skills possible.
Figure 12-8 A. Use of palm-to-nger translation may be encouraged by grading the activity. Initially the object is placed on the distal surface of the childs radial ngers. B. Gradually the object is placed more proximally on the childs nger surface. C. After success with more proximal placement, the child may be able to use palm-to-nger translation when the therapist places the object in the palm of the childs hand.
258
Although some supination is to be expected when executing a simple rotation skill, the focus is upon eliciting individual nger movements to produce the movement. Activities that may be useful for encouraging simple rotation skills include unscrewing a bottle top, picking up a pen, pencil, or marker that has been placed horizontally on the surface with the writing end oriented toward the ulnar side of the childs preferred hand, picking up pegs (or a similar object) from a surface and putting them into a pegboard, and rolling clay between the thumb and radial ngers. Again, the therapist may nd that demonstrations and visual cues are helpful in increasing the childs understanding of what to do with the materials. Physically assisting children is easier with simple rotation skills than with translation skills. The therapist may assist the child with rotation by placing his or her ngers over the childs ngers to facilitate the necessary nger movements. For complex rotation skills the therapist relies on selection of materials that readily facilitate the use of complex rotation supplemented by cues to the child. Children should have the attention skills necessary to focus well on verbal and demonstration cues for complex rotation skills. The ability to respond to cues is important because it is difcult for the therapist to physically assist the child with these skills. Games and imaginative play activities can be used for working on these skills, thus allowing for attention to other goals as well, particularly those that address cognitive concepts and visual perception. Materials that work well for enhancing complex rotation include pegs that can be placed upside down for the child to turn over, cubes that have pictures on one or more sides and can be turned to nd the appropriate picture for a category of pictures or a puzzle, a pencil with an eraser that can be turned over to allow for its use and turned back for writing again, markers with caps so the cap can be placed in the childs hand upside down before the child places it on the marker, and toy people or gures that can be inverted on a surface or in the childs hand and that should be rotated before placement (Figure 12-9). When children are rst working on complex rotation, they tend to need a surface for support, both for their arms and the objects. Therefore it is easier for the child if the therapist places the object on a table surface. Soon, however, it is usually possible to place the object in the childs hand and encourage the child to at least start the rotation before using a surface for support. Later the child can be asked to use the skill without depending on a supporting surface at all and completely nish the rotation before putting the object down. Once the child can do one complex rotation with an object, the child may be encouraged to attempt repetitive rotations by turning the object over two
C
Figure 12-9 A. The child is forming a picture with a set of puzzle books. He is encouraged to nd the side of the block that ts the design being constructed. The therapist has placed the correct side of the block against the palm of his hand so that he must use complex rotation to nd it. B. Before using the in-hand manipulation skill of complex rotation, the child must use palm-to-nger translation to move the block toward the distal nger surface. In that process the block begins to be turned. C. Having identied the correct side, the child shifts the object out of the pads of the ngers before placement with the other blocks. (From Case-Smith, J [2005]. Occupational Therapy for Children, 5th ed. St Louis, Mosby.)
Figure 12-10 Child shows use of simple rotation with stabilization by holding two objects in the hand. One object is stabilized by the ulnar ngers, while the other object is rotated slightly before stringing.
The easiest in-hand manipulation skill to use with stabilization is nger-to-palm translation, because this is only slightly more difcult than using this pattern without stabilization. It requires the child to keep the ulnar ngers flexed while grasping with the radial ngers, and storing another object in the hand only requires movement into nger flexion (which is easier than moving into nger extension). This also seems to be a skill that many young children develop spontaneously as they try to hold several pieces of cereal, candy, or small crackers in their hands at one time. After mastering nger-to-palm translation with stabilization, most children seem to nd it easier to work on palm-to-nger translation with stabilization than simple rotation with stabilization. However, the therapist should explore these with the child, and then select the easier skill to work on next. The size of the object being held in the hand can be a factor in making the skill seem easier or more difcult. If it is too small, a great deal of ulnar flexion is needed, thus increasing the requirement for radial-ulnar dissociation. If the object is too large, the child may need to use the middle nger to assist in the stabilization, but then will not have this nger available for manipulation. Children nd it easier to hold one other object in the hand than two or more. Initially they also nd it easier if the objects to be held are placed in the ulnar side of the hand by the therapist. Later they may be asked to pick up and move an object into the hand and hold it there while manipulating another object with the radial ngers.
260
Children with mild disabilities may nd it possible to learn to use shift with stabilization and complex rotation with stabilization, but many children nd these skills too difcult. If these skills seem possible, the therapist may nd that one skill is easier than the other for the child to develop. Shift with stabilization is difcult because of the need to combine a flexion pattern in the ulnar side of the hand with a more extended pattern in the radial side. Thus holding a slightly larger object in the ulnar side of the hand may be somewhat easier when facilitating shift with the radial ngers and thumb. The size of the object being manipulated also is particularly important for complex rotation, because complex rotation generally is carried out by the index, middle, and ring ngers. When stabilization of other objects is necessary, the ring usually is not available to assist in the rotation. Therefore smaller objects are easier to use for complex rotation with stabilization than are larger ones.
262
the item of clothing. Later this may be varied as well. For lacing and tying, thicker (but not inflexible) shoelaces that are just the right length need to be used at rst; then the thickness of the laces and their length can gradually be decreased. A study by Hung, Charles, and Gordon (2004) yielded ndings that are applicable to intervention for these types of bilateral hand skills. They found that children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy were able to complete a task that involved the two hands completing different activities and were able to alternate hands for the two components of the activity. In this task neither hand was necessary to execute ne control, and the task was completed at two different speeds. Under the condition in which greater speed was necessary, the children showed enhanced coordination. Thus therapists may wish to consider incorporating different degrees of speed into activities, exploring the conditions that may yield greater success for the child.
so the child is able to accomplish activities that are appropriate. To support the childs performance of skills, the therapist must address the childs environment, as well as the childs ability to perform specic skills (Gilfoyle et al., 1990).
SPLINTING
Hand splinting can be an effective adjunct to direct intervention for hand skills in children. Exner (2005) provides information about splinting in children, including a description of precautions and a summary of the various types of splints and their rationale. Additional information about splint types, and their uses and construction is provided by Gabriel and Duvall-Riley (2000) and Chapter 18. Research on the use of splinting in children is limited. In a research literature review analysis by Teplicky, Law, and Russell (2002) on the use of upper extremity splinting and
CASTING
Upper extremity casting for decreasing tone and improving hand function has been used in intervention with children with signicant disabilities. Studies by Yasukawa (1992); Law et al. (1991); Tona and Schneck (1993); and Copley, Watson-Will, and Dent (1996) have shown some empiric support for this approach. A study by Law and associates (1997) used group experimental methodology to study the effect of occupational therapy treatment without casting to an intervention program that included casting. In this study, the benets of including casting were not evident. Although changes may occur in tone or range of motion as a result of casting, changes in occupational performance may not (Russell & Law, 2003).
SUMMARY
Intervention for children with hand skill problems is guided by use of the occupational therapy framework, in which the overarching factor is the childs ability to engage in occupational tasks with greater skill and thus more effectively fulll desired roles. In approaching this intervention, many factors must be considered. The therapistin collaboration with the child (whenever feasible), parent or guardian, teacher, and signicant otherscarefully assesses the childs strengths and
264
challenges and attempts to determine the major factors interfering with his or her ability to be successful in a variety of occupational tasks. If hand skill difculties play a role in limiting the childs functioning, the therapist seeks to delineate the problem areas and the childs potential for improvement in skills. Needs for hand skills intervention must be balanced with other types of priorities that could be addressed by the therapist and the childs other life needs and interests, such as academic skills, social skills, and play. In this process the therapist determines the childs need for direct intervention designed to improve hand skills and the childs need for any adaptations or compensatory strategies to assist in accomplishing daily life tasks. The childs perceptual and cognitive functioning affect this planning, because hand skills are intimately related to the childs perception of objects and space and his or her desire to accomplish a meaningful end goal. To assist in determining the childs potential for improvement from direct intervention for specic hand skills, the therapist needs information that typically cannot be derived solely from standardized tests of ne motor skills. For realistic intervention designed to improve the childs hand skills the therapist must consider the skills that are within reach for the child. Determining this range of skills within reach may be called identifying the childs zone of proximal development. Hand skills intervention typically integrates a variety of strategies, which depend upon the childs overall motor problems and skills, as well as the childs particular problems in hand function. Given the critical role that tactile-proprioceptive perception play in the use of hand skills, addressing this area may be an important aspect of intervention. Physical handling to enhance the childs performance may be used with many of the intervention strategies. Verbal cuing for the type of motor action desired and verbal reinforcement for performance of particular motor skills is appropriate for almost all children. Repetition of actions is necessary for building skill in new motor patterns, so games and imaginative activities that engage the childs interest and sustain the childs performance of the activities are useful. Because hand skill activities must be done with the childs active participation and cannot be done to the child, the childs interest and motivation to engage in the activities is very important. Although children often respond well to initially trying out new skills in a one-on-one situation with a therapist, opportunities to practice and use skills in a variety of settings and a variety of activities is an important consideration. Therefore collaboration with the child, the parents or caregivers, and teachers is crucial in helping the child develop hand skills that can be spontaneously used to enhance the childs performance in a variety of daily life skills.
REFERENCES
Barnes KJ (1986). Improving prehension skills of children with cerebral palsy: A clinical study. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 6:227240. Barnes KJ (1989a). Relationship of upper extremity weight bearing to hand skills of boys with cerebral palsy. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 9:143154. Barnes KJ (1989b). Direct replication: Relationship of upper extremity weight bearing to hand skills of boys with cerebral palsy. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 9:235242. Beckung E, Steffenburg U, Uvebrant P (1997). Motor and sensory dysfunctions in children with mental retardation and epilepsy. Seizure, 6:4350. Boehme R (1988). Improving upper body control: An approach to assessment and treatment of tonal dysfunction. Tucson, AZ, Therapy Skill Builders. Bumin G, Kayihan H (2001). Effectiveness of two different sensory integration programmes for children with spastic diplegic cerebral palsy. Disability and Rehabilitation, 23(9):394399. Case-Smith J (1991). The effects of tactile defensiveness and tactile discrimination on in-hand manipulation. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45:811818. Case-Smith J (2000). Effects of occupational therapy services on ne motor and functional performance in preschool children. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54(4):373380. Case-Smith J, Fisher AG, Bauer D (1989). An analysis of the relationship between proximal and distal motor control, The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 43:657662. Copley J, Watson-Will A, Dent K (1996). Upper limb casting for clients with cerebral palsy: A clinical report. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 43:3950. Croce R, DePaepe J (1989). A critique of therapeutic intervention programming with reference to an alternative approach based on motor learning theory. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 9(3):533. Crocker MD, MacKay-Lyons M, McDonnell E (1997). Forced use of the upper extremity in cerebral palsy: A single case design. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 5:824833. Cronin AF (2004). Mothering a child with hidden impairments. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58(1):8392. Curry J, Exner C (1988). Comparison of tactile preferences in children with and without cerebral palsy. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 42(6):371377. DeGangi GA, Wietlisbach S, Goodin M, Scheiner N (1993). A comparison of structured sensorimotor therapy and child-centered activity in the treatment of preschool children with sensorimotor problems. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47:777786. DeLuca SC, Echols K, Ramey SL, Taub E (2003). Pediatric constraint-induced movement therapy for a young child with cerebral palsy: Two episodes of care. Journal of the American Physical Therapy Association, 83:10031013. Eliasson AC, Gordon AM (2000). Impaired force coordination during object release in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 42:228234. Erhardt R (1992). Eye-hand coordination. In J Case-Smith, C Pehoski, editors: Development of hand skills in the child.
266
Ruff HA (1984). Infants manipulative exploration of objects: Effects of age and object characteristics. Developmental Psychology, 20:920. Russell D, Law M (2003). Casting-splinting-orthoses. Retrieved December 30, 2003 from http:/ /www.fhs.mcmaster.ca/canchild/publications/keep current/KC95-2.html Schoemaker MM, Niemeijer AS, Reynders K, SmitsEngelsman BC (2003). Effectiveness of neuromotor task training for children with developmental coordination disorder: A pilot study. Neural Plasticity, 10:155163. Seeger BR, Caudrey DJ, OMara NA (1984). Hand function in cerebral palsy: The effect of hip-flexion angle. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 26:601606. Skold A, Josephsson S, Eliasson A-C (2004). Performing bimanual activities: The experience of young persons with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58(4):416425. Smelt HR (1989). Effect of an inhibitive weight-bearing mitt on tone reduction and functional performance in a child with cerebral palsy. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 9(2):5380. Smith-Zuzovsky N, Exner C (2004). The effect of seated positioning quality on typical 6- and 7-year-old childrens object manipulation skills. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58(4):380388. Stiller C, Marcoux BC, Olson RE (2003). The effect of conductive education, intensive therapy, and special education services on motor skills in children with cerebral palsy. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 23:3250. Swart SK, Kanny EM, Massagli TL, Engel JM (1997). Therapists perceptions of pediatric occupational therapy interventions in self-care. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51:289296.
Chapter
A FINE MOTOR PROGRAM FOR PRESCHOOLERS
Carol Anne Myers*
13
CHAPTER OUTLINE
VERTICAL SURFACES MANIPULATIVES The Manipulatives Program Fine Motor Planning SCISSORS DRAWING AND WRITING Hand Preference Activities to Help Develop Pencil Grasp and Control WHAT MAKES THERAPY EFFECTIVE? CASE STUDY
The activities and suggestions included in this chapter were developed at the Newton Early Childhood Program (formerly the Brookline-Newton Early Childhood Collaborative) in the metropolitan area of Boston. The program serves preschoolers from 3 through 5 years of age with mild to severe special needs. This chapter focuses primarily on activities that are used with children who have mild to moderate special needs, but in some cases they may be adapted for use with children who have severe needs. Occupational therapy (OT) services in the Newton Early Childhood Program are provided to children who attend integrated preschool classrooms (a combination of typically developing children and children who have with special needs), in substantially separate
*Taken in part from Myers CA (1992). Therapeutic ne-motor activities for preschoolers. In J Case-Smith, C Pehoski, editors: Development of hand skills in the child. Rockville, MD, American Occupational Therapy Association.
self-contained class-rooms, as well as to children who attend community nursery schools. The children who are in community nursery schools usually receive related services such as speech and language, OT, and physical therapy during their after-school hours. Many of the children who receive OT services have learning differences that may result in a learning disability diagnosis in later years, or mild to moderate sensory processing difculties. Some of the children who receive OT, however, have no area of disability other than a discrete weakness in ne motor skills. Although the program is comprehensive in the types of OT intervention that are provided, this chapter focuses on the ne motor program, which refers both to the use of manipulatives, as well as to prewriting skills such as the use of scissors and drawing implements. The theoretical rationale for the ne motor program described in this chapter is based primarily on the work of Mary Benbow, as gleaned from her workshops and publications (see Chapter 15). Her perspective has provided an invaluable foundation on which to base the work of the program. Many of her ideas for ne motor activities with older children have been adapted for the work with preschool children. The philosophy of the ne motor program is based on the classic OT theory that intervention should enhance the clients ability to participate in his or her occupation, which has
long been recognized as a requirement for survival and, to varying degrees, as a source of pleasure (Hopkins & Smith, 1978).
The occupation of the preschool child is to be independent and successful in all of the areas of the classroom and playground, both with play activities as well as with self-care. Specically in respect to ne
267
268
motor skills, the overall goal is for students to be able to participate productively in classroom learning centers such as the art area, manipulatives area, and writing center. Young preschoolers work at mastering a variety of manipulatives and simple art projects, whereas older preschoolers develop the skills to independently use complex, multistep manipulatives, and to participate in multistep art projects as well as prewriting tasks. Parents and teachers often overemphasize prewriting activities for young preschoolers, while short-changing them on the use of manipulatives that will develop their overall hand function. This overemphasis on academics may have been encouraged by the overall national trends toward increased standardized testing of students of all ages. Windsor (2000) stated that
at the preschool level, tool use and whole body play in the environment are preferred to practice with pencils, pens, and tabletop exercises (p. 19).
It is critical for parents of students in the program to understand that all aspects of hand development are valuable, and that the provision of a rich variety of manipulative materials will benet all students as they move toward developing prewriting skills. To fully assist students in being functional and independent with all of the classroom activities, therapists either use materials that are similar to classroom materials, or they borrow materials from the classroom for the OT sessions. This practice enhances the generalization of skills learned during the OT sessions to the classroom setting, and is particularly applicable in two circumstances: (a) students who avoid ne motor areas in the classroom because of low self-condence, and (b) students with ne motor planning difculties. Most of the children in the program who receive OT services to address ne motor delays receive them once weekly, for 30 minutes, in either an individual or small group setting. The ideal arrangement is to schedule sessions with pairs of children who have been carefully matched by age and by specic needs. Case-Smith (2000) found that
occupational therapists use of play activities and peer interaction were important predictors of [ne motor] skill levels at the end of the year (p. 379).
In addition to providing direct services to students, the occupational therapists consult with parents and classroom teachers. Once a child is comfortable with the activities in the therapy settings (usually after 6 to 8 weeks), therapists typically provide recommendations to the childs classroom teachers and sometimes recommend that the parents provide a modied home program. Parents should not attempt to mimic the role of the therapist or teacher; rather, parents provide appropriate materials and naturalistic, enjoyable opportunities for the child to demonstrate and use at home the skills that have been learned in therapy and school. Surrounding the child with a team of people who are familiar with the childs strengths and weaknesses and who understand the goals of the intervention program greatly enhances the therapy process.
VERTICAL SURFACES
Vertical and slant board surfaces are an extremely important part of the ne motor program. Benbow (1995) emphasized the importance of working on a vertical surface to encourage appropriate hand and wrist position for ne motor and handwriting skills. Both vertical and slant board surfaces correctly position the wrist in extension, which supports thumb abduction so that the thumb can work skillfully with the ngertips. Stable wrist extension and thumb opposition also facilitate total arching of the hand for skillful manipulation of objects. Therefore, providing a vertical or slant board work surface is an important modication that parents and teachers can incorporate as they work or play with the child. Activities performed above eye level on vertical or near-vertical work surfaces such as floor and table easels promote
wrist stabilization in extension with precision nger skills (Benbow, 1995, p. 257),
Pairing children for OT sessions provides structure as well as peer support to encourage success with challenging activities. Having two students work together also enhances the therapists ability to make the activities seem like games rather than exercises. In a study examining performance outcomes for OT that addressed ne motor skills, Case-Smith (2000) noted that
as well as the development of arm and shoulder muscles. Whenever possible, teachers are encouraged to provide activity areas in which the children are working upright (sitting, kneeling, or standing) with their arms and hands moving against gravity at an easel or other vertical work surface, rather than leaning over small tables. When children work on a horizontal surface,
A Fine Motor Program for Preschoolers 269 BOX 13-1 Some Examples of Activities for Use on a Vertical Surface
1. Making pictures with stickers. 2. Colorforms or Unisets (these activities provide a board on which to arrange reusable plastic stickers, and they are available in a wide variety of themes and designs). 3. Feltboards or flannel boards, which permit the placement of gures depicted in stories or scenes created by the child. 4. Magnet letters or shapes on a magnet board (available in story themes as well). 5. Chalkboards: Use sidewalk chalk (wide-diameter chalk) broken into 112- to 2-inch pieces for children to hold with the tips of the thumb, index nger, and middle nger. In one favorite activity, the child draws a design with the chalk and then uses a paintbrush with water to magically erase the design. 6. Geoboards (rubber band designs created on a grid of nails). 7. Painting or drawing. 8. Ink stamping activities. 9. Pegboards, many different varieties (Lite Brite Cube uses small pegs and by design is oriented on the vertical).
Figure 13-1 Tripod grasp with extended wrist, and forearm resting on the surface of a 20-degree slant board.
they often place their wrists in neutral or flexion, which does not promote skillful use of the intrinsic muscles. Switching activities from a horizontal to a vertical orientation can transform an ordinary or mediocre activity into a powerful tool for encouraging ne motor skill development. Many activities can be oriented on the vertical by placing the materials (e.g., geoboard) on the lower lip of a tabletop easel. In the Newton Early Childhood Program, children are expected to work regularly on vertical work surfaces. With a minimal amount of modication and equipment expense, many activities can be adapted easily for use on a vertical surface (Box 13-1). It is benecial for the shoulder, arm, wrist, and hand development of all preschoolers to work on activities at a vertical or near-vertical surface on a regular basis. For older preschoolers who are working on representative drawing and writing letters, students use a slant board that is at an estimated angle of 20 degrees. A low-cost way to provide multiple slant board surfaces in a classroom is to place 3-inch three-ring binders at the writing table; the ring side of the binder is placed horizontally toward the middle of the table so that the slope of the binder slants down toward the edge of the table where the student is sitting. The students use these slant board binders as drawing and writing surfaces. They are relatively inexpensive, and are easy for teachers to store when the writing center is being used
for a different purpose. Parents also have used these binders as slant boards at home, and often purchase a three-hole zipper storage bag that can hold the childs markers inside the binder for traveling. A variety of more sophisticated alternatives are available from many sources, some of which are listed in the Appendix. Because it is recommended that students use a slant board surface well beyond their preschool years, many parents opt to purchase a more permanent work surface, such as Write-Slant Boards, which provide a helpful clip at the top to stabilize the paper. The reason older preschool students draw and write on the 20-degree slant board instead of the vertical or near-vertical surfaces is because the 20-degree angle encourages students to rest their hand and forearm on the work surface, whereas the vertical and near-vertical surfaces do not. With the older students, therapists are encouraging the development of a tripod or quadrupod grasp, with accompanying intrinsic muscle movements of the ngers while drawing or writing, which means that the hand and forearm must rest on the table (Figure 13-1). Having parents and teachers provide a 20-degree slanted work surface helps students to make the transition from drawing with their hands off the table to drawing and writing with their hands resting on the table, as expected. Although older students in elementary school may have developed the appropriate mature writing grasp, a slant board encourages the ideal posturean erect spinewhile drawing or writing and enhances students endurance for completing lengthy homework assignments. For therapists who are attempting to demonstrate the value of vertical or slant board surfaces to parents or teachers, it is helpful to ask children to perform a task such as a pegboard or a drawing activity on a horizontal surface, and then ask them to perform the same activity on a vertical surface. The difference in the childs hand position and ability is often dramatically evident in such a demonstration. Observing that
270
difference rst-hand helps parents and teachers to understand why working on the vertical is so valuable. Examples throughout this chapter illustrate how working on the vertical or slant board surface maximizes the therapeutic benet of the activities.
MANIPULATIVES
Young children, especially 3-year-olds, should spend more time with ne motor manipulatives than writing utensils. Sometimes parents and teachers feel that young children should begin to practice with pencils and markers, but this early practice may result in a poor pencil grasp, partially because children may be asked to use writing utensils before their hands are ready for that kind of rened activity. Benbow (1995) specically noted that boys tend to avoid ne motor activities in lieu of computer games, while girls who practice with writing implements at an early age
without proper adult attention or supervision may then adopt pencil grips that are inefcient or even harmful (p. 255).
Figure 13-2 Hyperextended thumb and compromised web space on lace tip.
Therefore children should be developing their hands for a variety of activities in a variety of positions before they are expected to draw or write with the proper grasp. In preparation for writing, the hand progresses through the following motor milestones (Benbow, 1995): 1. Development of wrist stabilization in extension to support skilled nger movements. 2. Development of a stable open index nger-thumb web space when performing skilled activities. The open web space should have a circular shape. This position is frequently compromised in children who have hyperextension of the interphalangeal joint of the thumb; rather than a circular web space; these children form a crescent moon with a small opening. The thumb is in a xed position, thereby making intrinsic muscle activity difcult (Figure 13-2). Children with this problem must be monitored carefully when they perform ne motor activities to nd those activities that encourage the use of the thumb in a flexed position. 3. Development of palmar arches in the hand, represented by a concave surface on the palm. 4. Development of an awareness of the skill side of the hand; this means that the child consistently orients skilled activities toward the thumb, index
nger, and middle nger. These three ngers are hereafter called the skill ngers. 5. Development of intrinsic muscle movement in the ngers; this kind of ne muscle movement can be seen when the ulnar side of the hand is stabilized on the table while the ngers move a pencil to write, or when the ngers make ne movements to thread a needle. The intrinsic movements are best observed in activities that require the tips of the thumb, index nger, and middle nger to be touching while they are performing small movements of midrange flexion and extension of the metacarpal-phalangeal (MCP) joints. Many so-called ne motor activities involve the use of the hands and ngers, but do not necessarily elicit the ne motor movements of the intrinsic muscles at the MCP joints. One example of an activity that parents often cite as proof of their childs ne motor abilities is the use of a computer mouse. The use of a mouse involves primarily the arm and shoulder muscles, with slight flexion of the index nger for clicking the mouse. (In cases in which the mouse has a scroll wheel, the middle nger does use some intrinsic muscle movement to scroll, although students usually point and click more often than they scroll.) Although skilled use of a mouse is difcult for children with overall upper extremity motor control issues, many students with signicantly reduced ne motor skill with manipulatives are able to successfully use a mouse. That is because the mouse does not require the skilled use of the intrinsic muscles of the skill ngers working together with an open thumb-index nger web space; it falls short as a ne motor activity. Adding insult to injury, instead of using their hands to work a variety of real puzzles, many preschool students with poor ne motor skills work puzzles on computer screens. Parents and teachers of children who have poor ne motor skills are strongly encouraged to limit the childs time on the computer, and increase the availability of a variety of concrete materials that will encourage ne motor skill development.
Wake Up Hands
Wake Up Hands activities provide sensory stimulation to the hands, including tactile stimulation as well as proprioceptive/kinesthetic stimulation, resulting in overall readiness for later activities. A wide variety of soft objects, including gel-lled balls, rubber animals, and countless other items are used during Wake Up Hands. Activities include squeezing the objects, rolling them on the table, rolling them all over the hands (with each hand taking turns), grabbing them with the thumb and index nger (pincer grasp), poking them with either the thumb or index nger, and using them isometrically by having both hands press the object. Students also perform a variety of motions with their hands such as clapping, rubbing, or shaking. A variety of textures might be provided through materials such as unscented lotion, powder (including dry Jell-O powder), and fabrics from rough to smooth. The therapists also provide rubber bands or elastic sewn into circles of various sizes so that students can perform a variety of pulling activities, one nger at a time. Students seem to particularly enjoy placing the rubber band in a way that traps their ngers, and they enjoy moving their ngers against the resistance while pretending to escape from the rubber band trap. TheraBand and Thera tubing also can be used for pulling and stretching activities during Wake Up Hands. One of the most popular Wake Up Hands activities is the accordion tubes, sometimes called rapper snappers. These tubes provide excellent resistance to nger, arm, and shoulder muscles when students expand the tubes, and provide similar input when they are manually contracted to become small again (Figure 13-3). During a game, the tubes can be called caterpillars; therapists ask students to pretend they are turning baby caterpillars into big ones, and then back into babies. For a whole-body motion that provides an excellent motor break before a tabletop session, students pair up and connect their accordion tubes. They then make the caterpillars pop by pulling, tug of war style, on their respective tubes until the tubes come apart with a large popping sound. From a safety perspective, be sure that the students have enough space for this activity, as some of the smaller students literally fall backward from the momentum until they
Figure 13-3
learn how to position their feet effectively to brace themselves. This activity can be repeated for several minutes, as students select a new partner for each caterpillar pop (Figure 13-4). All of the preceding materials are used for sensory stimulation and also for basic practice with motor planning or imitation games. The therapist demonstrates the movement, and the children imitate it. For example, the teacher or occupational therapist can bend the tube into a variety of shapes, which the students must then imitate with their own accordion tube. Representative shapes are best, such as an elephants trunk, telephone receiver, window, or crown, so that the children can concretely imagine a use for each new shape. After a few examples provided by an adult, students enjoy coming up with their own shapes to suggest. Meanwhile, all of the students ngers, hands, and arms are being stimulated in a positive, enjoyable way.
272
Another Wake Up Hands activity is putting on your [imaginary] power gloves, which students can either do for themselves or have done by an adult. To put on the gloves, each nger is grasped at the ngertip by the thumb and index nger of the other hand, and gentle pressure is exerted as the thumb and index nger slowly travel down to the base of the nger. Each nger is stimulated in turn until all 10 are complete, at which point the gloves have been put on. This provides both tactile and proprioceptive stimulation, and also provides a mental image of powerful hands that is a good mindset for students preparing for a ne motor task. It is, of course, a more powerful sensation for an adult to provide the stimulation than for the children to provide it for themselves, although with a large group sometimes it is impossible for an adult to get around to each child in a timely fashion. Wake Up Hands with 4- and 5-year old children often includes two components: the primarily sensory component with the soft objects and varied textures, and a higher-level demand such as nger plays. Many of the students have difculty isolating individual ngers, and also with imitation and ne motor planning. Carefully chosen nger plays tend to be motivating for them, and observing students performing nger plays is an excellent way to quickly learn a great deal about their current level of hand development. Choose nger plays that include developmentally appropriate nger motions such as the following: forming a circle with the thumb and index nger, isolating the index nger or the thumb, or forming a cupped palm (see Appendix for a good source of nger plays). Many young students have difculty forming a circle with their thumb and index nger; the circle tends to be flattened rather than round. These are often the same students who have difculty forming an open thumb-index nger web space with drawing implements. The nger plays provide an additional way for students to practice using their ngers in a variety of positions, and a way for the therapist to visually gauge their progress. For students for whom the combination of language and motor planning demands is too high, therapists have them practice the motor component of a nger play separately before adding the language component.
Strong Hands
Although activities from any of the three components of a therapy session may address multiple areas of development, the rationale for labeling the activity is to help students understand its primary goal. The use of these specic terms has provided unexpected benets, particularly the use of the term Strong Hands. The students with less than average hand grasp strength are often the students who are least likely to take risks with novel ne motor tasks. When Strong Hands is
A Fine Motor Program for Preschoolers 273 BOX 13-2 Activities to Encourage Hand Strength
practice of a component skill (e.g., translation) may or may not generalize into improved functional performance (e.g., ability to button). Although task analysis demonstrates that a similar movement pattern is necessary in object translation and buttoning, the therapist cannot assume that in-hand manipulation skill will generalize to the task (pp. 773774).
1. Play Dough a. Use a garlic press to make spaghetti. b. Use rolling pins to make pretend cookies (shoulder and arm strength). c. Press cookie cutters into flattened play dough. d. Find hidden objects such as pegs, marbles, or toys. Note: Crayola Model Magic or clay also can be used, depending on how much resistance is desired. Homemade play dough provides less resistance than the commercial variety. 2. Water sprayers (e.g., those found in a drug store for spritzing hair) a. Spray water onto pictures drawn with markers to make them melt. (Note: This activity works best if the markers are relatively new and the drawing has just been completed.) b. Spray a mixture of water and food coloring to color snow (in northern climates). c. Spray plants or outdoor bushes. d. Spray the walls while in the bathtub, with the shower curtain partially closed. 3. Geoboards: This is a grid of nails or plastic points. Use rubber bands of varying thicknesses to create designs, or use nylon potholder loops for less resistance. (Cotton cloth loops often are too thick to successfully stay on the points.) 4. Newspapers: Tear newspapers to stuff a scarecrow or other classroom project. 5. Wringing out sponges or washcloths (e.g., as part of a clean-up activity, or in the bathtub). 6. Squeeze toys such as the Swinging Monkey and the Flying Fist (see Appendix for sources).
Smart Hands
Smart Hands manipulative activities typically emphasize multiple skills within one activity. For example, using a wind-up toy encourages isolated use of the thumb and index nger, but may also require a signicant amount of nger strength, depending on the resistance of the particular wind-up toy and on the shape of the winding knob or key. It is important for therapists to be familiar enough with their manipulatives to know which ones are appropriate for 3-yearolds, and which ones are more appropriate for 4- or 5-year-olds. Classroom teachers often need guidance about this as well. Some of the classroom building manipulatives require more eye-hand coordination than is expected for the typical 3-year-old, and if teachers expect and encourage students to participate in a too-demanding activity, students may begin to feel that they are not successful with manipulatives. When referring specically to in-hand manipulation, Case-Smith (1995) stated that
Therefore the therapists provide activities that are not just OT materials, but also provide direct experience with typical, age appropriate classroom manipulatives. Although therapeutic activities that address the component skills of a task are benecial, for the most successful transfer of learning and skills to the classroom setting, preschool students need the concrete experience of learning to use specic classroom manipulatives within the OT session. Following is a list of some of the most popular Smart Hands activities and manipulatives used in the program: 1. Play dough (bilateral coordination, ne motor planning, skilled nger use): Play dough can provide excellent strengthening activities for preschool students, but also can be used to encourage the development of skills. The following activities are used with students who are ready for more skilled use of play dough: a. Drawing in flattened play dough using a peg, b. Rolling play dough balls: There are three levels of difculty available for this activity: (a) using one hand and rolling the play dough on the table, (b) rolling the play dough between two hands in the air, or (c) using the thumb, index nger, and middle nger to roll a small ball, and c. Using play dough to make representative objects (e.g., rolling a snake form and decorating it with different colors and sizes of pegs to create a caterpillar; rolling balls and stacking them to make a snowman, drawing the facial features and buttons using a small stick peg, and then adding two stick pegs for the arms). As students become more skilled in their ability to make a variety of shapes, their ability to create complex creations will increase. Another variation is to use small toys with the play dough (e.g., small plastic babies from the baby shower section of a party store inspired students to make cribs, playpens, diapers, and many other representative objects from play dough to use with the babies). 2. Stringing/lacing activities (skilled grasp patterns, eye-hand coordination, bilateral use of hands): Of all the manipulative activities available to the students, this has proved to be one of the most valuable. Benbow (1995) stated that
bead stringing is the classic preschool activity for developing speed and dexterity in the alternate use of translation patterns (p. 260).
274
There are students for whom learning the motor plan for stringing objects is tremendously challenging, and they literally might spend many months practicing this task to master the ability to place just one large ring onto a 14-inch diameter rope. The stringing activity that is selected depends on the ne motor problem the therapist is trying to address. For example, some students do not yet have consistent object permanence, and if the objects they are stringing are so large that they cannot see the string emerge from the other side with just one thrust, they will be unable to imagine how to continue the activity. Activities (a), (b), (d), and (e) from the following list are best for these students. Other students have difculty with the eye-hand coordination necessary to place the tip of the string into the object. Activities (a) and (c) are good starting activities for these students. Some students have such difculty using two hands together that they benet from stringing a series of eye bolts on a wooden shape, because the therapist can help stabilize the wooden shape with the eye bolts while the student concentrates on placing the string tip into the eye bolts. It is best for the student to also hold onto the wooden shape along with the therapist, as this enhances the development of bilateral coordination. Three main factors, therefore, should enter into the therapists decision about which stringing activity is best for a student: (a) the size of the hole in the object, (b) the length of the hard tip on the string, and (c) the stability of the object (e.g., is it xed or does the child have to stabilize it in the hand). Following is a list of efcacious stringing and lacing activities, in an estimated order of difculty from easiest to hardest: a. Placing 114-inch rings on a 14-inch diameter rope that has duct tape stabilizing the end of the rope. (Note: Oversized rings can be obtained either from a hardware store or manufacturers recyclables; they are not typically available in a toy store; see Figure 13-5). b. Placing 12-inch rings onto gimp (because the gimp stays stiff and a pincer grasp is not necessary). c. Stringing plastic frogs (Ideal Funtastic Frogs) designed with a small hole on one side and a large hole on the other side (holes range in size from 18 inch to 12 inch, depending on which of the three sizes of frogs are selected), with a cord that has a 2-inch long hard tip (the different size holes allow this activity to be graded at several different levels; see Figure 13-6). d. Small rubber shapes (Lauri Beads and Baubles) with a 316-inch hole and cord with a 1-inch hard tip (see Figure 13-7).
Figure 13-6
e. Inserting a 1-inch hard cord tip through a series of eye bolts arranged on a wooden shape (use pre-drilled wooden basket bottoms from a craft store and grade the activity based on the size of eye bolts placed into the holes; see Figure 13-8). f. Stringing small pony beads. g. Stringing large wooden beads. The challenge with large beads is that several thrusting motions of the skill ngers are necessary to move the string all the way through the bead, which is challenging for many students. Using the thread the needle motion to push a string through a large bead requires skilled intrinsic muscle movements. h. Once students have mastered placing individual objects onto strings, they then transition to per-
c.
d.
Figure 13-8
forming tasks that involve more complex sequencing, such as lacing cards. 3. Finger isolation activities (individual nger skill, pincer grasp): a. Hopping ants: Use the plastic ants from the commercial game, Ants in Their Pants, and encourage students to use an index nger to make them jump. Once students have mastered the basic nger movement, therapists can set up a variety of items for the ants to jump over, or targets at which they can jump. b. Spinning tops: Therapists should provide a wide array of tops for spinning, with the easiest tops being those with a thick stem. Spinning tops helps students isolate the thumb and index nger, and also encourages a skilled nger motion (similar to the nger-snapping motion). A stemless top can be used for students who
e.
f.
do not yet have the dexterity or motor planning ability to use a top with a stem (see Figure 13-9; the top in the upper left of the picture is the stemless top). Geoboards: These are mentioned in the Strong Hands section of this chapter, but they also encourage isolated use of the thumb and index nger or, sometimes, just the index nger to stretch a rubber band down from a top point to a bottom one. As the designs become more complicated, this activity also helps develop ne motor planning ability. Eye droppers: Eye droppers can be used as a table top activity, at a water table in the classroom, or in the bathtub at home. Water can be mixed with food coloring to make dribble pictures by dripping the food coloring onto paper towels or coffee lters. (Note: young 3year-olds with ne motor delays usually have difculty with the motor planning necessary for this activity, so it is more often used with the older preschoolers.) Tissue paper pictures: The therapist gives the children scraps of tissue paper, and asks them to roll each piece into a small ball by using only the skill ngers. The balls can be glued onto construction paper to form a picture. Sometimes the therapist can draw a general shape (e.g., a pumpkin outline) and the children can make enough tissue paper balls to ll up the outline. Coins and buttons: Children can play a variety of games with buttons and coins, including using the skill ngers to insert them into a bank, picking them up and arranging them as part of a counting or matching game, making designs with buttons on the table, sorting buttons according to size, and so on. Teachers in the
276
preschool program often use button activities to reinforce academic concepts while challenging ne motor skills. To encourage the development of nger dexterity, the buttons or coins must be moved or turned over without bringing them to the edge of the table. Large containers of mixed buttons often are available at local fabric stores. 4. Puzzles (dexterity, ne motor planning, strength): It is beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss the visual perceptual aspects of puzzles, but in addition to developing part-to-whole skills and other kinds of visual matching (e.g., with formboard puzzles), puzzles can encourage the development of ne motor skills. Some students have such reduced dexterity that it is challenging for them to insert wooden pieces into a formboard, and they often incorrectly assume that because they cannot physically insert the piece, their initial impulse about where to place it must have been wrong. It is particularly concerning when students correctly surmise where to place a piece, but then assume that their visual assessment was wrong because they cannot insert the piece successfully. These students are provided with puzzles well within their range of ability from a visual perceptual aspect, and are helped to develop the physical strategies for inserting the pieces successfully. They work rst with wooden puzzles, and then eventually work on inserting pieces to Lauri rubber puzzles, which often are more challenging in terms of both nger dexterity and ne motor planning. Puzzles with small pegs on top of each piece are helpful for developing thumb-index nger isolation. 5. Zoo Sticks (strength, motor planning, grasp): This plastic toy has an animal at the top, with two long tweezer tips extending from either side of the body. The child grasps the middle of the tweezers and squeezes to pick up small objects. The therapist scatters cotton balls across the table, and the animals clean up the trash by picking up the cotton balls and transferring them to a container placed in the middle of the table. (Cotton balls have proved to be the most successful material for preschoolers to pick up.) Students with less skilled hands tend to use a sted grasp on the shaft of the tweezers, whereas more skilled students tend to use only their skill ngers (Figure 13-10). 6. Wind-up toys (grasp, strength): Wind-up toys are available in a variety of levels of resistance, as well as with a variety of different kinds of knobs. The larger the diameter of the knob, the easier it usually is for students to turn. Some wind-up toys come with a built-in key-shaped knob, which is typically the easiest kind to wind. Therapists should be familiar with the resistance levels of the various wind-up
Figure 13-10
toys in their collection so they can provide the appropriate level of challenge for a given student. There is remarkable variety in the levels of resistance among the different wind-up toys available. Windup toys are particularly useful because the motor plan for the winding motion is important for functional tasks such as turning the volume knob on a radio, or closing a screw-top jar. 7. Stickers: This activity is good for students who are just learning to isolate the thumb and index nger to pull a sticker from the backing, before the OT session the therapists remove the background paper surrounding the stickers so that it is easier for the students to be able to determine the exact edge of the stickers to pull them off independently. Students begin with large-size stickers and transition to smaller stickers. Eventually they can separate stickers from the background paper with no difculty. Therapists can use a variety of stickers, including the colorful circle stickers of various sizes (which do not have the background paper) available at ofce supply stores. 8. Buttoning (grasp patterns, motor planning): For therapists who have access to a sewing machine, a simple homemade button game can be created using interfacing sewn between two 4-inch square pieces of fabric. Half of the sewn squares have a buttonhole in the middle, and the other half have a button sewn onto them. The game can be graded in difculty, based on the button size. Each set of two sewn squares should have two matching buttons associated with it; one button is sewn to the matching cloth square and the other button is loose. Children rst practice putting the loose button through the hole and pulling it out the other side. Once they understand the concept of putting the button through the hole, they use the button that is sewn to the matching cloth square. At least some of the buttons and buttonholes should
Figure 13-12
Figure 13-11
be large, so that there is room for the therapists ngers along with the childs during the hand-overhand stage of teaching (Figure 13-11). Once children can button and unbutton all of the square sets in the button game, they are ready to button and unbutton a variety of old cardigan sweaters (with varying button sizes to grade the activity for difculty) that are stored in the OT clinic for that purpose. It is surprising how motivating it is to students to button and unbutton a grown-up sweater. (Note: For practice with buttoning an adult size cardigan, the sweater is placed on the table, not worn by the student.) The sweaters also help students to understand sequencing buttons on a garment. Eventually, students work on buttoning and unbuttoning their own garments. 9. Bristle Blocks (strength, visual motor, motor planning): Although a wide variety of classroom-type manipulatives are available, Bristle Blocks are one of the most valuable because they are so versatile. They are initially used as part of a strength-building program, as they can be difcult for some students to join and separate. Once students have mastered the strength component of Bristle Blocks, they are then able to build in a variety of ways. These blocks provide more variety than Duplos, because they can be used in both horizontal and vertical orientations. They encourage the development of eye-hand coordination, and can also be used to encourage the development of representative building (e.g., students can make a table, bed, house), which in turn can facilitate many other areas of development (e.g., visually copying from a model, language, cooperative play). Although all of these activities encourage the development of the muscles needed for ne motor skills, the
therapist needs to attend to how each child performs them. A child with poor hand skill often nds a way to use the less-skilled lateral pinch grasp, even in the bestdesigned activity (Figure 13-12). For children with signicant hyperextensibility in their joints, however, alternative grasp patterns may be necessary for them to perform an activity successfully. Because of their joint laxity, they often do not have a good physical foundation in their ngers to support skilled grasp patterns with small manipulatives. Children with hyperextensible ngers use the limits of their hyperextensible joints to create grasp patterns that provide them with the stability they need for motor tasks. By choosing these alternative grasp patterns, however, they sacrice the ability to use ne, skilled movements because they are choosing stability over skill. Hyperextensible nger joints are not particularly unusual, but they sometimes require that adults working with a child help that child to be successful in ne motor tasks through a variety of adaptations. For example, the dexterity necessary in ne motor tasks perhaps should be reduced until the child is better able to sustain skilled grasp patterns with small objects. Also, the child may use an adapted pencil grasp (rather than the traditional tripod grasp) that provides both stability and skill at the same time. Benbow (1995) stated that
the functional use of the hand depends more on joint stability than joint mobility. Children adopt many ways to make their hands work for them when they lack joint stability (p. 267).
The therapist must know the limits of the childs hand skills well enough to know when to try to elicit a more traditional skilled grasp with manipulatives, and when to recognize that the child is using as skilled a grasp as is physically possible for that child. The preceding list of activities is meant to provide enough examples so therapists will be guided in their ongoing selection of a wide variety of therapeutic activities and toys. Parents, teachers, and children constantly contribute new activity ideas, and many of the traditional preschool activities (e.g., gluing pasta and
278
beans to make collages) provide the same kinds of appropriate ne motor challenges as those listed in the preceding list of Smart Hands activities and manipulatives. When therapists consult with teachers, it is valuable to suggest new activities, but it is even more valuable to point out those activities and toys already available in the classroom that help children to develop good hand skills. One particularly helpful way to provide a workshop at a local nursery school is not only to bring toys from the OT clinic, but also to select toys from the schools classrooms ahead of time so that their merits can be pointed out to teachers. Incorporating the schools toys and materials into the workshop can regenerate teachers interest in toys that previously seemed humdrum.
Figure 13-13
SCISSORS
When scissors are held correctly, and when they t a childs hand well, cutting activities exercise the same intrinsic muscles that are needed to manipulate a pencil in a mature tripod grasp. The correct scissors position is with the thumb and middle nger in the handles of the scissors, the index nger on the outside of the handle to stabilize, and ngers four and ve curled into the palm. The lower handle of the scissors should rest on the distal joint of the middle nger, and the upper handle of the scissors should rest on the distal joint of the thumb (Figure 13-14). The tips of the scissors should be pointing away from the child, and the wrist of the cutting hand should be in extension (Benbow, 1995). When cutting, movements of the ngers should be in the intermediate range of excursion between very flexed and very extended to use the intrinsic muscles to their maximum benet (Benbow, 1990a,b). Many children hold scissors with the thumb and index nger in the handles. This position does not allow for proper control of the scissors, and does not help develop the hand for ne motor skill. When scissors are held in this manner, the scissors movements are performed primarily by the larger muscles of the forearm rather than primarily by the intrinsics (Benbow, 1990a,b). Parents and teachers can make a tremendous difference in a childs hand development simply by teaching the proper scissors grasp. It is necessary to check throughout the year to be sure children continue to use the correct grasp because in the early stages of learning the habit can be lost. The best scissors for children have sharp blades, blunt tips, and small-holed handles. In recent years the trend for childrens scissors has been for the handles to be formed in such a way that they actually discourage the use of the correct scissors grasp. Rather than have children use scissors in their skill ngers, the design of these scissors encourages children to place all four ngers in the handles and keep their index nger on the inside of the lower handle (Figure 13-15). The near-
Figure 13-15 Incorrect scissors grasp, encouraged by a less than desirable scissors design.
Figure 13-14
ubiquitous use of this style of childrens scissors can make it difcult for therapists to reinforce the correct scissors grasp in their students. The Childrens Learning Scissors (available from several sources, see Appendix) and, in rare cases, the Craft Scissors (a larger version of the same scissors, used only for exceptionally large preschoolers) are used exclusively in the Newton Early Childhood Program for all preschoolers. The therapists recommend that community nursery school students who receive after-school OT services be provided with Childrens Learning Scissors for use at home. Because many community nursery schools order low-cost scissors in bulk from educational catalogues, it has been challenging to convince them to purchase the Childrens Learning Scissors, although some local schools do use them. Therapists see a signicant difference in scissors skills between students who use the Childrens Learning Scissors with the correct grasp, and students who use commercial scissors similar to those pictured with an incorrect grasp. Cutting with scissors is an excellent ne motor activity, and scissors activities can be adapted to children of varying skill levels. Three and one-half years of age is the appropriate time for the majority of children to begin learning scissors skills, because before this age most children have not yet developed adequate separation of the two sides of the hand to be able to isolate their skill ngers adequately for skillful scissors use. Young 3-yearolds tend to flex and extend the ring and little ngers along with the other ngers while cutting, and do not inhibit this movement of the nonscissors ngers until 3.6 to 3.11 years of age (Schneck & Battaglia, 1992). Also, the hands of most early 3-year-old children are so small that even the tiniest scissors available have handle holes that are too large to allow for proper control with the correct grasp. When the handle holes are too large, children tend to place most or all of their ngers into the handles, thereby learning the incorrect nger position for skilled use of scissors. A hierarchy of scissors skills used for planning activities for preschoolers is listed in Box 13-3. Many
280
Part III Therapeutic Intervention Hierarchy of Scissors Skills Used for Planning Activities for Preschoolers
sized) markers for drawing and writing. Crayola markers are the most widely used, because the stripe near the writing point provides an excellent visual cue to help children to remember where to place their ngers. The diameter of the writing implement and its effect on pencil grasp recently has been commented on in the literature (Burton & Dancisak, 2000; Windsor, 2000), but a nal conclusion about what diameter is best has not yet been determined. However, it seems that it might be useful for therapists to be flexible about trying smaller-diameter implements in cases in which preschoolers are having signicant difculty developing a skilled grasp on large-diameter drawing implements. Therapists in the Newton Early Childhood Program rarely use crayons with the students who are receiving OT services. This is because markers offer little resistance to make a mark on paper, whereas crayons require signicant pressure. Crayons provide an unnecessary challenge that makes it impossible for some students to develop a skilled grasp with drawing implements. In addition to large-diameter markers the therapists sometimes use large-diameter pencils, and paintbrushes of various handle thicknesses. To encourage students to hold close to the tip of the brush, the upper half of the paintbrush handle can be cut off before use. The normal sequence of development is that children initially use a static grasp on a drawing implement, and then progress to using a dynamic grasp (see tripod grasp in Figure 13-16), with the hand and forearm resting on the table. Because preschoolers are at a malleable stage of ne motor development, and because the preschoolers referred to the Newton Early Childhood Program are considered to be at-risk, the program therapists and teachers encourage children to use either a tripod or quadrupod grasp. The quadrupod grasp is similar to a tripod grasp, except that the ring nger also is on the shaft of the drawing implement. These open web space grasps also are used to perform
BOX 13-3
Grade the scissors activities in this order: / 1. Snip narrow strips of paper, approximately 1 2-inch wide. Teaching goals: a. Learn to position scissors correctly on ngers. b. Learn the cue, thumbs up while cutting (to encourage a neutral forearm position, rather than pronation). The confetti cut by students can be saved in large, clear plastic jars. Students are motivated to cut several strips of paper at a time so they can add their paper to the growing pile in the jar. Another activity at this level of development might be to have the children fringe the edge of a piece of paper. 2. Cut on pre-drawn lines on narrow strips of paper / (1 2-inch wide). Teaching goal: Learning to aim and direct the scissors when cutting. 3. Cut on pre-drawn lines on strips of paper 1 to 2 inches wide. Teaching goals: a. Students begin to develop repeated cutting skills; this means that they do not close the scissors all the way each time they cut, as they did in the previous two stages of scissors skills. b. Students learn to have the helper hand also be thumbs up (i.e. wrist position in neutral) while holding the paper for cutting at this stage. (If the hand holding the paper is pronated, the cutting hand tends to also pronate.) 4. Cut straight-line shapes such as squares and triangles. Teaching hints to provide to students: a. Cut off excess paper as you go along. b. Turn the paper, not the scissors. c. Do not tear the paper when using scissors. 5. Cut rounded shapes. Teaching hint: Keep the bulky side of the cutting project in the noncutting hand.
children can accomplish the rst three levels by the age of 4, and then accomplish the last two levels between 4 and 5 years of age. (Note: Use card-weight or construction-paper weight for all levels. Once students have mastered cutting the heavier weight paper, they can cut regular-weight paper.)
Figure 13-17 Digital pronate grasp, with only the index nger extended.
are familiar with lobsters.) The children are asked to have the lobster hold the stripe at the base of the Crayola marker, and all drawing or writing activities are carried out on a 20-degree slant board. Initially, children should be encouraged to begin a drawing with the skilled grasp pattern, but not be expected to use this grasp pattern for the entire drawing. Once they develop the habit of initiating drawings with the correct grasp, they typically develop the endurance to use the skilled grasp for longer periods each time until it eventually becomes their preferred grasp. Some children quickly develop the understanding of where to place their ngers, but may keep the shaft of the marker under their palm in a digital pronate grasp. With these children therapists might place a sticker at the top of the marker as a visual reminder: If the child cannot see the sticker they know that they need to reposition the marker in their ngers. When the child slips out of using the correct grasp, instead of saying, You need to x your ngers on the marker, therapists can say, Wheres the lobster? This whimsical way of pointing out that the marker is not being held correctly seems to be palatable to children; instead of correcting a mistake they are nding the lobster again.
HAND PREFERENCE
The strongly academic nature of the kindergarten curriculum in the surrounding community dictates that students are more comfortable and successful in kindergarten if they have developed adequate skill for drawing, writing, and scissors use for at least one hand. This means that it is useful to know which of a childs hands is signicantly more skilled. For most students,
282
the preferred hand is clearly evident. For the rest of the students, preferred hand use is observed for a variety of tasks, including but not limited to the following: spinning tops, other one-handed manipulatives (not including wind-up toys), pretend motions (e.g., Show me how you stir the soup, Show me how you brush your teeth), and use of a drawing implement. Parents might be asked with which hand the child eats. Obtaining a family history also can be useful; left handedness may run in a family. Hand grasp strength testing is not useful for this purpose because many people show greater strength in their nonpreferred hand (Clerke & Clerke, 2001). Noting the hand preference for scissors is not always useful, because many left-handed people skillfully use scissors with the right hand. Because the turning motion for the knobs on wind-up toys is in a right-handed skilled direction, many left-handed children turn wind up toy knobs with the right hand. Because many toys and tools in the everyday environment are oriented toward right-handed people, left-handed people typically develop a much greater level of skill using the right hand than right-handed people do with the left hand. It is perfectly functional for students to seem ambidextrous for most manipulative activities, but it is strongly preferable that in the months before kindergarten, they develop a consistent hand preference for writing and drawing, and a consistent hand for scissors activities (not necessarily the same hand). This is acceptable, as long as they are consistent about the hand used for the specic type of task. Children are not encouraged to use one hand more than the other unless there is a signicant and clear difference in ability between the two hands. Most 412year-old children are able to recognize that difference, and choose to use their more skilled hand on their own. If the preferred hand and eye do not match, the child might consistently use the preferred or more skilled hand for drawing, writing, and scissors activities, but lead with the nonpreferred hand (the one that corresponds to the preferred eye) for a variety of manipulative activities. (See also Chapter 9 for more information on handedness.)
Figure 13-18 (Left) Blank S.O.S. grid. (Right) S.O.S. grid game in progress.
BOX 13-4
1. For students with signicantly decreased ne motor skill and control, as well as some visual disorganization, name stencils can be made using oak tag and an Exacto knife. The students can trace the letters error-free with the stencil until they can write their names independently. Another good strategy for early learners is to laminate a copy of their rst name, and then have the students practice by using a marker to trace and erase multiple times over the laminated example. Even at this early stage one should teach students to use top-to-bottom and left-to-right strokes. 2. The adult can write the students name using dots for tracing and have the student trace over the dots. Being very consistent about having them form the letters the same (and correct) way every time helps these students avoid having to reinvent their letterwriting strategy every time they try to write their names. For children with a long name, have them learn the rst few letters independently, and then add on more letters. If they insist on writing their entire name, have them do the rst part independently and then provide dots to trace for the rest of the letters. For a student who is unable to visually understand tracing a series of dots, write the name in yellow marker and have the child trace over it. For students who are unable to remember the direction for the strokes, make a brightly colored dot with a different colored marker at the ends of each line to be traced (therapists often use green for start, and red for stop). 3. Once students can successfully trace their name in dots, encourage them to begin to write the letters independently. During this transition therapists and teachers provide an oak tag strip with a visual model of the name to copy. Large visual models with at least 1-inch high letters work best with preschoolers. For 4-year-olds who have a name that begins with a difcult letter such as S or Z, or letters with any diagonal lines, it usually works best to have them trace the fully written letter rather than just the dots, at least at rst. Students can be encouraged to make a rainbow letter, which means that they trace the already written letter multiple times with several different colors of markers so they can get additional practice tracing a difcult letter. Eventually, the kinesthetic memory helps them to write the letter independently, even though those difcult letters may continue to be challenging for them (from a developmental aspect), depending on their current chronological age.
284
Level 2, whereas others initially need the support of the suggestions in Level 1. If a student is unable to write his or her name independently by the end of the nal preschool year, he or she can use one of the methods from Levels 1 or 2 from this list.
A Fine Motor Program for Preschoolers 285 BOX 13-5 Fine Motor Activities That Children Can Participate in at Home
small amount of food coloring when spraying snow. Students usually begin by using two hands on the spray bottle, and as they grow stronger they are able to use it with just one hand. 4. Prewriting Activities: Parents are asked to provide Childrens Learning Scissors (see Appendix) for either the right or left hand, as needed, large diameter markers, paper, and a 20-degree slant board drawing or writing surface of some kind. Parents often purchase an additional pair of these scissors for the child to use at school. 5. Drawing and Writing Activities: Rather than have preschoolers sit down for work time at home, if a child chooses to draw at home, parents are asked to include the drawing with a letter to a friend or relative. If the child is learning to write his or her name, it can be written on the card or letter. That way, the functional use of drawing and writing is reinforced, and the child is less likely to feel that the parent is trying to act as a therapist or teacher.
1. Cooking Activities: When making cookies, both strength and skill can be encouraged. Children can roll out small amounts of dough with their own small rolling pin, and cut cookies with cookie cutters. Sugar sprinkles should be placed in a small bowl so that the children have to pick them up with their ngertips to decorate the cookies. Children also can participate in tearing lettuce, pressing out pizza dough, pressing toothpicks into cheese squares, and other kinds of food preparation using their ngers. 2. Creating Wrapping Paper: Blank newsprint can be taped to the wall and children can decorate it with ink stamps, sponge painting, markers, or other materials. The paper then can be used to wrap gifts for family members or friends. Older preschoolers can learn to use table tape dispensers (which require ne motor skill and planning) to obtain tape for the package they are helping to wrap. 3. Spray Bottles: These can be used in the bathtub or sink at home, or to spray bushes and plants outside. Add a
Therapists try to help parents understand the importance of using manipulatives rather than writing utensils in promoting hand development. In particular, parents are encouraged to look at commercial toys in new ways. Many commercial toys do it all for the child, particularly some of the electronic games. Other toys, such as games with small parts, tiny blocks, and miniature doll dishes, require skilled nger positions and regulation of the intrinsic muscles that are needed for skilled grasp and placement. Parents are asked to evaluate their childs toys and work toward a balance between the toys that require minimal skill and those that require more skill. Parents learn that although a toy requires the use of the hands, it may call for wrist and arm movements more than nger movements, and therefore may not further the development of ne motor skill. If parents wish, they are encouraged to bring a childs toy to an OT session so that the therapist can use the toy with the child and provide feedback to the parent about whether or not the level of difculty is
appropriate for the childs current developmental level. The ability to analyze the components of both therapeutic and day-to-day activities is one of the most important skills of the occupational therapist. Although it would be impractical to fully educate parents and teachers in this skill, it is possible to teach them to analyze ne motor activities well enough so that they are truly part of a team with the therapist. An involved parent can make important contributions to a childs progress, because once parents understand the concepts behind ne motor development they are able to see activities in a different way. The parents and teachers feel empowered, and instead of feeling mystied or in awe of the therapists special activities, they become contributors in an ongoing process. This kind of partnership strengthens mutual respect and enhances the childs progress. It cannot be overemphasized how important it is for everyone to understand the sequence of normal development, even if they are not taking an active part in providing the activities.
286
CASE STUDY
Tim became a student in an integrated preschool classroom at the Newton Early Childhood Program in the middle of winter, as he had just turned three years old and was eligible for services from the public schools. He had been given a diagnosis of PDD-NOS, with the primary referring concerns including immaturities in his language development, social skills, play skills, reduced eye contact, and apparent unresponsiveness when he was called by name. Before entering the program, Tim had been receiving services from Early Intervention, including physical therapy, OT, speech and language therapy, home visits, applied behavioral analysis, floor time, and a center-based toddler group. Specic difculties noted by his two Early Intervention occupational therapists included heightened sensitivity to tactile inputs, avoidance of vestibular-based activities, overall low muscle tone, and immature ne motor skills. When Tim became a student in the integrated classroom, all of the preceding difculties were noted, although he presented as a student with signicantly reduced attention rather than as a student with PDD-NOS. The OT evaluation that was completed during Tims rst few weeks of school indicated that although he had hyperextensibility in his ngers and reduced ne motor skill (both eyehand coordination and grasp patterns), his most signicant ne motor problem was his difculty intuiting motor plans for using manipulatives. At that time Tim showed a preference for his right hand, but used both hands fairly interchangeably, which is not unusual for a 3-year-old. When picking up small objects, Tim tended to use a whole-hand pattern (raking) rather than the expected pincer grasp. He would even hold the tip of a lacing string in the palm of his hand rather than with his ngertips. Tim also showed immaturities with puzzles and copying designs, so it was recommended that visual perceptual skills also be included in his educational and treatment plan. Tim was referred for OT to address ne motor skills, visual perceptual skills, and sensory integration difculties. The treatment notes from Tims rst OT ne motor session indicate that the session was only 15 minutes long, which was the maximum length of time he was able to participate in structured tabletop tasks. Only ve activities could be presented during that rst session. Instead of using a top with a stem for twirling, Tim used a stemless top that simply required a brush of the hand to make it spin. He also used the Flying Fist toy (the child squeezes the base to make the top portion, the hand, pop off), at which point it became clear that his overall hand strength also was reduced for his age. His rst stringing activity was placing the medium rings (12-inch) onto gimp, which was difcult for him. He did not spontaneously seem to understand that he should place his ngers close to the tip of the gimp; rather, he held far back on the gimp, which made it impossible for the tip to be inserted into the ring. (Like Tim, many young students need cues to hold close to the tip of the string.) Two weeks later Tim could independently string the 2-inch rings because he had learned the motor plan, but his eyehand coordination was still poor. Six weeks later Tim was independently selecting his thumb and index nger to hold the tip of a lacing string, and also was occasionally placing his ngers at the tip of the string without reminders. Tim was, however, unable to use his skill ngers when a new activity, making small balls out of tissue paper, was introduced. Rather, he used his entire hand to make the small tissue balls. A few weeks later, the therapist introduced pop beads in the shape of vehicles, and Tim was unable to recognize the similarity between these pop beads and the regular Fisher-Price pop beads that he had played with at home. He needed full hand-over-hand assistance to be able to use the vehicle pop beads. He was, however, able at that point to string objects with a 18-inch hole, and his bilateral coordination for this kind of task was becoming smoother. A spiral approach for planning ne motor activities continued for the next year, with activities that had been mastered being replaced by similar but new ones, and as those were mastered the original activities were cycled back through the activities list to be sure Tim could still perform the original task that had helped him form the motor plan. Tims tolerance for tabletop work gradually increased so that after 3 months of OT he could work with the occupational therapist and one peer for 30 minutes, and his ability to work at tabletop tasks in the classroom gradually increased as well. Although his attention continued to be a problem, his increased levels of skill, interest, and selfcondence helped him to be able to focus for longer periods of time in the classroom, where there were more distractions than in the quiet, nondistractible, OT treatment space. Tim developed more skill in all the areas of ne motor development, and he was retested at 4 years of age by the occupational therapist a year after his rst evaluation upon entering the preschool program. During his rst year in the program, his preferred hand seemed to have become less obvious. After initially appearing right-handed for a period of time, he now appeared to be strongly left-handed. Later, he began to again use his right hand more often. He showed a consistent preference, however, for his left eye, and his family had a strong history of left-handedness. Although both hands tested below age level for hand grasp strength, his right hand was signicantly stronger than his left. Testing indicated that Tim had some visual perceptual skills that were within age limits, such as his puzzle skills and design copying skills with marker and paper (e.g., vertical line, horizontal line, circle). He continued to show immaturities in the area of hand grasp strength, however, and as scissors activities and drawing activities had been introduced by this time, immaturities with scissors skills and grasp and control of large diameter markers were seen. Tims nger hyperextensibility also contributed to his ne
1
CASE STUDYCONTD
motor immaturities. At that point his ne motor planning difculties were considered to be mild, although still present. His ability to generalize motor plans among similar manipulatives had signicantly improved over his rst year of preschool. With the use of a 20-degree slant board surface, largediameter markers (no crayons), and gentle but consistent reminders about using the correct pencil grasp, Tim made the transition to using a static tripod grasp, and nally developed the beginnings of a mature tripod grasp as he began to rest his hand on the table more consistently. Two years after entering the program, at 5 years of age Tim nally established the consistent use of his right hand for drawing and scissors use. He would occasionally forget and place scissors in his left hand, but after starting to cut he would realize that the scissors were on the incorrect hand and switch them on his own. With markers, he was consistent about using his right hand. His ability to write his name gradually changed from being an arm and wrist skill with the letters lling up an entire page, to being a nger skill. By February of that year, he was able to sign his Valentines with the letters of his name only 12 inch high. Tim worked his way through the more difcult levels of the ne motor skills curriculum, including buttoning activities and multistep manipulatives. His hand grasp strength continued to test at the level of a child approximately 1 year younger than his chronological age of 5, although he was able to open and close all of the containers expected for a child his age, and could turn the knobs on even the most resistive of the wind-up toys used in the treatment sessions. Fine motor planning difculties were rarely seen, and when they appeared Tim was able to learn a new motor task with only minimal verbal cueing, and no physical assistance. Interestingly, the primary area of difculty for Tim during the last few months before he entered kindergarten was in the area of representative drawing. He had learned to draw recognizable, visually organized drawings of people, but had not been able to create any other kinds of representative drawings on his own, particularly multiple component drawings. He had difculty forming a visual plan for a drawing, although he could easily label all the components that might belong in the drawing (his verbal skills had reached age level by this time). He was able to draw a red circle on the paper for an apple, but was not able to make the drawing more complex by adding a stem or leaf, and certainly not an entire tree. After Tim was helped to learn how to draw basic shapes and incorporate them into gradually more complex drawings, he was able to make a small variety of multicomponent representative drawings by the end of the year (5 years, 4 months of age). Many students are able to learn these skills within the classroom setting, with the occupational therapist working naturalistically in the classroom, but in Tims case it was necessary to remove him to a separate, nondistractible room for the OT sessions for the second half of his last year of preschool. Two typically developing peers were brought along as models so the sessions would seem more like a regular school tabletop activity. By the end of the year, Tim had achieved nearly all of the objectives on the Newton Early Childhood Fine Motor and Visual Perceptual Inventory for Children Entering Kindergarten, (Broder, 2004) with the only signicant area of weakness being that he still needed to improve his overall control of drawing implements. (The pre-kindergarten inventory can be found in Appendix 13 B.) His major areas of improvement over the 212 years that he received OT within an integrated preschool setting were in the establishment of a consistent hand preference for writing and cutting, improvements in ne motor planning, major improvements in ne motor skills including cutting, and good progress in pencil control, as well as visual motor activities such as representative drawing and design copying. It was recommended that Tim continue with OT services in kindergarten, primarily to address his continued needs with pencil control and representative drawing ability.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Cindy Broder, OTR/L, for her kind assistance with the editing of the initial draft of this chapter, and for her encouragement throughout this project, as well as for the past 19 years. I would also like to thank my husband, Richard Myers, for his enthusiastic support of this project and his expert help with proofreading.
REFERENCES
Benbow M (1988). Loops and other groups, a kinesthetic writing system. Tucson, AZ, Therapy Skill Builders. Benbow M (1990a). A neurodevelopmental approach to teaching handwriting. Lecture notes from a workshop presented March 8, 1990. Benbow M (1990b): Personal communication, April 16, 1990. Benbow M (1995). Principles and practices of teaching handwriting. In A Henderson, C Pehoski, editors: Hand function in the child (pp. 255281). St Louis, Mosby.
288
Broder C (2004). Fine motor and visual perceptual inventory for children entering kindergarten, unpublished checklist. Burton A, Dancisak M (2000). Grip form and graphomotor control in preschool children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54(1):917. Case-Smith J (1995). Clinical interpretation of Development of in-hand manipulation and relationship with activities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 49(8):772774. Case-Smith J (2000). Effects of occupational therapy services on ne motor and functional performance in preschool children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54(4):372380. Case-Smith J, Pehoski C (1992). Development of hand skills in the child. Rockville, MD, The American Occupational Therapy Association. Clerke A, Clerke J (2001). A literature review of the effect of handedness on isometric grip strength differences of the left and right hands. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55(2):206211. Hopkins H, Smith H (1978). Willard and Spackmans occupational therapy, 5th ed. Philadelphia, Lippincott. Meltz B (1999). Beware this screen, too. The Boston Globe, p. F1, October 28.
Appendix
13A
VERTICAL AND SLANT BOARD SURFACES, AND A VARIETY OF FINE MOTOR MANIPULATIVES, INCLUDING CHILDRENS LEARNING SCISSORS
Therapro at www.theraproducts.com and OT Ideas at www.otideas.com are both excellent sources of ne motor materials. When a toy has been given a proper name in this chapter, it signies that the toy is available under that specic name either on the website of one of these two companies, or from a supplier who can be located using that name with an internet search engine such as Google. At the time of this writing, all of the items mentioned in this chapter could be located through one of these two methods. The Spitz activity books (listed in the references) can be found on the www.theraproducts.com website.
book include Wide Eyed Owl (p. 60), Here Is a Ball (p. 91), A Good House and Different Homes (p. 19), A Kitten (p. 42), Houses and Little Birds (p. 31), My Little Garden and My Garden (p. 35), and In the Apple Tree (p. 22).
FINGER PLAYS
Finger Frolics, revised, by Cromwell, Hibner, and Faitel (Partner Press, available online at www.ghbooks.com) is a good source for nger plays on a variety of different themes. Some of the most useful nger plays from this
289
290
Appendix
13B
FINE MOTOR AND VISUAL PERCEPTUAL INVENTORY FOR CHILDREN ENTERING KINDERGARTEN
Name of Child: _________________________________________________ Chronological Age: ____________________________ Date of Evaluation: ____________________________ Date of Birth: ___________________ Therapist: ______________________
______Skillfully uses a variety of multiple-step manipulatives (e.g., buttoning, wind-up toys, eye droppers). ______Laces using a skilled grasp. ______Builds a block tower of at least 10 one-inch blocks. ______Uses two hands together skillfully for bilateral activities. ______Demonstrates a clear right or left hand preference. ______Uses non-dominant hand appropriately as an assist (e.g., stabilizes paper while drawing). ______Holds primary-sized (large diameter) drawing implements with a skilled grasp. ______Draws and colors using skilled movement: forearm, wrist, ngers (most skilled). ______Draws or colors for ve minutes with good endurance, pressure, speed, and accuracy. ______Draws a recognizable person with at least 8 body parts. ______Draws recognizable pictures with multiple components (e.g., a sun, tree, house). ______Copies horizontal and vertical lines, a plus, and a square. ______Copies right and left diagonal lines, and a triangle. ______Connects dots or completes simple mazes, and draws the lines with control. ______Prints letters of rst name. ______Independently completes age-appropriate 5-10 piece interlocking puzzles. ______Positions preschool scissors on hand with skilled grasp, given one reminder. ______Cuts on a line smoothly and accurately, sustaining rhythm. ______Independently cuts out a square, triangle, and a circle shape, using appropriate strategies (e.g., turning paper so that scissors stay pointing away from body). = Achieved N = Needs further attention
Compiled by Cindy Broder, OTR/L, 2004 Newton Public Schools Early Childhood Program
290
Chapter
EVALUATION OF HANDWRITING
Scott D. Tomchek Colleen M. Schneck
14
CHAPTER OUTLINE
PRE-EVALUATION DATA COLLECTION Writing Samples Interviews Record Review EVALUATION OF RELATED PERFORMANCE COMPONENTS Neuromuscular and Neurodevelopmental Status Visual Perception Motor Performance Formulation of Written Language Sensory Processing ACTUAL EVALUATION OF HANDWRITING PERFORMANCE Domains of Handwriting Legibility Components Writing Speed Ergonomic Factors Keyboarding Performance Commercially Available Assessment Tools SUMMARY
Writing is a way to record information and events; a tool for communication; and a means to project feelings, thoughts, and ideas (Chu, 1997). Occupational therapists are concerned with the occupational performance of individuals in play, work, and self-care activities. In childhood, a major occupation in the area of work is handwriting (Amundson, 1992, 1995; Chu, 1997). It is often one of the rst tasks taught to students. Writing within learning tasks continues throughout the academic careers of children and is used to take
written tests, compose stories, take notes in class, copy numbers for math computations, and communicate with friends and family. Writing continues to be used throughout their lives in the home and work place to write checks, take messages, and communicate with others. Learning to write legibly is a complex task of childhood and therefore it is not uncommon for problems to arise during this learning process. Children may have illegible script, difculties with letter formulation, lack the automaticity of writing, and therefore be unable to keep pace with their peers. As a result, school consequences of handwriting difculties may be noted (Amundson, 2001) and may include the following. A child may be assigned poorer marks for papers with poorer legibility but not poorer content (Chase, 1986; Sweedler-Brown, 1992). A childs slow handwriting speed may limit composition fluency and quality (Graham et al., 1997). A child may take a longer time to complete writing tasks than peers (Graham, 1992). A child may avoid handwriting tasks because it requires so much effort to produce text (Berninger, Mizokawa, & Bragg, 1991). When handwriting impairments that affect academic performance are noted, children are often referred to occupational therapists for evaluation and intervention (Bonney, 1992; Case-Smith, 1996; McHale & Cermak, 1992; Reisman, 1991; Tseng & Cermak, 1993). The occupational therapist is responsible for identifying underlying motor, sensory, cognitive, or psychosocial decits that may interfere with the development of legible handwriting (Amundson & Weil, 1996). The process of evaluation is multifaceted with many interrelated components. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the process of evaluation for handwriting impairments and is grouped into three main components: (a) pre-evaluation data collection, (b) evaluation of related performance components that may be interfering with handwriting, and (c) evaluation of the actual process of handwriting.
291
292
WRITING SAMPLES
Upon referral for handwriting problems, work samples often are offered to substantiate the need for referral. These samples should represent typical handwriting performance of the child (not the worst examples) and be analyzed to determine the types and magnitude of the handwriting difculties seen in the classroom (Amundson, 2001). Comparing these samples to those of peers also may be of benet in determining the magnitude of the difculties, as well as gaining an understanding of teacher expectations. Informal evaluation of the work samples for alignment, size, letter formation, legibility, and slant may indicate need for further evaluation.
I NTERVIEWS
Teachers and parents likely have valuable information about the child that contributes to the assessment process. Teachers can provide information about the childs unique academic strengths and weaknesses in the classroom, as well as the specic curriculum of the class. In addition, the teacher can describe the type of script used (i.e., manuscript or cursive), the style of script used (i.e., DNealian, Zaner-Bloser) and his or her general expectations of the students for handwriting. Specic to the child referred for assessment, the teacher can provide information on the place where the child accomplishes writing, when difculties occur, what remediation techniques if any have been attempted, and his or her feelings on why the handwriting difculties may be occurring. In addition, he or she can provide insight on the childs history of handwriting instruction. Cornhill and Case-Smith (1996) found that students with poor handwriting, as identied by teacher report, scored signicantly lower on three assessments of sensorimotor performance components (eye-hand coordination, visual motor integration, and in-hand manipulation) than students with good handwriting. The authors also found that scores on assessments of these performance
RECORD REVIEW
Reviewing the childs educational le can provide information on past academic performance and any special services that may have been provided to the student. Information obtained from the educational le may reveal a pattern of educational difculty or isolated ndings that may be useful in the assessment of handwriting difculties. This review of information also may require further interview of the teacher. Through classroom observations, examination of work samples, interviews, and record review a therapist is able to identify related performance components and administer assessments designed to determine whether decits in the identied components exist and to what extent (Admundson & Weil, 1996).
VISUAL PERCEPTION
Visual perception is the ability to use visual information to recognize, recall, discriminate, and make meaning out of what we see. Visual perceptual areas include the visual receptive (acuity, convergence, tracking) and the visual cognitive, which include visual discrimination, visual memory, visual form constancy, visual spatial relation, visual sequential memory, visual gure ground, and visual closure. Together, these perceptual skills provide vital information that is used and relied on by many other systems for optimal functioning. For instance, when copying text from a blackboard, we use visual gure ground to select the appropriate text on the blackboard to copy, visual discrimination to differentiate among letters, and visual memory and sequential memory to recall the text to be copied; therefore it is important to distinguish visual perceptual problems from motor problems. Visual-perceptual skills, including visual-spatial retrieval and left-right orientation, enable children to distinguish visually among graphic forms and judge their correctness (Solvik, 1975; Thomassen & Teulings, 1983). Tseng and Murray (1994) reported that the 143 children in their sample of children with illegible handwriting had low scores on perceptual-motor measures. Tseng and Chow (2002) found a signicant difference between slow and normal handwriters in upper-limb coordination, visual memory, spatial relation, form constancy, visual sequential memory, gureground, visual motor integration, and sustained attention. Clinical observations can be used to obtain some informal information of perceptual abilities in children who cannot participate in formal testing. Situations can be devised to assess specic areas or a childs work can be evaluated. For instance, having a child nd a certain toy in a toy box can assess visual gure ground. Asking a child to nd or select an item he or she was shown could be used to assess visual memory. Spatial relation difculties often can be seen when asking a child to accomplish writing tasks, because drawings, letters, or words may be rotated. In addition, alignment and spacing may be a problem. Visual discrimination difculties may affect the childs handwriting in several ways and can be evaluated through observation of the child during handwriting.
294
For example, the child with poor form constancy may not recognize errors in his or her own handwriting and therefore not make corrections to errors. In addition, the child may be unable to recognize letters or words in different prints and therefore may have difculty in copying from a different type of print or handwriting. The child also may show poor recognition of letters or numbers of different sizes or in different environments. If the child is unable to discriminate a letter, he or she may show poor letter formation in handwriting. Children with problems in visual attention may have difculty with the correct letter formation and can be evaluated through observation of the child during handwriting activities. Children with attention problems may exhibit difculty with spelling, mechanics of grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and the formulation of a sequential flow of ideas necessary for written communication. For the child to write spontaneously, he or she must be able to revisualize letters and words without visual cues. Therefore if the child has visual memory problems, he or she may have difculty recalling the shape and formation of letters and numbers (Schneck, 2001). Other problems that may be seen when a child has visual memory problems include missing small and capital letters within a sentence, the same letter may be written in different ways on the same page, and the inability to print the alphabet from memory. The childs legibility may be poor, and he or she may need a model to write. A child with visual spatial problems may show reversal of letters such as the m, w, b, d, s, e, and z and of the numbers 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9. Children with difculty with discrimination of left from right may have difculty with the left-to-right progression or writing words and sentences (Schneck, 2001). In addition, the child may demonstrate over-spacing or underspacing and have trouble keeping within the margins. He or she may show inconsistency in letter size and may have difculty with the placement of letters on a line, or the ability to adapt letter sizes to the space provided on the paper or worksheet. Careful observation and informal assessment can help to uncover problems contributing to poor handwriting. The formalized assessment of visual perceptual abilities usually is reserved for children of school age and older who have higher receptive language abilities, and are able to comprehend the verbal instructions inherent in these tests. Without receptive language abilities near the 5-year level, testing will likely be invalid because the instructions may be too abstract or not comprehended. To maximize performance and obtain the most accurate assessment of the individual perceptual areas, adaptation or simplication of verbal instructions may be necessary. For instance, when giving directions for the visual spatial relations areas, instead of instructing
MOTOR PERFORMANCE
For the purpose of this section, assessment of motor function is divided into the three broad areas of gross, ne, and visual motor development. There is much overlap between these areas of motor performance, in that common performance components (i.e., muscle tone, strength, coordination, visual motor integration) serve as the foundation for skilled motor output. There is also signicant reliance between these motor skill areas. For example, stability aspects of gross motor development are vital in ne motor performance because stability provides a solid foundation from which skilled upper extremity usage is achieved. Both formal and structured observation assessment is described here. Some formalized assessments used to assess gross, ne,
Table 14-1
Instrument
Developmental Test of Visual Perception, Second Edition (DVPT-2)
Ages
49 years
Areas Assessed
Eye-hand coordination Spatial relations Figure ground Visual-motor speed Copying Position in space Visual closure Form constancy Visual discrimination Visual memory Visual spatial relations Visual gure ground Visual closure Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual discrimination memory form constancy spatial relation sequential memory gure ground closure
411 years
Gardner, 1995
412.11 years
Gardner, 1997
1218 years
Visual discrimination Visual memory Visual form constancy Visual spatial relation Visual sequential memory Visual gure ground Visual closure
and visual motor development are identied in Table 14-2. When evaluating any component of motor performance, not only are developmental milestones noted, but also special attention is directed to the qualitative dimensions of the motor skill. Developmental milestones provide evidence of what the child can and cannot do relative to children of a comparable age. A major goal of the assessment should be to determine the source of an observed and documented deciency, that is, why the skill is problematic. Observations made about the qualitative aspects of motor control often pinpoint the area(s) of dysfunction and serve as the foundation for intervention planning. In addition to the value of direct observation of motor skill, observation of contextual aspects of motor skill also enhances understanding of the source of developmental delays.
296
Table 14-2
Instrument
Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-Second Edition (PDMS-2)
Ages
Birth83 months
Areas Assessed
Gross motor: Reflexes Stationary Locomotor Object manipulation Fine motor: Grasping Visual-motor integration Mobility Motor organization Stability Functional performance Social/emotional abilities Gross motor: Running speed and agility Balance Bilateral coordination Strength Upper-limb coordination Fine motor: Response speed Visual-motor control Upper-limb speed and dexterity Locomotor Object control Visual motor control for design copying items Visual motor control for design copying items Visual motor control for design copying items
Birth47 months
Bruininks, 1978
4.514.5 years
Test of Gross Motor Development, Second Edition (TGMD-2) Test of Visual-Motor Skills-Revised (TVMS-R) Test of Visual Motor Skills-Revised-Upper Limits Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration (VMI)
Ulrich, 2000
310 years
balance also have application to the vestibular processing of a child, illustrating the link between sensory and motor responses. Assessment of these gross motor areas often is done within the context of play-based assessment or strictly through observation. Having a child go through a simple obstacle course, for instance, can provide a wealth of information about balance, strength, and postural control. Further, within many clinic settings or natural environments a child has the opportunity to explore his or her environment. In doing so, the child likely ambulates, runs, jumps, or has to climb steps. Situations also can be developed to observe catch and throw abilities. Report of functioning during higher-level bilateral motor tasks such as riding a bike and swimming likely may be obtained from the
caregiver. As can be seen, throughout the evaluation, both developmental milestones are assessed and the quality with which they are accomplished is observed and analyzed. Decits in stability noted during gross motor performance, especially trunk, shoulder, and neck, may or may not be present when a child is seated at a table to participate in handwriting tasks.
298
Table 14-3
Foundation Area
Hand dominance
Manipulation skill
Ergonomic factors
Daly, Kelley, & Krauss, 2003; Maeland, 1992; Tseng & Cermak, 1993; Tseng & Murray, 1994; Weil & Amundson, 1994). The Test of Visual Motor Integration (VMI) has been supported in the literature as a useful screening tool for handwriting abilities. Research suggests that students are ready to engage in formal handwriting instruction once they have mastered the ability to copy the rst nine forms on the VMI (Beery & Butkenica, 1997; Daly, Kelley, & Krauss, 2003; Weil & Amundson, 1994). The researchers have concluded that most children who are typically developing will be ready for standard handwriting instruction in the later part of their kindergarten year. Visual motor integration was found to be the best predictor of legibility for both American and Norwegian children (Solvik, 1995) and a group of Chinese school-aged children (Tseng & Murray, 1994).
As can be seen by this discussion of assessment of motor performance, much overlap and interdependence exist between the areas of motor development. The ultimate goal of the process of motor assessment is to identify the unique strengths and weaknesses of the individual. Both formal and informal assessments determine this vital information. Once skill levels are identied, determining the etiology or source of the documented skill deciencies provides the basis for program and intervention planning.
SENSORY PROCESSING
Sensory processing is a broad term that refers to the way in which the central and peripheral nervous systems manage incoming sensory information from the senses (Lane, Miller, & Hanft, 2000). Basically, sensory processing refers to the sequence of events that occurs as we take in and respond to environmental stimulation. In the assessment of handwritingin addi-
Table 14-4
Instrument
Oral and Written Language Scales (OWLS)
Ages
321.11 years
Areas Assessed
Use of conventions Use of linguistic forms Communicate meaningfully Basic writing Contextual writing Spontaneous formats Contextual conventions Contextual language Story construction Contrived formats Style Spelling Vocabulary Logical sentences Sentence combining Ideation Semantics Syntax Capitalization Punctuation Spelling Composition/essay General writing ability Productivity Word complexity Readability Written language Purpose/focus Audience Vocabulary Style/tone Support/development Organization Sentence structure/variety Grammar/usage Capitalization Spelling
6.614.11 years
818 years
Grades 212
300
tion to visual perceptiontactile-proprioceptive, kinesthesia, and praxis aspects require specic attention. Most of these aspects are assessed through structured observation during task performance and are included in Table 14-3. Tactile-proprioceptive processing is necessary to provide the child with information used to grasp the pencil. Kinesthesia provides the child with information that is used to gauge pressure on the pencil and of the pencil on the paper while writing or coloring. In addition, integration of vision and kinesthesia guides the direction of a writing tool. Children who have tactile-proprioceptive or kinesthesia impairments may hold their pencil too rmly or loosely or write with increased or decreased pressure to paper, both of which can influence endurance and quality of writing. Laszlo and Bairstow (1984) proposed that kinesthetic feedback is essential to handwriting development. They proposed that kinesthetic information has two functions in the performance and acquisition of handwriting: It provides ongoing error information, and it is stored in memory to be recalled when the writing is repeated. If kinesthetic information cannot be perceived or used, efcient programming cannot occur. Levine (1987) proposed that kinesthetic impairment in children might lead to decreased speed of handwriting because of either the excessive pressure needed for kinesthetic feedback or the slower visual feedback used to substitute for kinesthetic feedback. In addition, the child who has tactile-proprioceptive or kinesthesia impairment may continue to require visual monitoring of his or her hand for handwriting tasks. A recent study suggested that kinesthetic training did not improve handwriting legibility or kinesthesis in children; therefore evaluation may not offer treatment options but awareness of decits in the childs underlying components (Sudsawad et al., 2002). Praxis refers to the planning and performance of a motor movement or task, or a series of motor movements or tasks. Impairments in praxis interfere with letter formation and may be seen initially as initiation decits. The child may appear to form the letter differently each time and act as if he or she had never been taught proper formation. Further, praxis can impair building words from letters and writing letters or words on an automatic level. Together, assessment of all of the discussed performance components provides information for the therapist to determine current developmental strengths and weaknesses related to handwriting performance. Noted decits may serve as the foundation for noted handwriting difculties and are used to interpret the ndings of the actual assessment of handwriting performance.
DOMAINS OF HANDWRITING
Evaluating the various domains of handwriting allows the therapist to identify which tasks the child is having more difculty with and address those tasks in the intervention plan (Amundson, 1992). Handwriting skills needed by students are included in Box 14-1.
LEGIBILITY COMPONENTS
Legibility decits in handwriting are often the primary reason for referral for handwriting problems. These
BOX 14-1
Writing the alphabet and numbers from memory requires that the student remembers letter/number formation, their sequence, and maintains consistent letter case (upper or lower). Copying. Both near-point (copying from a nearby model) and far-point (copying from a distant model) are used by students to take notes and communicate information. Manuscript-to-cursive transition requires the student to transcribe manuscript letters and words to cursive letters and words and demands a mastery of both letter forms. Dictation requires integration of both auditory processing and motor responding. Composition is a high level task requiring both written language and handwriting elements.
WRITING SPEED
Coupled with legibility, writing speed is a cornerstone of functional handwriting (Amundson, 1995). In general, speed of handwriting decreases as the complexity of a task increases. Therefore speed of writing needs to be addressed within each of the domains of handwriting to determine the impact of the different task demands. Although speed for copying tasks may be adequate, slower handwriting speed for composition task may indicate coexisting formulation decits. Slow handwriting speed affects functional performance because it prevents students from meeting time constraints involved in schoolwork (Cermak, 1991; Levine et al., 1981). Slow hand writers are different in the way they process written information from normal speed writers. Slow hand writers depend on visual processing, whereas normal speed writers are motor based (Tseng & Chow, 2002). Slow hand writers were poorer as a group than children with normal-speed hand writers in graphomotor output, level of perceptual motor skills, and decreased attention (Tseng & Chow, 2000). Rosenblum, Parush, and Weiss (2003) using a computerized digital system found that nonprocient 8- to 9-year-old handwriters required signicantly more time to perform handwriting tasks and that their in air time, was especially longer as compared to the procient handwriters. In air time refers to pauses, or temporary halts in the flow of writing (Benbow, 1995; Kaminsky & Powers, 1981). The researchers found this phenomenon not as a pause but rather as a motion tour taking place in the air between the writing of successive characters, segments, letters, and words. It may be that the in air time helps the student to prepare to execute subsequent characters or character segments. This time may be needed to parameratize the motor program or initiate activity in the muscle groups needed to execute the character. In addition, the researchers found that the nonprocient hand writers handwriting speed was slower and they wrote fewer characters per minute. Formal assessments of handwriting speed are included in Table 14-5.
E RGONOMIC FACTORS
The ergonomic factors affecting handwriting (e.g., writing posture, grip, stability) have been discussed in the related performance components section, but require further mention here. From the literature, writing tools, paper, and surfaces appear to be important factors in handwriting. In assessing grip it is important to keep in mind the effects of the task and writing tool on the grasp.
302
Table 14-5
Minnesota Handwriting Assessment (MHA) (Reisman, 1999) THS Manuscript THSCursive
810.11 yrs Grades 1-6 Grades 1-6
Age/grade Range:
58.11 years
Domains Tested: Near-point copying Far-point copying Composition Dictation Upper or lower case Manuscript to cursive Sensorimotor X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X No. 2 No. 2
X X No. 2 No. 2
Pencil:
Table 14-5
Minnesota Handwriting Assessment (MHA) (Reisman, 1999) THS Manuscript THSCursive
15-20 minutes 15-20 minutes 15-30 minutes 10-20 minutes 15-30 minutes 10-20 minutes
Time: Administration Scoring 2.5 minutes 3-7 minutes 15-20 minutes 15-20 minutes
Assessed: Rate Quality (types) X L, F, A, Sz, Sp Classication/Rating PR, Std, Sc, St PR, Std, Sc, St Percent Accurate X Sp, A, Sz, F X Sp, A, Sz, F X F, Sp, Sz, A
Scores Yielded:
Reliability: Interrater
0.64 to 0.94 for inexperienced raters and from 0.63 to 0.91 for experienced raters
Intrarater
0.77 to 0.88 for inexperienced raters and from .90 to .99 for experienced raters Ranged from 0.96 to 1 0.60 to 0.89 (ICC) 2000 rst and second grade students from a nationwide sample Psychological Corp On 839 children from a nationwide sample
Test-retest
0.53 to 0.97 for inexperienced raters and from 0.64 to 0.98 for experienced raters Ranged 0.63 to 0.71 for total scores Items and scoring were developed by literature review and eld testing On 1365 children from Dallas County Schools
Validated:
Available:
OT Kids
Author
Continued
Quality Rating Key: L=legibility, F=form, A=alignment, Sz=size, Sp=spacing, Sl=slant, R=rhythm, Ap=appearance Scores Yielded Key: PR=percentile rank, Std=standard score, Sc=scaled score, St=stanine
304
Table 14-5
Age/grade Range:
X X
X X X X X
X X
Domains Tested: Near-point copying Far-point copying Composition Dictation Upper or lower case Manuscript to cursive Sensorimotor
Pencil:
No. 2
No. 2
3 minutes 2 minutes
3 minutes 2 minutes
Table 14-5
Scores Yielded:
Std, Pr
Std, Pr
Reported to be 0.95
Intrarater
Test-retest
Ranged from 0.98 to 1 Ranged from 0.71 to 0.92 On 643 Dallas County School students Author Out of print On 1292 Australian students Helios Art & Book Out of print
Reported to be 0.98
Validated:
Available:
Quality Rating Key: L=legibility, F=form, A=alignment, Sz=size, Sp=spacing, Sl=slant, R=rhythm, Ap=appearance Scores Yielded Key: Pr=percentile rank, Std=standard score, Sc=scaled score, St=stanine
306
Children used a less mature grasp in coloring than drawing (Schneck, 1991). Young children aged 23 to 24 months used a more mature grasp when drawing with a piece of crayon than with a pencil (Yakimishyn & Magill-Evans, 2002). In addition, no difference in grasp maturity was found when using a pencil compared with a marker. Lastly, a more mature grasp was demonstrated when drawing on the easel compared with the table when using a crayon, not with a marker or pencil. Krzesni (1971) found a signicant increase in writing performance with a felt pen. However, Lamme and Aynis (1983) found that writing tools did not affect legibility. Several studies have extended the effects of writing paper on handwriting performance. Lindsay and McLennan (1983) and Weil and Amundson (1994) reported that for beginning writers, lined paper may add an element of confusion and compromise legibility. Krzesni (1971) found the opposite is true for older children; legibility improved with lined paper in 9-yearold children. Halpin and Halpin (1976) compared handwriting quality in kindergarten children with 1and 11 2-inchspaced paper and found no difference. /
KEYBOARDING PERFORMANCE
Sixth-grade students demonstrated low to moderate correlation between keyboarding and handwriting performance (Rogers & Case-Smith, 2002). This suggests that these forms of written expression require distinctly different skills. Most students who were slow at handwriting or had poor legibility increased the quantity and overall legibility of the text they produced with a keyboard. This suggests that it is important to assess keyboarding in nonprocient writers because it may simplify their text production. It may allow certain children to concentrate on content and meaning when composing and encourage them to engage in compositional writing.
SUMMARY
As can be seen by this discussion, the assessment of handwriting difculty is a complex multifaceted process. Administration of a formalized assessment of handwriting alone does not provide the information necessary to determine the root of the difculty or effectively plan a program. Stability, visual perception, motor performance, written language, and sensory processing aspects of development serve as the foundations for developing the skill of handwriting. Thus although administration of a formalized assessment of handwriting can determine the nature of handwriting difculty demonstrated by a child, assessment of the related performance components provides the basis for determining the potential cause(s) of the impairments. Identication of these causes allows appropriate intervention planning to develop remediation of the handwriting impairments.
REFERENCES
Alston J, Taylor J (1987). Handwriting: Theory, research, and practice. Worcester, MA, Billings. Amundson SJ (1992). Handwriting: Evaluation and intervention in school settings. In J Case-Smith, C Pehoski, editors: Development of hand skills in the child. Rockville, MD, American Occupational Therapy Association. Amundson SJ (1995). Evaluation Tool of Childrens Handwriting. Homer, AK, OT Kids. Amundson, SJ (2001). Prewriting and handwriting skills. In J Case-Smith, editor: Occupational therapy for children, 4th ed. St. Louis, Mosby.
308
Gardner MF (1995). Test of visual-motor skills revised manual. Los Angeles, Western Psychological Services. Gardner MF (1997). Test of visual-perceptual skills upper limits (non-motor) manual. Los Angeles, Western Psychological Services. Gardner M (1998). The test of handwriting skills: manual. Hydesville, CA, Psychological and Educational Publications. Graham S (1992). Issues in handwriting instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 25:114. Graham S, Berninger V, Abbott R, Abbott S, Whitaker D (1997). The role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89:170182. Grill JJ, Kirwin MM (1989). Written language assessment. Novato, CA, Academic Therapy Publications. Halpin G, Halpin G (1976). Special paper for beginning handwriting: An unjustied practice? Journal of Educational Research, 69:267-269. Hammerschmidt SL, Sudsawad P (2004). Teachers survey on problems with handwriting: Referral, evaluation, and outcomes. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58:185191. Hammill DD, Pearson NA, Voress JK (1993). Developmental test of visual perception second edition. Austin, TX, PRO-ED. Hammill DD, Larsen SC (1996). Test of written language third edition. Austin, TX, PRO-ED. Hresko WP, Herron SR, Peak PK (1996). Test of early written language. Austin, TX, PRO-ED. Johnson DJ, Carlisle JF (1996). A study of handwriting in written stories of normal and learning disabled children. Reading & Writing, 8:45-59. Kaminsky L, Powers R (1981). Remediation of handwriting difculties: A practical approach. Academic Therapy, 17:1925. Krzesni, J (1971). Effect of different writing tools and paper on performance of the third grader. Elementary English, 48:821-824. Lamme LL., Ayris BM (1983). Is the handwriting of beginning writers influenced by writing tools? Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17:32-38. Lane SJ, Miller LJ, Hanft B (2000). Towards a consensus in terminology in sensory integration theory and practice: Part two. Sensory integration: Patterns of function and dysfunction. Sensory Integration Special Interest Section Newsletter, 14. Larsen SC, Hammill DD (1989). Test of legible handwriting. Austin, TX, PRO-ED. Laszlo JI, Bairstow PJ (1984). Handwriting difculties and possible solutions. School Psychology International, 5:207213. Levine MD (1987). Developmental variation and learning disorders. Cambridge, Educators Publishing. Levine MD, Oberklaid F, Meltzer L (1981). Developmental output failure: A study of low productivity in school-aged children. Pediatrics, 67:1825. Lindsay GA, McLennan D (1983). Lined paper: Its effects on the legibility and creativity of young childrens writing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53:364-368. Maeland AF (1992). Handwriting and perceptual-motor skills in clumsy, dysgraphic, and normal children. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 75:1207-17. McGhee R, Bryant B, Larson S, Rivera D (1995). Test of written expression. Circle Pines, MN, American Guidance Service.
Appendix
HANDWRITING ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS
14A
categories (Legibility, Form, Alignment, Size, and Spacing) for each letter of the sample. Does it give a clinical diagnosis? No.
PURPOSE
The MHA was designed to help meet the needs of many school districts and special education departments that require a handwriting assessment to support the teachers subjective judgment of poor quality or slow rate (Reisman, 1999). It is recommended that interpretive ratings obtained after scoring the MHA be used to guide the need for further assessment and the intervention process.
DESCRIPTION
The Minnesota Handwriting Assessment (MHA) is used to assess manuscript and DNealian handwriting in rst and second graders who have knowledge of the English language. The MHA assesses Rate for the whole writing sample and ve quality categories for each letter of the sample: Legibility, Form, Alignment, Size, and Spacing. Subjective quality ratings are collected and yield interpretive cutoff scores within each category: Performing like peers (top 75% of the nal sample), performing somewhat below peers (within the bottom 5% and 25% of the nal sample), or performing well below peers (bottom 5% of the nal sample). It is recommended that students performing somewhat below peers should be monitored to determine if ongoing instruction or practice is needed or whether the student is demonstrating delayed development of underlying hand skills. It is recommended that students performing in the well-below-peers category be referred for comprehensive evaluation to determine the cause of handwriting difculties.
ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS
Type of Assessment: Near-point copy assessment Task(s): The student is required to copy from a printed stimulus sheet onto lines below the words the brown jumped lazy fox quick dogs over. The mixed word order of the sentence is used to reduce the speed and memory advantage of better readers by requiring all students to refer to the stimulus items word by word. Paper Type: Supplied lined paper with center dotted line Pencil Type: Any size pencil typically used by the student
CONTENTS
What does the schedule try to measure? The MHA assesses handwriting performance. Specically measured are Rate for the whole writing sample and ve quality
311
312
Scoring: After some experience with the instrument (30 samples), scoring time ranges from 3 to 7 minutes. From experience, scoring takes closer to 10 to 12 minutes.
PARTICIPANTS
Children: First and second graders Developmental Level: Grade level
REFERENCES
Ottenbacher KJ, Tomchek SD (1993). Reliability analysis in therapeutic research: Practice and procedures. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47(1):1016. Ottenbacher KJ, Tomchek SD (1994). Measurement error in method comparison studies: An empirical examination. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 75(5):505512. Peterson CQ (1999). The effect of an occupational therapy intervention handwriting in academically atrisk rst graders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cincinnati, The Union Institute Graduate School. Reisman JE (1993). Development and reliability of the research version of the Minnesota Handwriting Test. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 13:4155. Reisman JE (1999). Minnesota handwriting assessment. Los Angeles, Psychological Corporation.
DERIVATION
Writing sample and scoring criteria were developed from a pilot version, through literature review and eld testing with revision.
PUBLISHED MATERIAL
Author/Others: author (Reisman, 1993, 1999); others (Peterson, 1999) Usefulness: The MHA was designed to help meet the needs of many school districts and special education departments that require a handwriting assessment to support the teachers subjective judgment of poor quality or slow rate (Reisman, 1999). Validated: On 2000 rst- and second-grade students from a nationwide sample (Reisman, 1993, 1999) with cutoff scores determined after analysis. Content validity was established in development. Reliability: Interrater ranged from 0.77 to 0.88 (Pearson) for inexperienced raters and from 0.90 to 0.99 for experienced raters. Intrarater reliability (5to 7-day interval) ranged from 0.96 to 1. Test-retest stability (5- to 7-day interval) for performance level ranged from 64% to 86%. Test-retest reliability was conducted in a related study (Peterson, 1999) with at-risk students with correlations ranging from 0.60 to 0.89 (Internal Consistency Coefcient ICC). Additional Statistical Analysis: A special group study was conducted to examine rst- and second-grade students in regular education, special education, and special education plus occupational therapy. Scores on the MHA and Test of Visual Motor Skills (a design copying visual motor control test) were compared with correlations ranging from 0.37 (second grade) to 0.89 (occupational therapy).
DESCRIPTION
The Test of Handwriting Skills (THS) is used to assess a childs neurosensory integration ability in handwriting either manuscript or cursive and in upper and lower case forms, and to measure the speed with which a child handwrites from: writing from memory, upper and lower case letters of the alphabet in sequence; writing from dictation, upper and lower case letters of the alphabet out of sequence; writing from dictation, numbers out of numeric sequence; copying selected letters from the alphabet; copying selected words; copying selected sentences; and writing from dictation selected words. Although the purpose of the THS is to measure how a child (ages 5 years, 0 months to 10 years, 11 months) can write letters, words, and numbers spontaneously, from dictation, or from copying, it is also used to determine the speed by which a child can produce letters spontaneously. Each of the 206 letters in the sample is scored using a four-point scale. The THS provides normative data in 3-month increments for each subtest (standard scores, scaled scores, percentile ranks, and stanines).
CONTENTS
What does the schedule try to measure? The THS measures quality of handwriting in children. In addition to the 206 scorable-language symbols, the THS, Manuscript version (for children ages 5 years to 8 years 11 months) has reversal of letters, letters touch one another, speed of writing letters spontaneously from memory, and converting lower case letters to upper case letters, and vice versa special features. The THS, Cursive version (for children ages 8 years to 10 years 11 months) has in addition to the 206 scorable letters, only one feature: speed of writing letters spontaneously from memory. Does it give a clinical diagnosis? No.
PARTICIPANTS
Children: Ages 5 years, 0 months to 10 years 11 months Developmental Level: Grade level
DERIVATION
Overall test developed based on literature review. Words used in dictation components were determined by a group of 15 teachers.
PUBLISHED MATERIAL
Author/Others: Author (Gardner, 1998); others Usefulness: Quality and rate ndings of the assessment are used to identify both the strengths and weaknesses of a childs handwriting that can be used to develop a remedial program. Validated: On 839 children (Gardner, 1998) from a nationwide sample with normative data determined after analysis. Construct validity was in the moderate range. Concurrent validity studies yielded positive correlations with the TVMS-R, WRAT-3 (spelling component), Bender, and VMI. Reliability: Internal consistency was described as acceptable with reliability coefcients ranging from .51 to .78. Additional Statistical Analysis: None
PURPOSE
The purpose of the THS is to measure how a child can write letters, words, and numbers spontaneously, from dictation, or from copying. It is also used to determine the speed by which a child can produce letters spontaneously. These components of the assessment can identify both the strengths and weaknesses of a childs handwriting that can be used to develop a remedial program. The goal of remediation is to improve a childs legibility of letters, words, and numbers, along with increasing speed of writing.
ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS
Type of Assessment: Spontaneous composition, dictation and near-point copy assessment Task(s): (a) Writing from memory, upper case letters of the alphabet in sequence; (b) writing from memory, lower case letters of the alphabet in sequence; (c) writing from dictation, upper case letters of the alphabet out of sequence; (d) writing from dictation, lower case letters of the alphabet out of sequence; (e) writing from dictation, numbers out of numerical sequence; (f) copying selected upper case letters from the alphabet; (g) copying selected lower case letters from the alphabet; (h) copying selected words; (i) copying selected sentences; and (j) writing from dictation selected words. Paper Type: Supplied unlined paper in test booklet Pencil Type: Standard number 2 pencil
REFERENCES
Alston J, Taylor J (1987). Handwriting: Theory, research, and practice. Worcester, MA, Billings. Burnhill P, Hartley J, Lindsay D (1983). Lined paper, legibility and creativity. In J Hartley, editor: The psychology of written communication. London, Kogan Page. Gardner M (1998). The test of handwriting skills: manual. Hydesville, CA, Psychological and Educational Publications.
314
Pasternicki JG (1984). Teaching handwriting: The resolution of an issue. Support for Learning, 1:3741.
PARTICIPANTS
Children: Third through eighth graders Developmental Level: Grade level
DESCRIPTION
The Childrens Handwriting Evaluation Scale (CHES) is used to assess cursive handwriting in third through eighth graders who have knowledge of the English language. The CHES assesses Rate to copy the passage (consisting of 197 letters) and ve quality categories of the sample: Form, Slant, Rhythm, Space, and General Appearance. Rate and quality are evaluated independently on a ve-point scale: very poor, poor, satisfactory, good, and very good. Percentile ranges can be assigned to correspond with rankings. In addition, percentile, standard scores, T-scores, and stanines are provided for Rate of writing for each grade.
DERIVATION
No information identied.
PUBLISHED MATERIAL
Author/Others: Author (Phelps & Stempel, 1984); others Usefulness: Interpretive ratings obtained after scoring the CHES should be used to guide need for further assessment and the remediation process. Validated: On 1365 third- through eighth-grade students in Dallas County Schools (Phelps & Stempel, 1984) with cutoff scores determined after analysis. Content validity was established in development (Phelps & Stempel, 1984). Reliability: Interrater ranged from 0.88 to 0.95 (ICC). Additional Statistical Analysis: The reasons for need for remediation (performance below the 24th percentile) were studied with 9% needing remediation for quality only, 13% for rate only, and 2% for both rate and quality. In addition, rate scores for the CHES were compared with rate scores for the American Handwriting Scale (1957) (no longer available). Findings showed that students in 1984 wrote at a slower rate than in 1957 and that the AHS yielded more letters of writing at all grade levels.
CONTENTS
What does the schedule try to measure? The CHES assesses handwriting performance. Specically, Rate for the whole writing sample and ve quality categories (form, slant, rhythm, space, and general appearance) for the whole sample are measured. Does it give a clinical diagnosis? No.
PURPOSE
The main purpose is to assess the rate and quality of a students handwriting. It is recommended that interpretive ratings obtained after scoring the CHES be used to guide need for further assessment and the remediation process.
ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS
Type of Assessment: Near-point copy assessment Task(s): The student is required to copy a passage from a printed stimulus sheet directly below Paper Type: Supplied unlined blank sheet with the passage on top Pencil Type: Number 2 pencil
REFERENCE
Phelps J, Stempel L (1984). Childrens handwriting evaluation scale. Dallas, TX, Scottish Rite Hospital for Crippled Children.
standard by which to monitor gradual improvement or immediately dene specic problem areas.
ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS
Type of Assessment: Near-point copy assessment Task(s): The student is required to copy two sentences (57 total letters) on a printed stimulus sheet directly below. Paper Type: Supplied unlined blank sheet with the passage on top Pencil Type: Number 2 pencil
DESCRIPTION
The CHES-M is used to assess manuscript handwriting in rst and second graders who have knowledge of the English language. The CHES-M assesses Rate to copy the sentences (consisting of 57 letters) and 10 quality components in four main categories: Form, Rhythm, Space and General Appearance. Rate and Quality are evaluated independently. Percentile ranks and standard scores are provided for Rate of writing for each grade. With respect to quality ratings, 10 points were assigned to each constituent. When all are present, 100 points are possible with 10 points deducted for each criterion not met. Scores between 10 and 40 are considered poor; between 50 and 70, satisfactory; and between 80 and 100 good. Percentile ranks and standard scores are provided for a quality total score based on rating.
PARTICIPANTS
Children: First and second graders Developmental Level: Grade level
DERIVATION
Derived from the CHES with the same schools used for norming purposes.
PUBLISHED MATERIAL
Author/Others: Author (Phelps, 1987); others Usefulness: It is intended to provide a standard by which to monitor gradual improvement or immediately dene specic problem areas. Validated: On 643 rst- and second-grade students in Dallas County Schools (Phelps & Stempel, 1984) with cutoff scores determined after analysis. Content validity was established in development. Reliability: Interrater ranged from 0.85 to 0.93 (ICC). Additional Statistical Analysis: None.
CONTENTS
What does the schedule try to measure? The CHES-M assesses handwriting performance. Specically, the CHES-M measures Rate for the whole writing sample and four quality categories: Form (small letters are uniform in height and proportion, tall letters are higher than small and suitably proportioned and aligned, correctly formed and recognizable out of context, letters copied correctly); Space (space between letters of a word uniform, space between words adequate and uniform, right margin uncrowded, space between lines uniform); Rhythm; and General Appearance Does it give a clinical diagnosis? No.
PURPOSE
The main purpose is to measure rate and quality of manuscript handwriting. It is intended to provide a
316
REFERENCE
Phelps J (1987). Childrens handwriting evaluation scale for manuscript writing. Dallas, TX, Scottish Rite Hospital for Crippled Children.
ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS
Type of Assessment: Spontaneous composition, dictation, near-point, and far-point copy assessment Task(s): The ETCH-C has the following tasks: (a) writing from memory, upper and lower case letters of the alphabet in sequence; (b) writing from memory, the numbers 1 to 20 in sequence; (c) near-point copying a short sentence; (d) far-point copying a short sentence; (e) manuscript-to-cursive transition a short sentence; (f) dictation three nonsense words; and (g) sentence composition. The ETCH-M consists of all of the preceding subtests with the exception of manuscript-to-cursive transition. Paper Type: Supplied lined paper in test booklet Pencil Type: Standard number 2 pencil
DESCRIPTION
The Evaluation Tool of Childrens Handwriting (ETCH) is designed to evaluate manuscript (ETCHM) and cursive (ETCH-C) handwriting skills of children in grades 1 through 6 who are experiencing difculty with written communication. The ETCH contains seven cursive writing tasks and six manuscript writing tasks, plus items addressing the childs ability to handle the writing tool and paper. The primary focus of the ETCH is to assess a childs legibility and speed of handwriting in writing tasks that are similar to those required of students in the classroom. The ETCH also examines specic legibility components of a childs handwriting such as letter formation, spacing, size, and alignment, as well as a variety of sensorimotor skills related to the childs handling of the writing tool and paper. Subtest and ETCH total scores are calculated as percentages on the basis of the number of readable letters, words, and numbers against possible letters, words, and numbers.
PARTICIPANTS
Children: Children in grades 1 through 6, ages 6 years, 0 months to 12 years, 5 months Adults: Can be used to gather descriptive information related to their functional handwriting performance. Developmental Level: Grade level
DERIVATION
Writing sample and scoring criteria were developed from a pilot version through literature review and eld testing with revision.
CONTENTS
What does the schedule try to measure? The ETCH examines specic legibility components of a childs handwriting (manuscript or cursive) such as letter formation, spacing, size, and alignment, as well as a variety of sensorimotor skills related to the childs handling of the writing tool and paper. These components are measured from spontaneous composition, dictation, near-point, and far-point copying tasks. Does it give a clinical diagnosis? No.
PUBLISHED MATERIAL
Author/Others: Author (Amundson, 1995); others (Diekema, Deitz, & Amundson, 1998; GraceFrederick, 1998; Koziatek & Powell, 2002; Schneck, 1998; Sudsawad et al., 2001) Usefulness: Useful in assessing a childs legibility and speed of handwriting in writing tasks that are similar to those required of students in the classroom. This is useful in analyzing underlying sensorimotor functions of handwriting and assessing handwriting quality to determine the need for intervention and baseline for monitoring progress. Validated: Although one construct validity study (Grace-Frederick, 1998) showed agreement between teacher ratings of poor handwriting and poor per-
PURPOSE
The primary purpose of the ETCH is to assess a childs legibility and speed of handwriting in writing tasks that are similar to those required of students in the classroom.
DESCRIPTION
The Handwriting Speed Test (HST) is a standardized, norm-referenced test of handwriting speed for children and adolescents in grades 3 through 12. It is intended to be used as one component of a multifaceted assessment of handwriting. After a 3-minute trial of copying the words the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog as many times as they can, a letters per minute is obtained and converted to a scaled score. The scaled score can be used in determining the eligibility of students for extra time or other assistance in examinations, identifying children who require intervention for handwriting speed difculty, and evaluating the effects of intervention on handwriting.
CONTENTS
What does the schedule try to measure? Handwriting speed for children and adolescents in grades 3 through 12. Does it give a clinical diagnosis? No.
REFERENCES
Amundson SJ (1995). The evaluation tool of childrens handwriting (ETCH). Homer, AK, OT Kids. Diekema SM, Deitz J, Amundson SJ (1998). Testretest reliability of the Evaluation Tool of Childrens Handwriting, Manuscript. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52:248254 Grace-Frederick L. (1998). Printing, legibility, pencil grasp, and the use of the ETCH-M. Boston, Boston University, Unpublished masters thesis. Koziatek SM, Powell NJ (2002). A validity study of the Evaluation Tool of Childrens Handwriting-Cursive. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56:446453. Ottenbacher KJ, Tomchek SD (1994). Measurement error in method comparison studies: An empirical examination. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 75(5):505512. Schneck CM (1998). Clinical interpretation of TestRetest Reliability of the Evaluation Tool of Childrens Handwriting-Manuscript. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52:256258.
PURPOSE
The HST was developed to provide an up-to-date and objective means of evaluating the handwriting speed of students presenting with handwriting difculties.
ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS
Type of Assessment: Near-point copy assessment Task(s): The student is asked to copy from a typed Handwriting Sample Form onto lines below the words the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog as many times as they can in a 3-minute period. Paper Type: Supplied lined paper with center dotted line Pencil Type: Number 2
318
PARTICIPANTS
Children: Third through twelfth graders Adults: Young adult (high school aged) Developmental Level: Can be used for children with physical disabilities, learning disabilities, or specic handwriting difculties
DERIVATION
Writing sample and scoring criteria were developed through literature review
PUBLISHED MATERIAL
Author/Others: Author (Wallen, Bonney, & Lennox, 1996a,b; Wallen & Mackay, 1999); others Usefulness: The HST was designed to provide an up-todate and objective means of evaluating the handwriting speed of students presenting with handwriting difculties. The HST is a useful tool for determining the eligibility of students for extra time or other assistance in examinations, identifying children who require intervention for handwriting speed difculty, evaluating the effect of intervention on handwriting, and conducting research with handwriting speed as a variable (Wallen et al., 1996b). Validated: On 1292 third through twelfth grade students from New South Wales, Australia schools with normative data determined after analysis. Content validity was established in development.
REFERENCES
Wallen M, Bonney M, Lennox L (1996a). The handwriting speed test. Adelaide, Australia, Helios. Wallen M, Bonney M, Lennox L (1996b). Interrater reliability of the Handwriting Speed Test. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 16:280287. Wallen M, Mackay S (1999). Test-retest, interrater, and intrarater reliability and construct validity of the Handwriting Speed Test in year 3 and year 6 students. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 19:2942.
Chapter
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF TEACHING HANDWRITING
Mary Benbow
15
CHAPTER OUTLINE
DEVELOPMENTAL EXPERIENCES THAT UNDERLIE SKILLED USE OF THE HANDS Upper Extremity Support Wrist and Hand Development Visual Control Bilateral Integration Spatial Analysis Kinesthesia Summary HANDWRITING TRAINING: PENCIL GRIP Tripod Grip and Alternative Grips Remediation of Pencil Grip KINESTHETIC APPROACH TO TEACHING HANDWRITING Cursive or Manuscript Writing Motor Patterns in Cursive Writing Why Teach Writing Kinesthetically? Kinesthetic Teaching Method Kinesthetic Remediation Techniques SUMMARY
The use of tools was a major breakthrough in human history, extending our ability to control our environment. The rst tools were natural objectssticks, stones, and bonesrequiring gross motor skills such as pushing, striking, and throwing. It took thousands of years for humans to develop a tool as precise as a pen
or pencil, requiring intricate ne motor skills. Because the simplicity of a pencil often is taken for granted, it is easy to overlook the complexity of its operation. In the opinion of this author, a pencil is more difcult to use than the most powerful computer from a motor skills perspective. It is no wonder that children, their parents, and their teachers are often frustrated with the results of early experimentation with this advanced tool before the ne motor muscles are ready to function. Boys, whose ne motor development is typically behind that of girls (McGuinness, 1979), have greater difculty managing writing tools and tend to prefer simpler motor tools, such as computer keyboards, Nintendo games, and TV remote controls. Girls face a different problem. Many of them begin to write as early as age 21 2, often with/ out proper adult attention or supervision. Lacking sufcient hand development or guidance, they may adopt pencil grips that are inefcient or even harmful as they pursue their fascination with the letter shapes Big Bird shows them daily. The overall management of handwriting training can be conceived as a kind of triage, in which some children (group A) learn to write well regardless of the method(s) of teaching. At the other extreme a few (group C) are unable to learn the skill no matter what interventions are employed to alleviate their difculties. Most children (group B) fall between the two extremes and readily benet from efcient teaching strategies. Therefore group B should receive the greatest concentration of effort from teachers, occupational therapists, and other professionals. It is simple to distinguish between groups A and B, but much more difcult to separate group B from C. For this reason it seemed appropriate to develop teaching and treatment strategies around the combined needs of groups B and C. Appropriate compensatory or intervention strategies
319
320
should enable most of these children to gain functional writing skill. In the current educational environment of No Child Left Behind, school departments require that children with widely different developmental levels be taught together in integrated classrooms; therefore handwriting instruction demands better investigation and more attention. Professionals must concentrate on related-skills necessary to ensure more consistent success with this high-level skill. They must teach all school children more efciently, thoroughly, and permanently. All students, especially the great variety of children who are subtly delayed, can benet from developmentally ordered physical, visual, kinesthetic, and ne motor experiences. A clearer understanding of the constellation of skills that enable one to write efciently must guide professionals in developing more systematic ways to prepare children for handwriting, as well as to teach handwriting. Occupational therapists are frequently called on for motor evaluations, consultation, and remediation for public school children. Nonfunctional handwriting is the most common reason for referral. For an evaluation to be useful for effective curriculum implementation or intervention, professionals must understand the chain of motor skills that enable a student to write comfortably, automatically, and accurately. The purpose of this chapter is to describe hand skills that make children more adept at operating a pencil. This chapter presents not only the optimal skills for the way the hand should work to produce efcient handwriting, but also the problems that arise when motor components for the skill are absent or less dexterous motor patterns are used. Techniques to promote the development of the foundation skills are presented, along with remediation or compensation techniques for related problems that arise. The nal section on the teaching and remediation of handwriting presents the rationale and method for the kinesthetically based instruction of cursive writing. It should be noted that this chapter does not address language components such as word nding, sentence formulation, punctuation, and spelling, but is limited to the mechanical aspects of writing and cognitive-associative mental processes. Handwriting instruction in American schools typically begins with manuscript writing (printing) and shifts to cursive writing in the third grade. The authors experience has been that the development of functional handwriting can be fostered by an earlier introduction to cursive script. Therefore the discussions of prewriting and writing skills emphasize cursive writing. The cursive versus manuscript writing issue is discussed more fully in a later section of this chapter.
BOX 15-1
Early Education Curricula Goals for Developing Upper Extremity and Hands
1. To stabilize the wrist with ne manipulation of small tools, objects, and writing implements 2. To open and stabilize the thumb-index web space 3. To increase and stabilize the arches of the hands 4. To separate the motor functions of the two sides of the hand 5. To develop two aspects of precision handling, precision translation and precision rotation
hand functions in Box 15-1 are fundamental for all higher-level tool skills.
322
influences the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint. These anatomic principles provide ways to analyze, design, and sequence hand activities that are more effective in developing the constellations of motor patterns for ne motor skills. A tool is an extension of the hand that uses it. Developmental logic dictates that a hand must be skilled before it can skillfully manipulate a tool as an extension of the hand. Activities that facilitate wrist stabilization in extension with precision nger skills can best be done on vertical surfaces above eye level. Such positioning automatically places the wrist into its optimal posture and facilitates abduction of the thumb to work distally with the ngertips. Working above eye level requires holding the arms at a level at which their weight strengthens the muscles and stabilizes the joints of the scapula and shoulder. Enjoyable proximal joint activities include painting on chalkboards with brushes dipped in water or more colorful tempera painting on paper at an easel. Many commercially available toys can be vertically positioned to develop wrist stabilization with distal nger skill. Magna Doodle, Etch-A-Sketch, pegboards, and eye-hook boards can all be fastened onto a wall, set in a chalk rail or on an easel ledge, and secured with an elastic cord if necessary. The important part of each activity is that it is performed above eye level.
Figure 15-3 Small hand scissors designed by author shown with small sponge gripped by the ulnar digits. (Available from OT Ideas, Inc., copyright Mary Benbow.)
wrist and thumb postures, and visual and hand dexterity for their expressive needs. Today skilled artists rarely draw or paint on a horizontal surface.
isolates control in the two radial digits to work in combination with the thumb. Initially a child should practice simply opening and closing the blades. After intended blade movements become rhythmic, introduce tiny straws (which take almost no control from the nondominant hand) to be cut into tiny segments. Advance to oak tag or old playing cards, and nally to paper, which requires the most skill. The nondominant hand must hold the paper taut enough for cutting without tearing.
Develop Two Aspects of Precision Handling: Precision Rotation and Precision Translation
Precision handling requires full range of motion at the CMC joint of the thumb so its pulp can be flexed and placed diametrically opposite each of the nger pulps. From this stable position the multiple variations of the two precision handling skills, precision translation and precision rotation, should be developed and rened. Translation movements require that the thumb and index or the thumb, index, and middle ngers move in synchrony in a toward-the-palm or away-from-thepalm pattern (Long et al., 1970). Needle threading uses a translation-away pattern from the fully flexed translation-toward the palm. Pulling a thread through a needle is an example of translation toward the palmnger pattern.* Writing in a cursive hand requires rapid alternation of toward and away translation patterns to produce letter strokes. Shifting a stiff piece of oak tag through the eye of a yarn needle with the wrists stabilized against each other is an effective way for an older child to practice, speed up, and observe translation movements with the skilled digits. Marks can be placed on the strip to indicate increased length of movement as skill improves (Fig. 15-4).
*The term precision translation is used by Long and co-workers (1970) to describe the movement of an object toward and away from the palm while the grip on the object is maintained. The term has also been used to describe the shifting of a small object such as a piece of lint from the ngertips into the palm.
324
Figure 15-4 Needle threading or translation movement activity. Work to increase distance and speed with the skilled digits. (Copyright Mary Benbow.)
Bead stringing is the classic preschool activity for developing speed and dexterity in the alternating use of translation patterns. However, children who most need to develop this skill often adopt an efcient substitute system. They place the bead over the lacing tip rather than inserting the tip through the bead. Eye-hook lacing boards prevent this skill substitution and provide a more motivating activity for young children (Fig. 15-5). Because children tend to be self-driven to stay with this lacing board activity, it is effective and efcient
VISUAL CONTROL
Manuscript and cursive writing use vision differently in the guidance of the pencil. In manuscript writing the hands output depends almost entirely upon the input and ongoing guidance of the visual system. In cursive writing the visual system should play a less signicant role. For this reason many children with visual motor problems should be advanced to cursive instruction as
Figure 15-5 Threading board designed by author. (Available from OT Ideas, Inc., copyright Mary Benbow.)
Figure 15-6 Form used to observe visual control of pencil. (Copyright Mary Benbow.)
Name:
Numbers 1-10
326
This is seen in manuscript within words, as well as between words. Spacing problems in cursive are usually limited to spaces between words. The ambient system is faulty in providing the spatial component as the hand produces proper formations. When poor efciency in visual-motor orientation is noted in the classroom, a child should be further evaluated by a physical educator because ball and game skills are often impaired as well. Remediation for visual scanning problems is not to be found in paper and pencil activities but in vestibular-based visually demanding gross motor activities. If the child has difculty tracking upward, include activities that require upward gaze such as tossing a ball straight up and catching it at chest level, gently tapping a ball suspended above eye level, racket games, volleyball, and flying kites or airplanes. Alternatively, if the child has difculty tracking downward, bouncing a ball and catching it at waist level is advised. A line or pattern drawn on the floor or sidewalk can make bouncing on a Hippity-Hop ball or riding a scooter board or bicycle more interesting and organizing. Activities demanding rapid movement and visual guidance help integrate visual tracking with body skills. In cursive writing, problems in tracking downward result in poorer control of the loops that descend below the writing line (f, g, j, p, q, y, and z). Alternatively, when children are stressed by elevating their eyes, they may have more trouble controlling the upward moving ascender strokes of tall letters (h, k, b, f, l, and t). Suspect a near-point focusing insufciency when a child can produce a single stroke but is inaccurate in retracing line segments. A therapist can detect a focusing problem most easily on the retraced segments of a, d, m, and t. When these visual motor errors are seen consistently, a referral for a visual examination is indicated.
BILATERAL I NTEGRATION
Bilateral integration and sequencing (BIS) dysfunction is a common cause of motor delays or decits (Ayres, 1991). In addition to well-documented gross motor decits (e.g., postural, equilibrium, and body side coordination), a child with BIS dysfunction is slow to establish a good division of labor between the two hands. By the time most peers are performing well in the graphic motor area, the child is still using the hands interchangeably to do far less sophisticated activities. On paper and pencil tasks the child usually experiences an interruption in crossing the visual midline and produces reversals long after other classmates have resolved this issue. The child is unable to change stroke direction in a continuous flow pattern. This is evidenced as an inability to shift the right under-curving lead-in
Figure 15-7 Example of the incorrect formation of the wraparound letters a and g. (From Loops and other groups: A kinesthetic writing system. Copyright 1990 by Harcourt Assessment, Inc. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.)
for
for
for
Figure 15-8
being aware of it. The childs cursive writing appears to be near vertical as well. Vertical letters are more slowly produced because the wrist has to be repositioned to efciently make the long diagonal down strokes. A later sign of a problem with bilateral integration is the writing of mirror-image letters or numerals. These output errors are more commonly seen when a symbol is produced in isolation. An evaluation of 900 middle school writing samples revealed that the most typical residual reversals of letters in cursive writing were limited to three left-moving capital letters: 3 for E, f for capital J, and horizontally expanded reversed lower case b for capital I (Fig. 15-8). Averting the gaze is an effective accommodation to writing letters that reverse directions abruptly across the visual midline. In writing capitals D, G, and S, the child should be taught the place to halt the pencil progression and shift visual focus. The focal place is usually where the stroke ends, as seen with directions for capital D in Figure 15-9. The child must avoid visually monitoring the pencil point where it recrosses the visual midline to write these letters successfully. An enigmatic problem associated with BIS dysfunction is seen in a childs inability to change stroke direction in a continuous flow pattern. The child feels the need to touch the top of the line and pause before being able to shift line direction. When writing the long ascenders of the loop letters (h, k, b, f, and l), it is nearly impossible for these children to shift the flow of the right ascending lead-in stroke to the left while approaching the top of the line (Fig. 15-10). In these tall loop letters the change of direction is necessary to prepare for the immediate down stroke once the line top is touched. Changing directions in a continuous flow pattern proves to be an intractable writing problem. To develop this sense of direction flow, the child needs to bodily understand the verbal directions as demonstrated by the instructor. The shifting direction of the tall loop stroke is best taught through the shoulder while writing in the air. Stress the inhibition of the right ascending stroke where it shifts leftward and up to the top of the line. Only when the child
Figure 15-9 Special instructions given to children learning to write a capital D. (From Loops and other groups: A kinesthetic writing system. Copyright 1990 by Harcourt Assessment, Inc. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.)
Figure 15-10 Illustration of the problem in changing direction with a continuous flow pattern. (From Loops and other groups: A kinesthetic writing system. Copyright 1990 by Harcourt Assessment, Inc. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.)
can master air writing with the shift of direction should he or she attempt it on paper. Consistent repetition is necessary for kinesthetic success. The difculty of changing stroke direction in a continuous flow pattern also causes a problem in producing the alternating swoop line used to top capital F and T.
SPATIAL ANALYSIS
Children with nonlanguage learning disabilities (NLD), which include difculties with math, nonphonetic spelling, and visualizing, usually lack strategies to analyze geometric shapes, numbers, and letters. These children require detailed letter analysis help to learn to write. Small incremental steps (including starting place, pencil progression, distance and speed at which to move the pencil, and stopping point) must be examined and explained and re-examined and reexplained. Retraces, the point of intersection with leadin strokes, and instructions for the release stroke or
328
connector unit require a great deal of emphasis and repetition. The instructor should point out and stress the similarities of letter forms within the letter groups or they will be missed. Visual and verbal images that give letters their identity are necessary to aid memory and cue the lead-in stroke. Children acquire functional writing more easily when they are speed coached. All motor learning requires that speed be matched to task difculty and the learners level of skill. A therapist can reduce learning time and trial-and-error frustration by explaining where the child should move the pencil slowly and quickly (Benbow, 1990). To hasten developing this sensitivity for all students in the room, initial letter instructions should include speed tips: The lead-in strokes flow more naturally when done quickly; retraces require some visual guidance, so slowing down is advised; speed should be resumed for any single line segment or release stroke that follows. These instructions seem most logical and are usually understood and followed by most second graders. Speed coaching is helpful for children who are struggling with any type of gross or ne motor skill learning. NLD children can learn cursive writing with their peers when the entire class is given detailed visual and spatial analysis and verbal directions for writing each new letter. The relatively good language skills of NLD students should be called upon to support this motor learning. Subvocalizing the motor plan guides writing hand movements. This practice should be continued until the writing is faster than the verbalizing. Writing instructors should be precise in their use of the word line. It is confusing to the student to use the same word to describe top and bottom lines and the space between lines. Instructing the student to make a letter half a line high only adds to his or her confusion. If instructors consistently refer to the top line, writing line, and dotted middle marker, they will not confuse their students. The area between the lines should always be called a space (or half space for letters ascending only to the middle marker). It is also helpful to the child if the writing line is darker than the top line or colored for initial learning and practice sessions. Using the designations writing line, top line, and middle marker, the instructor can easily describe what space the letter should ll. For example, all lower case cursive letters lead in from the writing line and ascend to the middle marker or top line. Seven letters descend to the middle marker below the writing line. Only four letters occupy more than a whole space: lower case f, and capitals J, Y, and Z. Negative shapes are created between lines and letter strokes. If students are made aware of them, these negative shapes can aid in determining whether the letters are written correctly. For example, a triangle is
Figure 15-11 Showing negative shapes created between writing lines and letter strokes. (From Loops and other groups: A kinesthetic writing system. Copyright 1990 by Harcourt Assessment, Inc. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.)
created on the writing line by the lead-in stroke and the lower rounded segment of the letters a and d (Fig. 15-11). Contrasting it with the smaller triangle made on the right side of these letters before the release stroke proves to be an intriguing challenge to the novice for quality control. Readily identiable negative shapes can help the child recognize letter accuracy and serve as a guide for self-correction. These visual cues control for line contact as well. Producing the small triangle at the bases of i, u, w, and t (Fig. 15-12) prevents releasing the down stroke too soon for a good connection or release unit.
KINESTHESIA
Writing is a motor skill and, as with other motor skills, efcient writing depends on kinesthetic input. Motor skills developed kinesthetically, such as riding a bike, keyboarding, or handwriting, are most permanent. In writing, an internal sensitivity that a letter movement feels correct reduces a childs need to visually monitor the ngers or pencil point while moving along the line. This security enhances speed in learning and condence in cursive writing. Kinesthetic writing naturally accelerates over time to functional speed without the reduction of performance quality seen with visually guided writing. The visual system is far too slow and mechanical to monitor the serial chain of nger movements necessary for note taking much beyond mid third grade. Advising a child to slow down (allowing time to visually monitor the writing hand) temporarily results
Figure 15-12 Knowing that the triangle should be small prevents a premature release of the down stroke. (From Loops and other groups: A kinesthetic writing system. Copyright 1990 by Harcourt Assessment, Inc. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.)
3rd
1st
BOX 15-2
1. Desk Top: Place an object (e.g., coin or cube) anywhere on the desk surface within the arc of the childs reach. Withdraw the childs hand to a resting position and ask him or her to close the eyes and reach directly to the object. Grade the activity by having the child place the object with one hand and retrieve it with the other. 2. Blackboard: Sports that have a spatial component (e.g., baseball diamond, golf green) can be sketched on the blackboard. After the child visually and motorically senses the size and shape of the display, have him or her close the eyes, visualize the display, and draw with chalk a run from home plate for a single, double, or home run (Fig. 15-13). 3. Gym: After gaining the feel of movement of pitching like objects into a container, have the child close his or her eyes and use kinesthetic sense to continue the activity. The child should not alter orientation or distance and the objects should be identical in weight and size. The most challenging position for this activity is seated on a one-legged stool.
accurately. Skill in this area is less helpful in predicting the ease a student will experience in learning cursive writing. A Production Consistency Sheet (Benbow et al., 1992) can be used to informally observe a childs kinesthetic aptitude in repeating and spacing cursive letters in words using the kinesthetic sense. Model shapes are displayed in the upper left-hand comer of a / / half sheet of unlined paper (51 2 81 2 inches). Each model is 1 2 inch high. The models include a square, a / circle, a triangle, and a cursive capital A. Instruct the students to duplicate the printed model using a fluid moving stroke(s) rather than a rigidly controlled stroke(s). The four shapes should be drawn in three evenly spaced rows of ve gures. On completion of the fteenth gure, the child is told to close the eyes or avert the gaze and complete a fourth row that looks like and is spaced like the rows above. The quality of the rst three rows reveals the childs visual motor control of horizontal, vertical, diagonal, or circular lines. The consistency of the fourth row is a graphic demonstration of the childs kinesthetic learning potential for both conguring and spacing. The two examples selected in Figure 15-14 were drawn by 10-year-old boys who were classmates in a third-grade classroom. Consistency in shape, size, and spacing is a high indicator of potential for learning cursive writing. In comparing these two samples, one can predict that the child who drew Figure 15-14 A will learn to write with less difculty than the child who drew Figure 15-14 B.
330
Figure 15-14 Production consistency of an average writer (A) and a poor writer (B). (Copyright Mary Benbow.)
SUMMARY
Children who benet from ongoing diagnostic handwriting training usually have identiable problems in one or more foundation skills. The rst is gross and ne motor readiness for cursive instruction. Output or production problems can include difculties with rapid sequential movements (often noted in the childs early history as articulation problems), visual control, bilateral integration, and spatial analysis and synthesis. Feedback difculties include inadequacies in visual and kinesthetic reafferent systems. Developmentally sequenced hand activities should be a major ne motor focus in preschools and early elementary education. Early educators should develop the full potential of childrens hands for all skills because the remediation of prewriting hand skills greatly facilitates the learning of graphic skills. The following sections turn to two specic aspects of handwriting training, pencil grip and kinesthetic writing.
when they lack joint stability. If the MP joint of the thumb is unstable, the web space will collapse when the pulp of the thumb is used to stabilize a tool in the distal ngertips or against another digit. In this case the child will unknowingly substitute the two heads of the powerful adductor and the rst dorsal interossei (internal thenar muscles) for the three more highly skilled external thenar muscles: abductor pollicis brevis, flexor pollicis brevis, and opponens. The substitution of the internal thenar muscles causes the thumb to supinate or rotate away from the posture to allow pulp to pulp opposition (Tubiana, 1984). When using a pen or pencil, the individual wraps the thumb over or tucks the thumb under the index nger to control the stroke. Either grip provides a distal point of stability with the challenge to devise a system to mobilize the pencil proximally. When the web space is closed snugly over the pencil shaft, the thumb MP joint support structures are stressed in an outward direction, and the proprioceptive feedback used to guide and grade ne motor muscles is reduced.
332
Figure 15-16 Prosthetic writing devices. From left to right: Start Right, Solo, Stetro, and the Pencil Grip. (Copyright Mary Benbow.)
Figure 15-17 Pencil grip, showing hyperextension of the distal interphalangeal joint and hyperflexion of the proximal interphalangeal joint. (Copyright Mary Benbow.)
Figure 15-19 Pencil Pal, which reduces the angle of pencil and DIP hyperextension. (Available from OT Ideas, Inc., copyright Mary Benbow.)
BOX 15-3
1. An active metacarpophalangeal arch with three degrees of freedom (flexion-extension, abductionadduction, and rotation) at the metacarpal joints of the two radial digits. 2. Full range of motion at the carpometacarpal joint of the thumb. Full range is necessary to stabilize the open thumb/index web space. 3. Motoric separation of the two sides of the hand. The ulnar side remains inactive to provide stability and shift skill to the radial digits as they work opposite the thumb. 4. Joint stability. Instability is a most prevalent nding caused by lax ligaments. The writing hand may require outside stabilization. Figure 15-18 Illustration of positioning of Microfoam surgical tape on the back of the index finger to improve joint awareness and add joint stability. (Copyright Mary Benbow.)
posterior aspect of the thumb often is sufcient support to make the thumb functional. Taping techniques outlined for the index nger can be applied to the thumb. When the MP joint of the thumb is unstable because of lax ligaments, a neoprene splint can support and protect the joint while writing. Hand structures necessary for tool stabilization with distal manipulation are shown in Box 15-3.
An index gripa forearm, wrist, and pencil grip adaptation to extreme laxity at the thumb MP jointis illustrated in Figure 15-20. The forearm is maintained in mid-rotation between supination and pronation and is solidly stabilized on the writing surface. The pencil shaft is cradled into the flexed index IP joints and extends distally across the third, fourth, and occasionally the fth ngertips. The lead end of the pencil is pointed toward the writers midline. Writing strokes come from a combination of wrist flexion and MP nger extension with minimal thumb IP flexion. Because the writer does not progressively slide the solidly
334
Figure 15-20 Index grip adaptation to extreme laxity of the metacarpal-phalangeal joint of the thumb. (Copyright Mary Benbow.)
Figure 15-21 Neoprene thumb abduction splints. (Available from Benik Corp., www.benik.com; McKie, www.mckiesplints.com; copyright Mary Benbow.)
BOX 15-4
Making the Transition to a Functional Distal Grip More Successful and Less Stressful
1. The instructor demonstrates placement of the pencil positioned between the index and long ngers to make large random patterns using only shoulder and elbow movements. 2. The child imitates the pencil position and makes large free flowing movements following this rigid rule: No nger movements!! No letters!! No numbers!! 3. After the child accommodates to the feel of the pencil in the index/middle nger web space, the child should draw anything he or she pleases. 4. Once the child is at ease with the new pencil position, he or she should be encouraged to write large isolated numbers and letters. 5. When the new grip becomes annoying, the child should temporarily shift back to the former grip. 6. As soon as he or she feels ready, the child should return to the adapted grip. 7. When a child is in control of the alternating time shifting scheme, and experiences comfort and success, he or she tends to use the adapted grip more consistently.
336
disconcerting for many children. The DNealian manuscript program is unique in that letters are practiced with the paper positioned at an angle to take advantage of the wrist flexors in down stroking. Interestingly, this angling of the paper is benecial only when the radial side of the hand is used to guide the pencil to write. However, this placement of the paper is usually demanded of all children regardless of grip. In addition, the eye-hand pattern of top to bottom control of vertical strokes needs to be shifted to bottom to top under curving diagonals. The strategy for gaining an understanding of ball and stick manuscript letters requires whole-to-part analysis followed by synthesis of the parts back into wholes. For many children it is perplexing to alter the process and analyze and integrate movement for the whole letter formation necessary for cursive writing. Again the DNealian manuscript program has been the most successful in reducing segmentation of lines for letter formations. In more than 30 years of experience in the teaching of handwriting, this author has found that second grade is an optimal time for most children to learn cursive handwriting. Student interest is high, and generally students have not yet developed faulty habits of inventive cursive before formal instruction begins. Training activities of combining letters into simple twoand three-letter words to practice letter formations and connector units are at a more appropriate cognitive level for second-grade students. Initiating cursive writing instruction in the fall of second grade allows a full year for students to stabilize this motor learning before the higher volume of written work is demanded at the third-grade level. Curricula that use instructional techniques to accommodate for perceptual and motor delays and decits should enable nearly all children to advance to cursive writing at an earlier age. In schools in which cursive writing is introduced earlier and mastered kinesthetically, there is less confusion with and substitution of manuscript letters with cursive letters. Programming ample time to master cursive writing reduces the number of children who revert to manuscript in middle school when the output volume increases dramatically. The most perplexing problem for parents, teachers, and students themselves is how the student can have excellent ne motor skills and horrible handwriting. Levine (2003) explains that ne motor skills mainly recruit the ngers to manage artwork, origami, or airplane models, which are all navigated by the eyes. Graphomotor functions take place over different neural pathways and require rapid sequential movements guided by ongoing sensory feedback from the digits. The eyes are far too slow to monitor the movement of the digits as they move at a functional speed. Levines
338
Clock Climbers
Kite Strings
Loop Group
Figure 15-22 Letter group named to assist memory in learning. (Copyright Mary Benbow.)
stabilize this new skill. It is estimated that 95% of the letters on a page of writing are lower case, so stress is put on mastery to the automatic level to ensure functional writing speed. During the fall, manuscript capitals are used in combination with lower case cursive letters for all written assignments. Cursive capitals are introduced after the winter holiday vacation. This interval allows time for lower case to become stabilized before the capitals are introduced. This interim signicantly reduces upper case and lower case confusion in children with weak memory for conguration.
Figure 15-23 Practice sheet for distal finger control. (From Loops and other groups: A kinesthetic writing system. Copyright 1990 by Harcourt Assessment, Inc. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.)
Figure 15-24
the arm moves across the paper. If the desk surface is too high, the upper arm will be abducted too far to control the ngers effectively. Figure 15-25 illustrates a properly tted student chair and desk for writing. The childs desk should face the chalkboard where the teacher demonstrates the letters. There may be subjects that can best be learned in cluster or circular seating, but handwriting is not one of them.
Presentation of a Model
The instructor introduces the letter by producing about a 15-inch model of it within the appropriate line space(s) on the chalkboard. While demonstrating each new letter, the instructor should recite each step of the motor plan. Familiar objects in the students environment are used to aid the students in visualizing the movement pattern as they motorically produce the
340
Figure 15-25 Correct sitting posture for handwriting. Knees and hips are flexed at 90 degrees and feet are flat on the floor. The writing surface is 2 inches above the students bent elbow. The top of the chair should be slightly below the students shoulder blade. (From Loops and other groups: A kinesthetic writing system. Copyright 1990 by Harcourt Assessment, Inc. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.)
stroke progression. For example, the lead-in stroke for the letter a should climb up and round over an imaginary clock face between the 11 and 1 oclock positions and stop. The line reverses by retracing this lead-in to 9 oclock (Fig. 15-26).
Preparatory Exercises
Before using pencils and paper, children perform two exercises. In each exercise they are to use the hand posture shown in Figure 15-27. Digits II and III are extended. Digits IV and V are flexed and held down with the thumb to reinforce separation of the two sides of the hand. For each exercise and each practice trial, verbal directions should be voiced by the teacher and the students. The students should use the shoulder movements and hand postures described previously to trace the letter in the air. Simultaneously each student verbalizes the motor plan while following the shape of the chalkboard model. Each student in the class must demonstrate the ability to verbalize the motor plan while following the line of the letter model. When secure in an understanding of the motor sequence, each student closes the eyes and pictures the letter to facilitate visualization of the movement pattern. During the second exercise, students place their elbows on the desk top to write using elbow and wrist movements. Again, they must recite the motor plan as they move their hands to pattern the visualized letter. These preparatory exercises are important to the initial learning of handwriting. The instructor is able to determine which children are unable to visualize the letter with eyes closed or averted from the model letter
SUMMARY
Kinesthetic handwriting training takes the drudgery out of a task that is often difcult and time-consuming. For all children and for their teachers, this provides some benet. For some children, kinesthetic training is the single most effective tool for learning handwriting. Children who benet the most from kinesthetic handwriting training usually have identiable problems in one or more general areas. Developmental gross and ne motor foundation skills for cursive instruction may be less than optimal. Output or production problems may include difculties with visual motor control. Kinesthesia is the key to the lost science of handwriting. Properly understood, it is the basis for understanding handwriting problems and for preventing or remediating them. Kinesthesia can be a curse or a blessing. When a complex motor activity is scientically analyzed, appropriate foundation skills are set, teaching steps are properly sequenced, and the skill is practiced to the automatic level of performance, kinesthesia is a lifelong blessing in the performance of that skill. On the other hand, maladaptive kinesthetic patterns can be
Figure 15-26 Practice sheet for clock climber group (a, d, g, q, c). (From Loops and other groups: A kinesthetic writing system. Copyright 1990 by Harcourt Assessment, Inc. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.)
a curse. When a motor activity is haphazardly acquired at an immature stage of development and reinforced to the automatic level of performance, the kinesthetic pattern can last a lifetime, blocking effective and efcient performance of the skill and frustrating any attempts to modify it. One of the worlds great artists, Henri Matisse, once conrmed the importance of kinesthetic learning (Bernier, 1991). A friend who visited him noticed a sketch in white chalk on the back of his living room door. Matisse explained,
Figure 15-27 Hand posture used in preparatory exercises. (From Loops and other groups: A kinesthetic writing system. Copyright 1990 by Harcourt Assessment, Inc. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.)
I had been working all morning [drawing] from the model. I wanted to know if I had it in my ngers, so I had myself blindfolded, and I walked to the door and drew (p. 30).
342
The process that worked for Matisse is precisely the kinesthetic learning that is most effective for training children in handwriting. In cursive handwriting, as in drawing from a model, if I dont have it in my ngers my work will be slow, crude, and unsightly. This approach allows children to discover what the great artist described.
REFERENCES
American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Infant Sleep Position and SIDS (2000). Changing concepts of sudden infant death syndrome: Implications for infant sleeping environment and sleep position. Pediatrics, 105:650656. Ayres AJ (1991). Sensory integration and praxis tests. In AG Fisher, EA Murray, AC Bundy, editors: Sensory integration, theory and practice. Philadelphia, FA Davis. Beery KE (1997). Developmental test of visual motor integration, VMI-4. Los Angeles, Psychological Corporation. Benbow M (1990). Loops and other groups: A kinesthetic writing system. Tucson, AZ, Therapy Skill Builders, a division of Communication Skill Builders, Inc. Benbow M, Hanft B, Marsh D (1992). Handwriting in the classroom: Improving written communication. The American Occupational Therapy Association Self Study Series. Rockville, MD, The American Occupational Therapy Association Press. Bernier R (1991). Matisse, Picasso, Miro: As I knew them. New York, Alfred A. Knopf. Berninger V, Rutberg J (1992). Relationship of nger speed to beginning writing. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 34:198215.
Chapter
UPPER EXTREMITY INTERVENTION IN CEREBRAL PALSY: A NEURODEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH
Laura K. Vogtle
16
CHAPTER OUTLINE
CEREBRAL PALSY THE NEURODEVELOPMENTAL TREATMENT APPROACH AND PEDIATRIC THERAPY ROLE OF PERFORMANCE COMPONENTS ON OCCUPATIONAL PERFORMANCE THE RELATIONSHIP OF POSTURE TO UPPER EXTREMITY FUNCTION Postural Control in Typically Developing Children Postural Control and Anticipatory Control in Children with Cerebral Palsy SENSATION AND ANTICIPATORY CONTROL IN HAND FUNCTION KINESIOLOGIC ASPECTS OF TRUNK AND ARM FUNCTION Typical Trunk and Upper Limb Interactions Base of Support and Upper Limb Function BIOMECHANICAL INTERACTIONS OF THE UPPER LIMB IN CEREBRAL PALSY Contrasts between Hypotonia and Hypertonia TREATMENT APPROACHES: CONCEPTS OF INHIBITION AND FACILITATION Inhibitory Techniques Facilitation Techniques Combining Inhibition and Facilitation
THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS Physical Status of the Individual TREATMENT PLANNING THE INTERVENTION PROCESS Neurodevelopmental Treatment and Hand Function Efficacy of Neurodevelopmental Treatment SUMMARY CASE STUDY ONE: A CHILD WITH CEREBRAL PALSY CASE STUDY TWO: A CHILD WITH LOW TONE Therapists who treat children with developmental delays, movement disorders, and tone abnormalities such as those seen in cerebral palsy (CP) face signicant challenges in their efforts to provide efcacious interventions. Muscle tone and spasticity are impairments seen in CP resulting from central nervous system (CNS) damage that cannot be permanently changed by means other than medication and surgery. However, therapists can maintain and improve performance in children with CP through their interventions and the use of assistive technology. Clinicians can influence client factors and modify environments that affect the manifestation of muscle tone, its power, and the degree to which it interferes with participation in occupation, thus adding to the potential for client participation. This chapter discusses the therapeutic management of children with CP, focusing on the use of neurodevelopmental treatment (NDT) as an intervention.
343
344
CEREBRAL PALSY
Cerebral palsy is a general term that describes a nonprogressive group of posture and movement disorders diagnosed within the rst 2 to 3 years of life (Koman, Smith, & Shilt, 2004). The apparent causes of CP come from a variety of sources, including maternal infection, prematurity, multiple births, hypoxia associated with birth trauma, and maternal bleeding from premature placental separation, to mention a few (Nelson & Grether, 1999). Although the insult to the CNS is believed to be static, impairments seen with CP include musculoskeletal concerns, muscle weakness, spasticity, vision problems, cognitive limitations, and seizures. Secondary conditions related to the various primary impairments continue to evolve across the life span and include muscle tightness and contracture, joint abnormalities such as dysplasia and dislocation, growth problems, pain, social isolation, and diminished ability to participate in the community through occupations such as education, work, and leisure. Evidence suggests that loss of function seen in typical aging is accelerated in CP, and that the secondary conditions associated with CP become more common and more severe with age (Andersson & Mattsson, 2001; Cathels & Reddihough, 1993; Murphy, Molnar, & Lankasky, 2000; Turk et al., 1997). The incidence of CP over the last 20 years, currently estimated at 2 to 4 per 1000 children, appears to be increasing. This change may result from many factors, including improved documentation of the diagnosis in countries around the world, improved care of premature and sick infants, or other unknown factors (Nelson & Grether, 1999). The movement disorders associated with CP include spasticity, dyskinesia or dystonia, hypotonia, and ataxia. Spasticity is the most frequently occurring disorder and a mixture of various movement disorders are common. The accepted distributions of movement impairment include hemiplegia, diplegia, and quadriplegia (Dabney, Lipton, & Miller, 1997). Although improved care has resulted in typical life spans for persons with less signicant involvement, those with severe quadriplegia and associated conditions may die earlier (Hutton & Pharoah, 2002; Strauss & Shavelle, 1998). Strauss, Cable, and Shavelle (1999) carried out an epidemiologic review of a large database targeting causes of death in CP. Their ndings found elevated death rates from cancer and heart disease occurring at relatively young ages. Although this study awaits replication and support from clinical studies, the ndings are provocative to say the least.
Shumway-Cook and Woollacutt distinguish between motor learning and performance, citing changes in motor performance as being temporary, whereas permanent changes in skilled action result from true motor learning. Clearly for children with CNS dysfunction to change their occupational performance outside of therapy intervention sessions, true motor learning must take place. Current NDT treatment recognizes the importance of motor learning to skilled performance, and the necessity of practicing clientdesignated activities in treatment for changes in performance to occur. Although the Bobaths themselves did not incorporate motor performance into their theory, the Neurodevelopmental Treatment Association Theory Committee, consisting of multidisciplinary NDT instructors in the United States, began updating the theoretic paradigm in the early 1990s to incorporate current concepts with applicability to treatment of persons with neurologic decits. It was at this time that theories such as dynamic systems theory and motor learning were formally integrated into the theoretic basis for the treatment approach (Howle, 2004). One of the challenges for clinicians is the constant need to keep their knowledge current with changes in knowledge generated by science, a challenge the NTDA has taken seriously, as evidenced by the work of the NDTA Theory Committee.
activity or occupation designated as the goal of intervention. Current studies provide a much clearer picture of the role such impairments and movement disorders have on performance skills. For example, Gordon and Duff (1999b) studied the relationship between ngertip force regulation in grasp, spasticity, stereognosis, two-point discrimination, manual dexterity, and perception of pressure sensitivity. Their work demonstrated a clear relationship among tactile perception, anticipatory control (activation of sensory and muscular systems for a specied activity based on prior learning and experience) (Shumway-Cook & Woollacutt, 2001) and task performance; however, it also suggested that the role of the other impairments in performance was dependent on the aspects of the activity being performed. They noted that spasticity appeared to affect the adjustment of grip to object weight and to the length of time between grasping and actually lifting an object, but it did not have a relationship to anticipatory control. The NDT approach emphasizes the importance of postural control and anticipatory postural control, both performance skills in the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework (The American Occupational Therapy Association [AOTA], 2002), to the outcomes of therapy intervention, or areas of occupation. The next section of this chapter discusses postural control and its impact on upper limb function.
346
locates intervention for impairments such as postural control within the desired occupational performance outcome rather than as the primary treatment outcome.
Stapley, Pozzo, and Grishin (1998) studied the interaction of anticipatory postural control and reach in typical subjects. Their work suggested that the use of anticipatory postural adjustments plays a role in activation of upper limb movement from a xed base of support before reach, as well as stabilizing the body during reach.
Researchers have carried out extensive studies over recent years in an attempt to isolate the role of sensation in prehensile and release functions in typical adults and children (Forssberg et al., 1991; Kinoshita et al., 1992; Eliasson, Johansson, & Westling, 1992). This series of studies was followed by a body of research looking at issues of vision, tactile sensation, spasticity, and force generation in grasp and release. Comparisons of these parameters in grasp and release between children with CP and typical children also were performed (Duff & Gordon, 2003; Eliasson & Gordon, 2000; Eliasson et al., 2003; Gordon, Charles, & Duff, 1999; Gordon & Duff, 1999a; Gordon & Forssberg, 1995). This work has established that the grasp and release of children with CP is impaired by decits in tactile perception and processing, difculty with graded control resulting from balanced interactions between muscle agonists and antagonists, and temporal control of movement events (Eliasson & Gordon, 2000). Temporal issues were cited again in the work of Gordon and co-workers (2003), who found that release of objects that varied in weight required more time in children with CP than in typical children, especially when accuracy and speed were necessary. This discussion underscores the notion that motor behaviors, sensory perception, and sensory processing are inextricably linked, and that experience and practice with various motor behaviors helps to build performance and anticipatory control in children with CP. This is true for all aspects of motor performance,
348
Arranging hair on the back of the head, clipping toenails, bathing, and dressing are all examples of activities that require the hand to be moved to a distance away from the body. In typical movements, certain shoulder complex functions are aided by actions of the spine. For instance, rotation and flexion of the lumbar, thoracic, and cervical spine extends the range of reach for items high on a shelf or under a bed. The rotary movements of the shoulder and forearm are particularly important to skilled dexterous movements within and between the hands, both at and away from midline. Removing post earrings, for example, requires the palms of the hands to be facing each other on one side of the body, an action that would not be easily performed without humeral and forearm rotation. Finally, the complexity of wrist and hand movements is signicant and remarkable for the highly complementary nature of the interactions among various structures. Consider playing the piano and the conguration of the wrist and ngers. During an octave stretch, the wrist may be flexed to provide additional range of movement in abduction and extension at the ngers. When a chord is played, the wrist is extended to provide power, stability, and control for the flexed ngers. Knowledge of these kinds of interactions assists the therapist to both understand and treat limitations in occupational performance that involve the hands. Awareness of the complex structures in the hand is critical as well, including the carpal, metacarpal, phalangeal joints, and arches.
A wide base of support, such as the feet widely separated in standing, provides stability for motor functions, whereas a narrow base of support in sitting and standing is more conducive to body mobility. One also needs to consider the nature of the supporting surface; some properties of various surfaces enhance contact with body structures, such as beanbag chairs. Age, the nature of the activity, and the environment are other factors that affect the base of support incorporated by the individual.
In treatment, therapists use inhibition to limit the ungraded force produced by spasticity, to balance unequal power between antagonists and agonists, or to
350
limit those movements that impair smooth coordinated action. Facilitation consists of
strategies employed in therapeutic handling that make a posture or movement more likely to occur (Howle, 2004, p. 260).
It is used to activate, grade and change various movements, and should affect the direction, force and availability of various movements. Specic techniques are used for inhibition and facilitation (Box 16-1). These are discussed next.
I NHIBITORY TECHNIQUES
Inhibition is the primary tool used to manage abnormal posture and tone. Specic hands-on inhibitory techniques such as vibration, use of mobile surfaces, location, position of structures within the treatment environment, and use of various sensory stimuli and speed of movement can all be used to minimize impairments. Vibration in NDT consists of placing the hand on a body area and vibrating or oscillating the location gently and consistently. Use of mechanical vibrators is discouraged because of the noise and difculty grading the intensity of the vibration. This technique is best used when a more global movement or gross motor activity is being performed so as not to interfere with performance. It is particularly useful when managing trunk tone for vocalization or extending the range of movement in the trunk or a limb. As with all inhibitory techniques, one should withdraw the technique during activity performance. Prolonged stretch through weight bearing in both upper and lower limbs is an inhibitory technique used to elongate soft tissue structures and minimize flexion
BOX 16-1
INHIBITORY TECHNIQUES Vibration Prolonged stretch Therapist guidance of movement Use of mobile surfaces Inhibition through activity FACILITATION TECHNIQUES Deep pressure and joint approximation Weight bearing on both upper and lower limbs Vestibular input Environmental modications Sensory modications Combining inhibition and facilitation
FACILITATION TECHNIQUES
The use of key points of control combined with therapist guided movement plays a big role in facilitation. Remember that key points of control are body areas from which the therapist facilitates or inhibits movement. In facilitation, the goal might be to assist the client to open a cupboard door using a more involved upper limb while the unimpaired limb holds and then places an item into the cupboard. The therapist could use either the shoulder or elbow as a key point of control to facilitate placement of the impaired arm on the door handle, a task that the client cannot do without prompts.
352
Various assessments are discussed next, including standardized tools whenever possible.
TREATMENT PLANNING
Planning appropriate interventions and documenting outcomes are aspects of service provision that require careful attention. Setting appropriate goals is the cornerstone of treatment planning. As noted in the OT Practice Framework, the occupations selected as outcomes of intervention should be meaningful and purposeful to the client and family; and successful outcomes are more likely when occupations are incorporated into daily routines (AOTA, 2002). These premises hold true for NDT intervention just as they do for other treatment approaches. Use of activity analysis and the principle of partial participation are useful tools to help build specic skills over time (Vogtle & Snell, 2004). Refer to Table 16-1 in Case Study 1 for one example of activity analysis that is useful when planning NDT intervention. Sensory and motor elements are delineated to assist the clinician in organizing treatment and incorporating strengths of the client. Partial participation, which enables clients to complete steps of an activity that they are able to do with the remaining steps completed by a caregiver, can be planned satisfactorily through the use of this kind of activity analysis (Vogtle & Snell, 2004). Breaking an activity into steps also helps the clinician evaluate treatment outcomes in a more systematic manner. Another aspect of treatment planning that benets from activity analysis and partial participation is the integration of accommodations into interventions. By breaking an activity into steps and sorting out which of those the client can do, modications to promote successful performance can be easily identied and used in treatment. This has the extra benet of giving the clinician the opportunity to see if suggested modications really work before asking families and educators to make them. Tables 16-2 and 16-4 in the Case Studies later in the chapter give illustrations of how a clinician could use an activity analysis to plan treatment. The tables include columns for activity steps, movement components, and facilitation techniques. Organizing treatment into this kind of table can help the clinician develop a plan for intervention that includes aspects of facilitation and inhibition.
Weight shifts can assist in inhibition of tone and facilitate active trunk and upper limb function. Other facilitation and inhibition techniques can be applied during treatment of hand function as well. Gentle vibration or oscillation on the trunk or limbs helps to manage upper limb tone and use of the shoulder or elbow as key points of control facilitates active movements in the wrist and hand. Preparatory activities using upper limb weight bearing prepare the hand for more active hand function by inhibiting tone and improving mobility of wrist and nger flexors. These activities can take place with the child in sitting or standing, not just in quadruped, positions in which upper limb weight bearing often takes place in typical children.
354
this situation include pushing keys on a piano, computer, or toy, pressing stickers onto a surface, making ngerprints in play dough, extending the digit for placement, removal of a ring, and so forth. Those activities that entail pressure (e.g., play dough, pressing keys, stickers) are situations in which weight shifts across the pad of the digit provide alternating deep pressure inputs into the interphalangeal (IP) joints, as well as the MCP joint, a facilitatory technique. The mobility of the carpals and metacarpals of the hand contribute to the arch structures of the hand, wrist flexion and extension, and radial to ulnar side interactions within the hand. All of these elements also play a role in grasp and manipulation between and within the hands. Hypertonic CP commonly results in a predominance of wrist and nger flexion combined with ulnar deviation at the wristresulting in ulnar prehensions. Maintaining mobility in the structures of the hand mentioned earlier while facilitating active movement and the ability to participate in chosen occupations are focal concerns of NDT treatment. Although the prevailing muscle tone in the hand is increased with generalized hypertonia, hypermobility in the IP joints of the ngers and thumbs is common, as well as in the MCP and carpometacarpal joint of the thumb. This combination of increased mobility and fluctuating tone in the spastic hand presents challenges for the therapist and the need to alternate strategies of inhibition and facilitation frequently when working within the hand. Activity demands should be considered as part of treatment as well. AOTA (2002) denes these demands as
. . . objects, space, social demands, sequencing or timing, required actions, and required underlying body functions and body structure needed to carry out the activity. (p. 624).
Specic aspects of any activity are items that should be considered in treatment, and amended or modied when necessary to enable the client to have success in performing the occupation. Nowhere is this more important than when working within the hand. For example, it is common for therapists to choose the smallest possible items to develop skills such as tip-totip prehension. Larger items offer the child better control and incorporate the same movement sequences used in precision prehension; as skill is gained, the therapist can then move on to include small objects in therapy. Practicing occupations during treatment has been emphasized in this chapter. There is a body of research supporting the efcacy of activity practice in children with cerebral palsy (Duff & Gordon, 2003; Taub et al., 2004) and the importance of activity context on practice outcomes (Volman, Wijnroks, & Vermeer, 2002).
SUMMARY
This chapter has described the neurodevelopmental treatment approach to pediatric intervention, and its history, evolution, and current perspective. As reiterated throughout the chapter, NDT is an intervention focused on improving postural control and active movement skills. The therapist bears the responsibility for integrating this kind of approach into function and practice of function. Carryover of movement changes into function does not occur naturally, as once proposed by the Bobaths. Although the efcacy of NDT has yet to be demonstrated convincingly, more recent studies are supportive and suggest that the shift to integration of NDT with functional outcomes has merit in the treatment of upper limb function in children with CP.
356
Table 16-1
Step of Activity
Auditory Component
Movement Components*
Lifts right arm toward the switch using humeral flexion and horizontal abduction. Elbow extension Humeral extension activated to bring hand to switch
Tactile Component
Kinesthetic feedback from the limb moving
Sees switch and uses vision to guide placement of hand on switch Sees scanning array activate when switch is pressed Hears click as switch is activated
Jodie feels the switch under her sted hand Jodie feels the pressure of the switch on her hand increase as she pushes Feels absence of sensation as her hand clears the switch Feels table surface under her hand and arm when she rests them on the table
Uses vision to guide her hand lifting to release switch pressure Sees hand lift off of switch and targets where hand is to rest
Moves arm and rests hand on the surface away from the switch
Moves arm away from the switch using humeral flexion and horizontal adduction; humeral extension is used to lower arm to the table surface
*Because the client has stiffly extended elbows, which become stiffer with efforts at movement, the choice made is to focus on humeral movements to move her hand. Use of wrist flexion and extension also would be helpful; however, these movements are not absolutely necessary to activate the switch.
Table 16-2. The use of these movements for activating the switch were felt to be appropriate because Jodies volitional control of her elbow, wrist, and hand movements was minimal, and the switch could be successfully activated using these movements. In addition to movements to activate and release the switch, she needed to be able to organize and sequence these movements with enough speed to push the switch in a timely fashion when visually cued to do so by the scanning sequence. Thus anticipatory control in her arm (remember that anticipatory control was dened as activation of sensory and muscular systems for a specied activity based on prior learning and experience), postural control and adjustment of her head, and active isolated movements of her right upper limb were other aspects of performance needed for
motor control and learning so that she could initiate, sustain, and terminate movements of the shoulder in sequence to perform the activity. TREATMENT PLAN The organization of the treatment plan for Jodie is detailed in this section and based on a school year with weekly sessions. The treatment plan incorporates both environmental and client factors, as well as practice of the skill being developed during sessions and at home outside of the therapy setting at school. THERAPY GOALS The goals found in Box 16-2 include long-term goals and benchmarks as seen in an individualized educational plan (IEP) write-up. Benchmarks were chosen that support the
Table 16-2
Step of Activity
Moves arm to switch
Facilitation/Inhibition Techniques
Tapping under the humerus to facilitate shoulder flexion and elbow extension; tapping on the medial border of the arm to facilitate horizontal abduction; forward then lateral weight shift of torso across the pelvis to facilitate arm movement in a sagittal then lateral plane Sweep tap across volar surface of the humerus; posterior weight shift of torso across the pelvis to facilitate arm movement toward the switch Active assist from head of humerus or on the forearm to facilitate pressure on hand to activate switch; lateral weight shift of torso across the pelvis to facilitate switch activation Tapping under the humerus to facilitate shoulder flexion and elbow extension; tapping on the medial border of the arm to facilitate horizontal abduction; forward weight shift of torso across the pelvis to facilitate arm movement in a sagittal plane Tapping under the humerus to facilitate shoulder flexion and elbow extension; tapping on the lateral border of the arm to facilitate horizontal adduction; forward then medial weight shift of torso across the pelvis to facilitate arm movement in a sagittal then lateral plane
Moves arm and rests hand on the surface away from the switch
Moves arm away from the switch using humeral flexion and horizontal adduction; humeral extension is used to lower arm to the table surface
use of Jodies right upper extremity for single switch activation working from her wheelchair. Although Jodie does have signicant limitations in postural control, note that postural elements are woven into the treatment but are not identied as long-term goals. THERAPY ENVIRONMENT The therapist chose to intervene with Jodie in her classroom. The rst-grade classroom was broken up into areas, meaning that there were times when floor space was available for therapy with Jodie out of her wheelchair. The therapist brought a therapy bolster to use during sessions. Being in the classroom meant that the same physical setup of the switch and computer was available for practice in a real-life situation in which the therapist could observe Jodies progress. Classmates were present, as was the case during spelling class, and could be available to provide encouragement if approved to do so by the classroom teacher.
HANDS-ON TREATMENT The therapist used four premises upon which to base her treatment. First, tone increases seen in Jodie when she attempts to use her upper limbs will be altered through the use of work on a mobile surface (the bolster), facilitation of forward and lateral weight shifts when reaching for her switch, and use of periodic rapid oscillations to the upper limbs. Second, use of facilitatory tapping and activeassisted hand placement on the switch will be used to help Jodie activate shoulder movements for hand placement, switch depression, and switch release (see Table 16-2). Third, practice of the task will be used to ensure changes in motor performance, motor learning of the skill being developed, and switch activation for computer use. Fourth, tactile enhancement and reinforcement will be used to ensure that Jodie knows when her hand is and is not on the switch to help build anticipatory control mechanisms needed for successful task accomplishment.
358
BOX 16-2
Jodie will be able to depress and release a 4 6 computer switch attached to a computer-scanning program in order to participate in spelling tests with her classmates a. Jodie will be able to lift and place her hand on the switch accurately 80% of the time. b. Jodi will be able to depress the switch to activate a simple on-off toy or object such as a radio 90% of the time c. Jodie will be able to depress and release the switch to participate in a simple computer game with 80% accuracy d. Jodie will be able to activate the switch with sufcient timing and accuracy to complete a 10-word spelling test within a 30-minute period of time e. Jodie will maintain her accuracy at switch activation through out the school day with minimal fatigue
TREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION In this section, sequencing within therapy sessions is described, incorporating the physical environment, therapy equipment, therapeutic facilitation, and practice components. Tone Management and Preparation for Activity Jodie was removed from her wheelchair for the rst 15 to 20 minutes of each 40-minute session. This enabled the therapist to use weight shifts and techniques to modify the dynamic muscle tone Jodie demonstrated whenever she tried to use her upper limbs and gave her practice in use of appropriate postural components. A bolster was used because it enabled the therapist to use two planes of motion: anterior/posterior movements and lateral movements. Jodie was placed on the bolster, either on the far end or straddling it, to enable the therapist to use the movement of the bolster when addressing Jodies muscle tone during activities and to facilitate her active weight shifts while providing a wide base of support. These bolster motions were activated by the therapists use of her own lateral weight shifts and anterior or posterior body movements. At the same time, rapid oscillations of Jodies upper limbs were used to help loosen her stiff arms in preparation for developing the active shoulder movements needed to activate the switch (Figure 16-1). At this point, the therapist had Jodie lean onto her upper limbs positioned on the bolster to help inhibit tone and increase range in her hands as preparation for switch activation. Forward weight shifts accompanied the upper extremity weight bearing, passively accomplished at rst by the therapist leaning forward into Jodies torso and moving her forward. The therapist facilitated the weight shift in
Figure 16-1 Jodie is seated on a bolster with the therapist behind her. The therapist supports Jodies arms at the elbow or slightly below, and moves them in a rapid alternating, up-and-down sequence to reduce muscle tone. The hands can be clapped against each other to assist. The therapist can move the bolster side to side with her own body if needed, and can lean forward to facilitate more trunk extension on the part of the child.
this manner for the rst few times, and then used decreasing assistance as Jodie exhibited the ability to activate a weight shift on her own. Switch Activation This skill was practiced rst with Jodie still on the bolster. Using the bolster allowed the therapist to facilitate weight shifts and shoulder movements and inhibit hyperextension of the trunk during efforts at movement. An adjustable height table under which the bolster was slid helped to support the switch. The switch position at rst was put further back on the table than needed to require an exaggerated forward weight shift to counterbalance the extensor thrust that occurred when Jodie tried to move. Remember at this point that Jodies arms were resting on the table surface at midline so she would not have to move her shoulder high or far laterally to place her hand on the switch. The switch surface could be enhanced with a number of different materials (e.g., carpet samples, various fabrics) to heighten differences between the table and switch surfaces. When Jodie was asked to activate the switch, a series of short taps under her humerus were used to activate humeral flexion (Figure 16-2), then laterally to bring the humerus to the switch, which was placed slightly off to the side (Figure 16-3). Active assistance in placing her hand was also used alternatively to help Jodie develop a sense of what was needed to get to the switch; however, this only occurred on alternate attempts rather than each time she tried to touch the switch.
Figure 16-2 Jodie has been asked to activate the switch but is demonstrating delayed response time. To assist her, the therapist sweep taps on the dorsum of her arm, moving from the elbow back toward the shoulder. The purpose is to give tactile input so that Jodie recognizes which body part needs to be moved.
Figure 16-3 A continuation of sweep tapping is used here; however, the direction has altered. The switch is placed about 15 degrees off of midline and Jodie needs to horizontally abduct her shoulder to hit her target. While the palm of the therapists hand remains under Jodies arm, the tips of her fingers are on the medial border of the arm and tap lightly to cue the change in movement direction.
Placing her hand on the switch and activating the switch were skills that were separated on the goal list but not in treatment. At this early point in learning to activate the switch, the switch was attached to a device such as a radio or fan, items that do not require a great deal of accuracy for successful activation. Once Jodie had her hand on the switch, a tap on either the volar surface of the humerus or the forearm was used to facilitate activation. An assisted weight shift posteriorly helped with switch activation as well, but it needed to be carefully carried out so that Jodie was not pulled backward. Active assistance was used to press the switch, using the same careful guidelines described earlier. A latch switch was used to limit the amount of time the device is active, requiring Jodie to lift her hand from the switch, then depress it again to restart the device. Releasing the switch was facilitated by incorporating the same techniques used to facilitate placing Jodies hand on the switch only in reverse order. Release of objects is a more challenging task for children with CP, as indicated by research in children with hemiplegia (Eliasson & Gordon, 2000; Gordon et al., 2003). Such studies have shown that the temporal aspect of release is a particular problem, which was the case for Jodie when releasing the switch. SEQUENCING THE PLAN The idea was to move Jodie forward in her treatment plan as expeditiously as possible. To do this, she needed to
practice outside of her therapy sessions. Ideally this would occur in both home and school settings, depending on the family and time in the classroom. Another way to manage more practice would be to increase the frequency and duration of treatment sessions. Although this program was developed around the traditional weekly model of therapy frequency, research has demonstrated that massed or intensive practice such as is used in constraint-induced paradigms and other research has better outcomes for children with CP (Duff & Gordon, 2003; Taub et al., 2004). Another critical issue was communication between the therapist and teacher. This assisted in documenting goals and assuring that teacher, aide, and therapist were all using similar techniques and the same equipment. If progress was not seen in a short period of time (2 to 3 weeks), then it would be necessary to re-evaluate the plan and adjust intervention. OUTCOME It was soon apparent that the switch needed to be stabilized on the surface; therefore a slightly inclined easel surface with Dycem under the switch and easel were used to provide stability. Masking tape was used on both home and school table surfaces to mark where the easel went to be sure that the location of the switch was consistent over time.
360
Jodie made rapid progress at placing her hand on the switch. Accurate depression and release of the switch volitionally in a timely fashion took another 2 to 3 months to achieve with frequent dialogue among teachers, therapist, and family. Jodie was motivated, which helped, and had persistent encouragement from her classmates. Her switch activation accuracy initially deteriorated throughout the
day as fatigue set in, so the family limited her home practice to weekends. At the end of 3 months, Jodie could accurately complete a 10-word spelling assignment using hand-activation of her switch in 30 minutes. Fatigue was becoming less of a factor, so her teacher began to add short assignments later in the day.
BOX 16-3
1. Lily will lift the cup from the surface to her mouth a. Lily will place both hands on the cup when it is placed on the surface in front of her. b. Lily will lift an almost empty cup off of the surface briefly. 2. Lily will hold the cup when it is placed at her mouth to take a drink. a. Lily will place both hands on the cup while mother provides over hand assistance. b. Lily will spontaneously place her hands on the cup held at her mouth for a few second. c. Lily will hold an almost empty cup at her mouth with minimal assistance from her mother. 3. Lily will put the cup back on the surface after she has drunk from it. a. Lily will maintain her hands on the cup with maximal assistance from her mother as her mother returns it to the surface. b. Lily will hold the cup briefly when she is nished drinking and then place it. 4. Lily will lift the cup to her mouth, drink from it, and return the cup to the surface.
plantar flexion and return from plantar flexion of her own feet to provide bounces that were timed asymmetrically so as not to be predictable. Firm downward pressure was applied at the shoulders, with the therapists thumbs positioned over the heads of each humerus and the ngers supporting the scapulae (Figure 16-4). Sound production by Lily was encouraged to activate abdominal contraction at the same time. This activity was sustained for 1 to 2 minutes, and then the therapists hand position was shifted
Table 16-3
Activity analysis of drinking from a cup with two hands in supported sitting
Visual Component
Sees cup approaching and set on surface
Step of Activity
Cup is placed on surface; childs arms activate at the sight of the cup
Auditory Component
Person handing the cup may make statement; cup makes sound as it touches the table
Movement Components
Arms move toward the cup; possible components: humeral abduction moves to humeral adduction; elbows extend and hands open Hands grasp cup; humeri are adducted, elbows midway between flexion and extension and forearm midposition, ngers flexing Humeral movement is flexion; elbows move into flexion; ngers flexed
Tactile Component
Kinesthetic feedback from the limb moving
Takes cup
Lily feels the cup on her hands; weight of the liquid gives proprioceptive feedback Feels cup touch her mouth; feels weight of cup on hands and through shoulders Feels weight of the cup in her hands, and liquid in the mouth and throat Feels cup hit the surface and absence of tactile feedback on her hands
Humeral and elbow flexion used to lift the cup to pour liquid into the mouth
to Lilys abdomen and lumbar spine. The hand on the lumbar spine was for support, whereas the hand on the abdomen was used to apply rm downward pressure to continue activation of the abdominals. A movement transition to produce coactivation of trunk extensors and flexors followed. Lily was weight shifted toward the arm of the chair with the key point of control at the pelvis. The goal here was for Lily to put both hands onto the chair arm, producing a bilateral upper limb weight-bearing activity (Figure 16-5). The pelvis was
maintained in a straight plane position while the trunk rotated over it, a position requiring cocontraction of abdominals and trunk extensors. This activity was carried out briefly, and then Lily was facilitated to turn to face her mother with the therapists hands moved back to the abdominals and lumbar spine and downward pressure applied on the abdominals to activate a forward weight shift. Her mother facilitated bilateral shoulder flexion by holding her hands out to Lily. She did not pick up her daughter until Lily reached out with both arms. The
362
Table 16-4
Step of Activity
Cup is placed on surface; childs arms activate at the sight of the cup
Facilitation/Inhibition Techniques
Deep pressure on the abdominals to facilitate trunk and humeral movements toward midline; humeri as key point of control to bring hands together passively then as cue to do so actively; Hands clapped together to give sensory cue to open hands and deep pressure feedback to palms of hands. Anterior weight shift to assist in reaching for and grasping the cup; hands brought to the cup and deep pressure on hands over the cup used to give sensory feedback; approximation through the trunk to facilitate co-contraction of abdominals and extensors Shoulders used as a key point of control to sustain hands on the cup; ulnar side ngers used to tap under the arms to facilitate forward flexion; posterior weight shift used to facilitate arms to lift. Posterior weight shift to facilitate neck flexors and abdominals to hold with head and trunk extended while drinking; shoulders continue as key point of control for entire upper limb Anterior weight shift to assist in reach of arms to the tray; gentle vibration to facilitate ngers letting go of the cup.
Takes cup
Hands grasp cup; humeri are adducted, elbows midway between flexion and extension and forearm midposition, ngers flexing
Humeral and elbow flexion used to lift the cup to pour liquid into the mouth
movement transitions described provided limited vestibular input. More consistent use of rotary movements during transitions provides the kind of vestibular input children achieve themselves through active movements. ACTIVITY PRACTICE OF DRINKING FROM THE CUP Lily was placed in her child-sized chair. The therapist sat behind the high chair and placed her hands on Lilys shoulders. The thumbs were placed along the proximal aspect of the humerus and the ngers rested on the abdomen. Her mother held a half-lled cup in front of Lily but did not place it on the tray. The therapist used pressure on the lateral border of the humeri to bring Lilys hands together and then slipped her hands up over the proximal part of her arms to help Lily clap her hands rmly several times. Her mother then placed the cup on the tray, tapping it to get Lilys attention and asking her to take the cup. A subtle forward weight shift for the reach was facilitated using the shoulders as a key point of control. Her mother cued her verbally again and the therapist waited briefly to see if Lily reached for the cup,
then helped place her hands on it. Firm pressure on the shoulders was attempted to sustain Lilys hands on the cup. When unsuccessful, the therapist slid her hands down over Lilys hands (Figure 16-6). Once Lily sustained her grasp of the cup, tapping under the proximal aspect of the arm was used to facilitate lifting. As Lily became more procient at grasping, the therapist moved her hands back up to the childs shoulder to help facilitate lifting and holding of the cup at the mouth. With further progress, the therapist gradually withdrew her support, limiting the cues needed to generate Lilys participation. The mother could facilitate this activity from in front of Lily in a sitting position using the same key points and sequence of activity. The preparatory activities were taught to the mother as a game to be carried out at different times during the day, as well as in preparation for feeding. OUTCOMES Lily actively resisted the movement transition sequence. After attempting to use it before giving Lily her cup, the therapist chose to discontinue this aspect of the inter-
Figure 16-4 Lily is positioned on the therapists knees facing the therapist. She is supported at the shoulders and the therapist is gently bouncing her, using her own feet to provide the bounces. Firm downward pressure is applied at the shoulders, with the therapists thumbs positioned over the heads of each humerus and the fingers supporting the scapulae.
vention and worked on two-handed reach and grasp of the cup only. Lily was able to reach and grasp with two hands successfully in several weeks. Her ability to keep two hands on the cup while bringing it to her mouth took another month. Lily still refuses to grasp the cup on occasion when irritable.
Figure 16-5 A movement transition to produce coactivation of trunk extensors and flexors is illustrated here. Lilys weight is shifted toward the arm of the chair with the therapists key point of control at the pelvis. The pelvis rotates slightly and one side lifts with the weight shift while the trunk rotates over it. At the same time, Lily moves her hand to the arm of the rocking chair to support herself, producing a weightbearing activity in conjunction with a movement transition.
Figure 16-6 In this figure, the child is having difficulty sustaining her grasp on the surface of the cup. To cue her, the therapist places her hands over Lilys and applies gentle pressure over Lilys wrists and hands to support the cup and give her sensory feedback about the task. As Lily becomes more proficient, the therapist can slide her hands back up the forearms to guide the movement while Lily maintains her grip on the cup independently.
364
REFERENCES
American Occupational Therapy Association (1994). Uniform terminology for occupational therapy, 3rd ed. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48:10471059. American Occupational Therapy Association (2002). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56:609639. Andersson C, Mattsson E (2001). Adults with cerebral palsy: A survey describing problems, needs, and resources, with special emphasis on locomotion. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 43:7682. Asher I (1996). Occupational therapy assessment tools: An annotated index, 2nd ed. Rockville, MD, American Occupational Therapy Association. Bertenthal B, Von Hofsten C (1998). Eye, head and trunk control: The foundation for manual development. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 22(4):515520. Blanche E, Botticelli T, Hallway M (1995). Combining neuro-developmental treatment and sensory integration principles: An approach to pediatric therapy. San Antonio, TX, Therapy Skill Builders. Bobath B (1955). The treatment of movement disorders of pyramidal and extra-pyramidal origin by reflex inhibition and by facilitation of movements. Physiotherapy, 41:146153. Bobath B, Bobath K (1984). The neuro-developmental treatment. In D Scrutton, editor: Management of the motor disorders of children with cerebral palsy (pp. 618). Philadelphia, JB Lippincott. Bohannon R, Smith MB (1987). Interrater reliability of a modied Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Physical Therapy, 67:206207. Boyce WF, Gowland C, Rosenbaum P, Lane M, Plews N, Goldsmith CH, Russell J, Wright V, Potter S, Harding D (1995). The Gross Motor Performance Measure: Validity and responsiveness of a measure of quality of movement. Physical Therapy, 75:603613. Brown GT, Burns SA (2001). The efcacy of neurodevelopmental treatment in paediatrics: A systematic review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64(5):235244. Butler C, Darrah J (2001). Effects of neurodevelopmental treatment (NDT) for cerebral palsy: An AACPDM evidence report. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 43:778790. Cathels B, Reddihough DS (1993). The health care of young adults with cerebral palsy. The Medical Journal of Australia, 15:444446. Dabney KW, Lipton GE, Miller F (1997). Cerebral palsy. Current Opinions in Pediatrics, 9:8188. Damiano DL, Vaughan CL, Abel MF (1995). Muscle response to heavy resistance exercise in children with spastic cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 37:731740. Darrah J, Wessel J, Nearingburg P, OConnor M (1999). Evaluation of a community tness program for adolescents with cerebral palsy. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 11:1823. Dodd KJ, Taylor NF, Damiano DL (2002). A systematic review of the effectiveness of strength-training programs for people with cerebral palsy. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 83:11571164.
Chapter
PEDIATRIC HAND THERAPY
Dorit Haenosh Aaron
17
CHAPTER OUTLINE
PHASES OF WOUND HEALING Phase I Phase II Phase III EVALUATION OF THE CHILD WITH A HAND INJURY Interview and History Hand Range of Motion Hand Strength Hand Dexterity Wound, Edema, and Scare Pain Hand Sensibility Activities of Daily Living TREATMENT OF TRAUMATIC HAND INJURIES IN CHILDREN Wrist Pain and Wrist Fractures Fractures and Dislocations of the Digits Tendon Injuries Thermal Hand Injuries in Children TREATMENT OF CONGENITAL HAND DIFFERENCES Syndactyly Radial Club Hand SUMMARY Observing a child at play makes it easy to understand why the hand is one of the most frequently injured body parts. Children must touch what they see and, if the mind can conceive it, the hand will attempt it. The hand is the primary instrument of discovery. Although discovery is a function of the mind, it involves the eyes,
torso, shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand to accomplish a task. Scientic evidence on pediatric hand rehabilitation is sparse. Thus this chapter is based primarily on the authors clinical experience. Additional information is included when available. Hand conditions are challenging in and of themselves. When they occur in a child, consideration must be given not only to the pathology, stages and rate of healing, and functional implications, but also to the stage of development. When treating a child attention must be given to the childs age, growth, maturity, ability to participate in his or her own recovery, as well as parental or guardian involvement. These additional considerations make treating the child rewarding, as well as challenging. The childs hand differs from adults in that it is a growing hand of a developing child. The growing hand changes rapidly in its physical size, manipulation skills, strength, and control; as does the childs ability to follow directions and participate in rehabilitation. Injuries to growth plates may affect the way the childs bone grows in length and direction. Fat pads may obscure swelling. Congenital differences may affect any structure of the hand and thus influence function. Therefore, when treating the child with a congenital difference, determine what the child can do at present and identify realistic expectations for the individual, rather than focusing on what the child cannot do or comparing the child to the general population. In general, children have a better prognosis for recovery from hand injuries than do adults. Stiffness is less frequent, open wounds heal faster, remodeling of angular deformities may occur, and nerve recovery after repair is signicantly better than for adults (Davis & Crick, 1988). Fetter-Zarzeka and Joseph (2002) examined the etiologies of hand injuries in children and concluded that the most frequent injuries occurred outdoors (47%), injuries occurred specically from sports, and the most frequent injuries were lacerations
367
368
(30%) followed by fractures (16%). The ngers were the most commonly injured part of the hand, with thumb injuries found in 19% of the cases and ngertip injuries found in 21% of the cases (Fetter-Zarzeka & Joseph, 2002; Damore et al., 2003). Most pediatric hand and wrist injuries can be treated nonoperatively with protective immobilization and activity modication. However, cases that require surgical intervention must be recognized early to avoid complications (Le & Hentz, 2000). The goal of this chapter is to provide basic information to therapists to facilitate effective evaluation and treatment for hand conditions occurring in pediatric patients. This chapter covers the stages of wound healing and evaluation considerations by age as the baseline for making clinical decisions. Evaluation and treatment suggestions for common traumatic and congenital hand conditions in the child also are included.
PHASE I
Names: Inflammatory, Clot, Substrate, Lag, or Exudates Phase Duration: From Wounding Up to 6 Days
Phase I prepares the wound for healing by cleaning up debris, foreign material, and any devitalized tissue caused by the trauma. It has both vascular and cellular responses. Initially there is vasoconstriction followed by vasodilatation. A clot is formed to prevent bleeding and phagocytosis begins. The normal inflammatory phase should be over in 5 to 6 days. However, a dirty wound, in which the debris was not successfully cleaned up, may develop into a subacute or chronic phase of inflammation.
Clinical Signs
Redness: Vasodilation Swelling: Increase of interstitial fluid Pain: Nerve ending stimulation Heat: Increase in blood flow Hematoma: Trapped red blood cells creating a clot decrease functional ability
Clinical Implications
The extremity is swollen and painful. Thus effort must be made to decrease edema, control pain, and maintain a clean environment. All affected joints should be placed in a functional position if possible. The functional position is one in which the wrist is in neutral to 20 degrees of extension, the metacarpophalangeal joint (MP) is in 60 to 70 degrees of flexion, the interphalangeal joints (IPs) are extended, and the thumb is in mid position between full abduction and full extension. Variations of this position depend on the injury. This position must serve to both protect the wound and to prepare the joint for future functional performance. Nonaffected joints should be free to move within the constraints of the injury. Physical agents can be used. An edematous hand in the early phases of inflammation responds to cold to help decrease the swelling. Cold constricts the vessels, slowing down the active edema process; however, it is rarely appropriate for the infant or toddler. For the older child, physical agents must be selected carefully to enhance healing. At later phase heat might be the modality of choice for the same result. Heat dilates the vessels. When the hand is placed in elevation with
PHASE II
Names: Fibroblastic, Proliferative, or Latent Stage Duration: Variable, but Usually 5 to 21 Days, Can Last Up to 6 Weeks
The purpose of this stage is to rebuild damaged structures, and cover and strengthen the wound. There is migration and proliferation of vessels for tissue repair. Primitive healing occurs. The wound begins contracting from the outside in. This migration of cells is limited by tension. Oxygen is needed for the healing process. Four processes occur simultaneously in this phase: epithelization, collagen production, wound contraction, and neovascularization.
Clinical Signs
Red granulation tissue Beginning of wound contraction: Scars appear faster in children than adults. Moderate swelling may be present Pain: Variable Functional limitations
PHASE III
Names: Maturation, Scar Remodeling Duration: End of Fibroplasia to 2 Years
In this phase, connective tissue matrix is remodeled. Wound strength (tensile strength) may reach 50% of normal by 4 to 6 weeks. Remodeling, which is a
370
BOX 17-1
PHASE I Vasoconstriction Vasodilation Clot formation Phagocytosis
PHASE II Epithelization Collagen production Primitive wound contracture Neovascularization (O2) PHASE III Maturation of scar Collagen synthesis versus lysis Collagen ber orientation and wound strength
Figure 17-1
Figure 17-3
Figure 17-2
tion about flexor tendon excursion. Placing the proximal joints in slight extension gives the flexors more advantage. Always record where the proximal joint(s) were placed during blocked measurements, so that measurements can be repeated reliably. Finally, compare all ranges to determine which structure is limiting
the motion. Reliability of ROM is based on repeatability. The American Society of Hand Therapists (1992) published a Clinical Assessment Recommendation booklet that is an excellent resource for standardization of measurements (Adams, Greene, & Topoozian, 1992). Scheduling constraints and the childs cooperation at times may limit the therapists ability to take comprehensive measurements. On these occasions, functional measurements can be recorded. These measurements have poor reliability because they are difcult to reproduce consistently. However, they do give some functional information about the use of the hand and thus have value in some cases. Functional measurements include: Functional Flexion: (a) Ask the child to make a st; measure the distance from the pulp of the digit(s) to the distal palmar crease (Figure 17-4); or (b) ask the child to make a hook, bringing the tips of the ngers to the palmar digital crease; measure that distance. Functional Opposition: Ask the child to touch the tip of each nger to the thumb; measure the distance from pulp of nger to pulp of thumb (Figure 17-5). Functional Thumb Flexion: Ask the child to touch the base of the small nger with the thumb, measure the distance from the head of the 5th metacarpal to the pulp of the thumb (Figure 17-6). Functional Extension: Ask the child to extend the hand against the table; measure the distance from the nail to the table top (Figure 17-7).
372
Figure 17-6 Functional thumb flexion to the base of the fifth finger. Figure 17-4 crease. Functional flexion to the distal palmar
Childhood (5 to 12 Years)
Measurement of specic range can be obtained at this age, although it may be difcult. Observation of movement patterns that are consistent with in-hand manipulation that are present at this stage are helpful (Exner, 1992). The child can be asked to hold a spoon or turn over a peg of a certain size in the hand, which provides both functional and range information.
Clinical Implication
ROM helps determine which structure is the source of the limitation. This information comes from measuring the difference between passive and active motion, checking for unusual patterns such as intrinsic, web, and ligamentous tightness. Active motion can be divided into two types: (a) functional motion, motion the child does on his or her own; and (b) blocked motion, motion produced when the proximal joints are held in a position that gives maximum advantage to the distal joint. The difference between measurements tells the therapist where the problem exists.
HAND STRENGTH
Hand strength is a function of the work of the muscles. In measuring hand strength, we look at both specic muscle strength and functional strength. Specic muscle strength is the measurement of each muscle tendon unit that is measured through manual muscle testing, whereas functional strength is a measure of muscles working together in a specic prehension pattern and is measured with instruments such as a dynamometer and pinch gauge. Functional measurements are divided into grip and pinch strength (Figs. 17-8 and 17-9). They are divided further into varying grip sizes and different pinch patterns. Most commonly tested pinch patterns are key pinch, pencil or three jaw chuck pinch, and pad to pad pinch. With the handinjured population, functional strength measurements are the most common. Although a variety of tools exist for measuring strength, the most common are a dynamometer for grip strength and a pinch gauge for pinch strength.
Figure 17-9
374
HAND DEXTERITY
Dexterity as a component of function is described as the ability to manipulate objects with the hands. Accuracy and speed are the parameters of measurements for dexterity. Dexterity can be measured reliably through established tests that have normative data on the population tested. Dexterity may also be observed when the child is picking up different size objects and manipulating them (Aaron & Stegink Jansen, 2003).
Toddler
Dexterity is determined by watching the child manipulate small objects. In-hand manipulation skills (moving an object within the persons hand) is noted at this age. The therapist places a small object in the childs hand and asks that it be turned over or moved around in the hand. Video recording of the manipulation complements the testing procedure.
Early Childhood
Observation remains a staple of the evaluation procedure for this age group. The therapist observes how the child approaches small objects, which hand is used in grasp, grasp and release patterns, and sizes of manipulated objects. For more standardized testing, dexterity tests such as the Functional Dexterity Test (FDT) may be used. It is standardized for children ages 3 to 5 years (Aaron & Stegink Jansen, 2003; Lee-Valkov et al., 2003). For the age groups listed, the therapist observes for the following information: Are tasks or activities performed unilaterally or bilaterally? Is the hand being used spontaneously? Is there indication of dominance? (Note: Hand dominance that appears too early may indicate a problem with the nonpreferred side.)
Clinical Implication
Appropriate methods of obtaining hand strength measurements vary according to the childs age and ability to participate. Functional measures are most
Adolescence
Children in this age group have ne motor control and dexterity that can be tested using available standardized tests. Depending on what information the therapist
Clinical Implications
Dexterity is a component of function that often is overlooked in a hand evaluation. Dexterity information is obtained by using standardized tests such as the FDT or through observation.
Clinical Implications
Open wounds, edema, and scar should be evaluated and recorded on a regular basis. Photographs should be taken when possible. The age of the child does not change the evaluation procedure. However, in some cases the evaluation process is challenging.
PAIN
Determining the level of a childs pain is difcult at best. Often, if the child hurts or perceives that something may hurt, a protective posture is assumed and the child refuses to let anyone touch the hand. The therapist must rst differentiate between fear and true pain. With newborns and toddlers, the initial approach is to encourage the child to move the hand and perhaps grasp a colorful object. Distraction is the best tactic for this age group. The therapists observation skills are the most valuable evaluation tools. A similar approach is
Figure 17-10 Functional dexterity test. (From Aaron DH, Stegink Jansen CW [2003]. Development of the functional dexterity test [FDT]: Construction, validity, reliability, and normative data. Journal of Hand Therapy, 16[1]:1221.)
376
helpful with children and adolescents. However, these children may be able to provide more information with use of such pain evaluation tools as the following: 1. Body Charts. The child points on a picture to where it hurts; the therapist offers descriptive words to help the child explain the nature of the pain (Maurer & Jezek, 1992). 2. Visual Analog Scale (VAS). This is a vertical or horizontal line of 10 cm with one end labeled no pain and the other terrible pain. The therapist asks the child the mark on the line the place that best describes the amount of pain. A drawing of a happy face on one end and a sad face on the other also may be used. 3. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). The child is asked to pick a number between 0 (no pain) and 100 (lots of pain). Although there is high correlation between the VAS and the NRS, children may remember the number they assigned to their pain and thus may reduce the validity of monitoring improvement over time (e.g., the child might tend to keep picking the number chosen previously rather than judge pain objectively at that moment) (Maurer & Jezek, 1992). 4. Verbal Rating Scale (VRS). The child is asked to pick from simple descriptive words that he or she can identify with to describe the pain. Examples are lots of pain, some pain, or no pain (Maurer & Jezek, 1992). 5. Face Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R). This is a pain measurement scale that uses pictures representing facial expressions to determine intensity. It is used for children ages 4 to 16 (Hicks et al., 2001).
HAND SENSIBILITY
Normal hand function requires normal sensibility, as well as mobility and strength. Sensibility should be screened in all children who can reliably communicate information about the sensitivity of the hand. On the initial screening, the therapist asks if the affected hand feels the same as the unaffected hand. The therapist then asks the child to report if there are differences in feelings between the two hands as the therapist strokes both hands. With vision occluded, the therapist touches a nger and has the child tell what nger was touched. The therapist moves the affected nger and asks the child to mimic the movement with the other hand. There are many creative ways to determine if the nerves of the hand are viable. When this is not possible, information must be gained through observing the child use the hand and noting sympathetic functions such as skin color and texture, temperature, sweating, nail changes, or hair growth. This helps the therapist determine if there is a nerve problem. Stereognosis and graphesthesia are other forms of sensory screening in early child-
Clinical Implication
A thorough evaluation has a different meaning for each diagnosis and age group. Many assessment tools are available. Therapists must choose carefully and assure that each evaluation looks at all components of function appropriate for the specic child, diagnosis, and context. Evaluation is the road map for treatment and progress.
Table 17-1
FUNCTIONAL HAND EVALUATION NAME___________________________ DOMINANCE_____ INVOLVED SIDE______ AGE____ DATE_______ HAND/WRIST EVALUATION Strength
Grip Key pinch Pencil pinch Fingertip Index/middle Ring/small Spontaneous use of hand Bilateral versus unilateral use Special hand posture Describe Volitional release Sustained grasp Functional reach to Mouth Back of neck Small of back Hip Other shoulder Head Feet Other
Right
+
Left
+
Dexterity
Continued
378
Table 17-1
Girth (cm)
Wrist
Palm (Proximal crease) Proximal phalanx Middle phalanx Distal phalanx Volumeter Other ADL: Dependent/mod assist/ minimal assist/independent List
Sensation
Order of Return
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 30 CPS Heavy moving touch Heavy touch Temperature Position sense Light moving touch Light touch 256 CPS Moving 2-point Static 2-point
Table 17-1
THUMB
Flexion MP Extension MP Flexion IP Extension IP Hyperextension IP Palmar abduction Radial extension (reposition) Mid-position Opposition (imp. rate) Thumb to base 5th digit Other description
Index Finger
Ring Finger
Flexion MP Extension MP Deviation/rotation Flexion PIP Extension PIP Flexion DIP Extension DIP Other description: Long Finger
Flexion MP Extension MP Deviation/rotation Flexion PIP Extension PIP Flexion DIP Extension DIP Other description: Small Finger
Flexion MP Extension MP Deviation/rotation Flexion PIP Extension PIP Flexion DIP Extension DIP Other description:
Flexion MP Extension MP Deviation/rotation Flexion PIP Extension PIP Flexion DIP Extension DIP Other description:
Goals (Parent/patient generated and rated 1 to 10 from least to most important): 1. 2. 3. Therapist Signature: ________________________________ Date:_________________________________
380
In hand therapy, creative play helps the child participate in his or her own therapy. Activities such as playing tictac-toe in putty to increase pinch strength or playing dice games or jacks to enhance and encourage prehension and dexterity engage the child while minimizing the difculty of using the injured hand. The therapist provides a safe environment, encourages active participation, and offers age-appropriate activities. The therapist must get on the floor to engage the child in fun yet purposeful activity and seek to gain the childs permission to be touched. Through engagement in play, the child is involved to the fullest extent in making choices in the rehabilitation program. The parents or guardians should be educated about how to use therapeutic play with the child. Treatment varies based on the diagnosis. Children are not small adults. They are more susceptible to injury because they have a high power-toweight ratio and the neurologic mechanism necessary for motor control is not yet fully developed. Children do not assess risks in the same manner as adults. More than half of the fractures seen in children are in the upper limb (Graham & Hastings, 2000). It is rare to see a young child with fractures. Often, these fractures may be attributed to child abuse. The growing skeleton differs from the mature skeleton. In the growing skeleton some fractures are managed with less difculty and for a shorter length of time. Conversely, fractures that involve growth plates may lead to long-term morbidity if treated incorrectly. Mahabir and co-workers (2001) noted that the incidence of hand fractures in children rose sharply after the age of 9 and peaked at age 12. Sports activities were the most common cause of fracture for both boys and girls. The fth metacarpal was the most commonly fractured bone (21.1% of the total sample of 242 fractures in their study), 60.2% were nonepiphyseal fractures and 39.8% were epiphyseal fractures. Of these, most (90.4%) were Salter-Harris type II (the fracture goes through the physis and exits the metaphysic of the bone). They reported that most fractures heal within 2 to 3 weeks with excellent functional outcomes (Mahabir et al., 2001). In another study, Zimmermann and co-workers (2004) followed 220 children with distal forearm fractures for 10 years. They concluded that the younger the child at the time of injury, the more favorable the results. Children who were 10 years old or older at the time of a severe fracture had the poorest results.
Evaluation
Types of assessments performed are dictated by the age and cooperation of the child, as well as the attitude and willingness of the parents or guardians. A com-
Figure 17-13
Cock-up splint.
Treatment
Fabricate Splint to Protect Wrist 1. Protect the wrist for comfort if there is no fracture. Use a simple volar wrist cock-up with the wrist in neutral to 20 degrees extension (Figures 17-12 and 17-13). A dorsal component can be added for extra
stability and control. The young child with a short lever arm requires a splint that goes above the elbow to keep the splint in place (Figure 17-14). 2. If a scaphoid fracture is present or suspected, the splint design includes the thumb (Figure 17-15). The IP of the thumb can be free. For comfort the splint is applied on the volar surface with dorsal support. The considerations listed in the preceding apply as well. a. Young or unreliable children need a splint that includes the elbow to secure the splint and keep it from coming off during play. b. The splint is worn at night and during the day when the child is in school or otherwise out of the immediate presence of a watchful adult. It should be removed for supervised exercises and light ADLs.
Figure 17-14
Above-elbow splint.
382
Figure 17-17
c. Splint wearing time is decreased as wrist pain decreases and strength and ROM increase, usually 3 to 6 weeks after injury. Often at this stage the hard splint is changed to a soft splint made by taping or neoprene if pain persists (Figures 17-16 and 17-17). Edema Control (Phase I) If edema is present, the child is given a pressure garment such as an elastic glove or wrap. The child and parents or guardians are instructed in positioning the limb in elevation, gentle motion, and retrograde massage. All activities should be at heart level or above (the hand held higher than the elbow and at or above the heart). If the swelling is severe, a sandwich splint may be necessary initially (see Figure 17-30 later in this chapter).
Exercise Activity (Phase II): 3 to 6 weeks after Injury The child is encouraged to begin short arc ROM exercises within his or her pain tolerance. This should take the form of play. Initially, while the wrist is still healing, no resistance is applied. The child is allowed to get to know the hand again. Play can be with bubbles or water (cool and elevated if swelling is present). Other effective activities are games that require grasp-release and reaching of light objects (e.g., work on vertical surfaces, use stickers, felt boards, magnets). Gentle exercises and activities are done through Phase II of healing. Bilateral dexterity activities, such as threading beads, may encourage use of an injured and painful hand. Strengthening (Phase III) The child begins strengthening the hand and wrist as pain subsides and the fracture heals. There should be no pain with loading such as when making a st or pushing off from floor or chair before beginning a strengthening program. Strengthening is incorporated into the childs daily activities and play. Throwing balls to encourage bilateral use or playing with putty is effective for a strengthening program (Figure 17-18). Education Educating the parents or guardians on all precautions about the childs injury and what to expect with the healing process is part of the treatment program. The therapist assures that both parents or guardians and child demonstrate understanding of the home program, splint wear, and activities that can be harmful. The home program includes pictures and written instructions. The number of clinic visits varies with the child and degree of impairment. However, many children can be treated effectively with a comprehensive
Figure 17-16
3.
4. 5.
6.
7.
Figure 17-18 Use of putty for strengthening.
home program and only occasional visits to the therapist for evaluation and update of home exercises.
8.
Treatment
The treatment is based on what is seen clinically at the time of referral, because these children may be sent to therapy at different points after injury. What stage of healing is the injury? What were the results of the evaluation? General Splinting Considerations The splinting goal is to keep the fracture stable until healed. 1. Ligament Disruption or Dislocation. The splinting goal is to align the nger and reduce the stress on the affected structures. In certain conditions and with certain age groups a hinged-type splint or one that allows short arc ROM may be appropriate. Use buddy splinting, which is taping the affected nger to the adjacent one for stability at the onset if the disruption is not signicant. Otherwise buddy splinting can be used for protection after 3 or 4 weeks of immobilization. 2. Phalanx Fracture or Displacement. These are most common in border digits (Hastings & Simmons, 1984). Splinting usually includes the adjacent digit and, depending on the age of the child, with or without the wrist. Common Digital Injuries and Their Treatment Gamekeepers or Skiers Thumb. This is an ulnar collateral ligament tear or stretch. In the older child this involves splinting the thumb MP with a hinged splint allowing MP flexion-extension motion but restricting radial deviation (thus protecting the ulnar
Evaluation
1. Observe the child from afar. Watch him or her use the hand. The way the child uses the hand provides information on pain and usage patterns. Is he or she protecting it or using it? Is the child using the affected digit when using the hand? If the thumb is involved, is there a grasp and release pattern? Is there sustained grasp? 2. Determine the childs demands on the hand under normal conditions. Does he or she play sports or participate in arts and crafts? Which is the dominant hand? Interview the child (age dependent) and
384
collateral ligament from elongation). In the younger child, a hand-based thumb spica splint is suggested. Splint wear depends on healing and at what point the child was referred. Usually the splint is worn for 6 to 8 weeks after injury. If there are no deforming forces and the joint is stable, splinting can be discontinued except for sports or other activities that may necessitate extra protection. When the splint is removed, the child and parents or guardians are instructed in ROM exercises and protection of the hand during sports or play. Use of tape and neoprene for added protection of the hand during activities or sports is advised. Proximal Interphalangeal (PIP) Joint Dorsal Dislocation. This injury, although generally rare in young children, is the most common PIP dislocation in adolescent athletes. It usually is called jammed nger. Many of these are reduced on the playing eld. They may have associated volar plate and collateral ligament injuries. Splinting for this condition may take the form of buddy taping if the injury is mild, or complete rest with the PIP joint in approximately 20 to 30 degrees of flexion (to protect the volar plate). After a couple of weeks of complete rest, if instability is noted, then a dorsal blocking splint (a splint that allows PIP flexion but blocks extension at 30 degrees) can be fabricated. This type of splint allows the volar plate, which is injured, to heal with no tension, while still allowing short arc ROM. This can be in the form of a hinged splint or a splint with horse blinders that serve to guide the motion. In some cases, protected early motion in these splints is started immediately. If the PIP is swollen, then edema control measures such as pressure wrap and elevation may be necessary. When the protective period is over, home exercise emphasizing composite flexion, as well as protected PIP extension, is taught. The child and parents or guardians should be instructed in all precautions. Mallet Finger. This is a physeal fracture of the distal phalanx, with or without displacement. The fracture may be displaced by the pull of the extensor tendon insertion. Most of these fractures are treated closed (e.g., do not need surgical intervention) (Graham & Hastings, 2000). The nger should be splinted with a dorsal splint over the DIP joint. There should be no hyperextension of the DIP joint in the splint, so as not to blanche any of the dorsal skin and thus compromise circulation (Figs. 17-19 and 17-20).Tape should be used to secure the splint at the proximal edge going around the nger. A longitudinal strip of tape coming from the volar to dorsal aspect of the nger should secure the distal phalanx into the splint. A last piece of tape is used horizontally around the ngers distal phalanx. This splint allows good sensory input on the
Figure 17-19
Figure 17-20
volar surface of the affected digit. The hand can be used in normal ADLs with the splint. The splint should be kept dry and changed every couple of days; check the dorsal skin for breakdown. The tip of the nger should be held in extension during the splint changes. For young or unreliable children, the PIP joint or PIP and MP joints should be included to secure the splint. Watch for skin breakdown under the tape, especially with young children. The splint should be removed after 6 weeks. If there is full extension, gentle short arc of active ROM can begin, with night and PRN (whenever necessary) day splinting. If the DIP joint is not extending actively, continue with continuous splinting for two more weeks. After removal of the splint, watch for an extensor lag, which is the inability to extend the DIP into full extension because of poor pull-through of the terminal extensor tendon. This may last for up to 4 to 6 months. This may result from elongation of the tendon, which must stay in a shortened position to heal and function properly. Provide the child and parents or guardians with home instructions and precautions.
TENDON I NJURIES
Broken glass is a common cause of tendon injuries in the young. Older children also can suffer tendon injuries secondary to broken glass and sharp metal, as well as through participation in sports and other activities. Often the cut is tidy, especially with broken glass. The management of these injuries depends on the age, understanding, and cooperation of the child (Favetto et al., 2000). Tendon healing has been a source of wonder and research for many years. Clinicians must balance the need of the tendon to heal with its need to glide. Alternately, we know that if a tendon is immobilized it will heal, but it will also adhere to the surrounding tissue, and thus not glide. We know that if the tendon is mobilized too fast or too hard, it will rupture. The challenge in tendon management is to nd a compromise between protecting the blood supply and nutrition to the healing tendon, while allowing gliding so that the tendon will not adhere to the surrounding tissue. The goal for tendon rehabilitation is to protect the tendon through Phases I and II of healing (see the following), while allowing some protection, below breaking strength motion. This is particularly important for flexor tendons, yet difcult to do with young children. It is believed that children heal faster and with fewer adhesions than adults (al-Quattan et al., 1993). This information allows some creativity and deviation from the adult tendon protocol in how to manage these injuries postoperatively. Conventional treatment protocols for adults have been the traditional controlled protected motion for both flexors and extensor injuries, and more recently gentle protected active motion for flexor tendon injuries. Rarely is an adult treated with complete immobilization after flexor tendon injury; however, that might be the treatment of choice for extensor tendons. With children, it is common practice to immobilize the hand for tendon injuries. With children under the age of 9, the elbow is included with a long arm cast or splint. In an interesting study, Friedrich and Baumel (2003) reported good success using the modied Kleinert surgical repair technique with early protected motion (see next section) for children ages 9 months to 18 years who suffered flexor tendon injuries. Their treatment technique varied from the traditional, which supports the idea that creativity and individuality of protocol per patient are advisable and possible (Friedrich & Baumel, 2003). Tendon injuries are classied by zone of injury. There are some variations in treatment protocol based on the zone of injury, specically for extensor tendons. With flexors, however, many children are treated in the same manner regardless of the zone.
Flexor Tendons
Immediately Postoperative (Phase I) There are several accepted protocols for flexor tendon repair. All tend to require 3 to 4 weeks of splinting, with or without motion. The decision about which protocol to follow is dictated by the surgeons choice of suture style, as well as the age of the child and the overall condition of the tendons and hand. Young and unreliable children usually are placed in a long arm splint or cast, placing the elbow in flexion (60 to 70 degrees), forearm in neutral, wrist in neutral or with slight flexion (0 to 20 degrees), metacarpal joints in flexion (60 to 70 degrees), and interphalangeal joints in extension. This splint can be made intraoperatively and then changed or adjusted in therapy on the second or third day postoperatively. The patient is followed in the clinic for splint checks and adjustments one to two times weekly for 3 to 4 weeks. The parents or guardians should be instructed in all precautions about the childs injury. They must understand the importance of observing the ngers for good color, thus assuring good circulation. They must be instructed in edema prevention through elevation. They also must understand the importance of encouraging the child to move the uninvolved joints such as those not splinted. The splint may be removed to clean the wounds or stitches. Great care must be taken not to move the wrist and digits during dressing changes, particularly if done by the parents or guardians. Some elbow motion can be performed carefully when out of the splint. Clinical visits include dressing changes and gentle passive motion, of the elbow, wrist, and ngers, in a protective manner by the therapist to protect repair at all times (Penttengill & van Strien, 2002). All reliable and older children may be treated like adults and follow the early protective protocol of Kleinert or Duran-Houser or the active motion protocols that are widely described in the literature (Penttengill & van Strien, 2002). The splint is fabricated and worn consistently for 4 weeks. In most cases, the child is splinted in a dorsal blocking splint, with the wrist placed in neutral to 20 degrees of flexion, and metacarpals placed in 60 to 70 degrees of flexion by the dorsal hood. The ngers are placed in extension in the hood for the early active motion protocols and in rubber band traction for the protective motion protocols. For the protective motion protocol, a dorsal splint is fabricated, placing the wrist in neutral and MPs in 70 degrees of flexion with rubber band traction on the affected ngers or all ngers, depending on the surgeons preference and reliability of the child. The rubber bands pull the ngers into the palm, creating a stlike appearance of the hand in the splint. The child
386
is shown how to release the tension on the rubber bands so that he or she can achieve maximum extension (full interphalangeal extension) into the dorsal hood, allowing flexion through the pull of the rubber bands. At night the ngers are released from the rubber bands and secured in extension to the dorsal hood with a wide strap. This, along with the protective daily motion, is aimed at allowing some gliding of the flexor tendons, as well as preventing PIP flexion contractures. If the IPs of the ngers are not able to extend completely (especially at the PIP joint level), a wedge is placed on the dorsal aspect of the proximal phalanx (P1) to encourage PIP extension. This can be accomplished with the use of a pencil or piece of foam (Figs. 17-21 to 17-23). Some children may be placed in the dorsal hood as described above, with no rubber band traction. These children follow the Duaran Houser protocol of protected passive ROM (Penttingell & van Strien, 2002). Those following an early active motion protocol go through a closely monitored program of tenodesis exercises; specically, wrist flexion with nger extension followed by wrist extension with nger flexion. Also, the therapist may place the digits into flexion and instruct the child to hold them there with an isometric contraction. These children should be followed closely when they perform place and hold or tenodesis exercises (Figs. 17-24 and 17-25). The child should be followed in therapy no fewer than two times a week for the protective motion protocol, in which the therapist checks the splint and the wounds or stitches, as well as performing passive ROM when indicated, especially to DIP and PIP joints. Nonaffected joints should be exercised on a regular basis. If an early active motion protocol is followed, the child should be followed daily in therapy.
Figure 17-22
Figure 17-23
Figure 17-21
Figure 17-24
Figure 17-25
Scar and edema management through pressure and elevation is initiated for all patients. Pressure with silicone gel or other sterile material can begin while stitches are still in place. Four Weeks Postoperative for All Protocols (Phase II) An initial evaluation is performed. Gentle active exercises are initiated into flexion, with focus on full extension in a protected manner (i.e., full IP joint extension with MP joints in flexion; full wrist extension with digits flexed). The splint is worn protectively during the day and at night. Precautions against full composite extension (extending wrist and digits together in the same movement) or resistive flexion are explained carefully. No blocked exercises are allowed. Dexterity activities and gentle ADLs are shown. The scar is managed through pressure and stretch and by fabricating the protective splint on the volar rather than the dorsal side for added pressure to the scar. The wrist is placed in slight extension in the splint. Six Weeks Postoperative (Phase III) Reevaluate status, including gross grip (pinch strength evaluation usually is deffered until 8 weeks, when the tendon is strong enough to withstand the strain). Exercise can be upgraded to tendon gliding exercises (allowing the flexor digitorum profundus [FDP] to glide against the flexor digitorum supercialis [FDS]) and gentle blocking. When instructing in blocked exercise (only advised if gliding is moderate to poor) tell the child to only use 30% to 50% of his or her strength. Blocked exercises are a common reason for tendon rupture. If pull-through is poor, a blocking glove can be fabricated, blocking the MPs at 0 to 20 degrees of flexion and allowing full ROM of the IPs. This glove is worn when the child is using the hand in normal
388
three ruptures. They suggested better results when both the FDP and FDS are repaired. Friedrich and Baumel followed 173 cases of flexor tendon injuries, ages 9 months to 18 years, over a 10year period. They concluded that early motion should be initiated at any age, because of problems they saw with immobilization, even in the young. Their protocol follows a modied Kleinert routine, with a cast placed in surgery either above the elbow or not, and the wrist placed in 5 to 10 degrees of flexion and extended to the MP joints. Digits are flexed by rubber band traction that is routed through the palm. The initial goal is to get full IP extension beginning on the rst postoperative day, with ve to six exercises per day by the third day. The goal is to achieve full flexion by 3 months. Based on the Buck-Gramcko scale, they reported 95% good results, with four cases of poor results (Friedrich & Baumel, 2003) (Figure 17-27). Ebinger and co-workers (2003) looked at two groups of children with flexor tendon injuries. In group A (children under 6 years of age), the postoperative treatment consisted of immobilization for 3 weeks. In group B (older children), early passive mobilization was employed. Follow-up showed that the mobilization
Extensor Tendons
Zones I and II injury distal to the PIP (known as mallet nger deformity) is discussed in the fracture section of this chapter. Treatment for a tendon avulsion from the distal phalanx is the same as the treatment described for mallet nger deformity. The literature shows little or no difference in treating extensor tendons with early protected motion rather than immobilization. Immobilization is the treatment of choice in treating children of any age who suffer an extensor tendon injury. Immediately Postoperative Zones III to VII (Phase I) Splint the child with an extensor tendon injury in a protective splint that has both a dorsal and volar component for better security and stability of the splint. For Zone III injuries at the PIP level, a hand-based splint, with the MPs at 20 to 40 degrees of flexion and the IPs extended, is commonly used. The splint can go above the wrist if it is feared that the child will not keep the splint on. The splint should go above the elbow for the young and unreliable child, with the elbow kept at 60 to 70 degrees of flexion; however, that is rare. For all other zones, the forearm is neutral or pronated, the wrist is in 30 to 45 degrees of extension, the MP joints are kept at 30 to 60 degrees of flexion (depending on the zone of injury), and the IPs are extended (including the elbow if necessary to maintain the splint on the child). The exact position depends on the stress on the repair that can be determined intraoperatively and communicated to the therapist. The child should be followed in therapy at least two times a week during the 3- to 4-week immobilization phase. At each visit, the wound or stitches should be cleaned, the dressing changed, gentle ROM should be performed with all uninvolved joints, and protected ROM may be performed with the involved joints (patterns in extension only). Precautions should be explained to the child, as well as the parents or guardians about keeping the arm dry and clean, elevating the extremity, and watching the color. The parents should
Figure 17-27 Friedrich and Baumel casting for early motion. (From Friedrich H, Baumel D [2003]. The treatment of flexor tendon injuries in children. Handchir mikorchir plastic chir, 35(6):347352.)
Figure 17-28
Extension lag.
Figure 17-29
390
are the most common, and children develop less stiffness than adults when immobilized. Children are curious and thus put themselves at risk. Common causes for hand burns are hot cups of coffee, hot water, irons, and heaters. The mechanism of injury and the nature of the burn agent dictate the severity of the burn. Sunburn can produce a supercial burn, whereas hot water produces a scalding injury that can be supercial or deep. A flame may result in full thickness burns (de Chaliain & Clarke, 2000; Greenhigh, 2000). Burns occur initially when there is direct contact with a thermal agent, causing injury to the cellular elements and structural proteins. Subsequently, there is delayed damage secondary to progressive dermal ischemia. When a child is exposed to heat, both the temperature and the time exposed to the heat determine the extent of tissue damage (de Chaliain and Clarke, 2000). Palmar burns in toddlers are increasingly more common. Dunst and co-workers (2004) reported an alarming increase in palmar burns associated with gas replaces. Burns have been classied in four degrees, although commonly only three degrees are referred to, as seen in Table 17-2. Rehabilitation of the burned hand should begin immediately after the child has been medically stabilized because a 7- to 10-day delay may result in irreversible functional losses. The general goals of therapy are to prevent deformity and maximize function (de Chaliain & Clarke, 2000). Intervention depends on the phase of healing.
Table 17-2
Classication
First degree Second degree Supercial Deep Third degree
Clinical Signs
Redness, pain, heals with no scarring (sunburn) Blisters, moist, painful, heals in 2 to 4 weeks, or may go to full thickness, scarring
Full thickness
Dermis destroyed, usually needs coverage, white or black, dry, anesthetic Deep destruction, to bone, needs flaps or grafts to heal
Fourth degree
Modied from de Chaliain T, Clarke HM (2000). Thermal and chemical injuries. In A Gupta, SPJ Kay, LRL Scheker, editors: The growing hand, diagnosis and management of the upper extremity in children (pp. 665692). St Louis, Mosby.
Figure 17-30 Sandwich splint for edema or scar. (Courtesy of Kimberly Goldie Staines.)
392
Figure 17-31 Circumference pressure wrapping for burn scar. (From Serghiou M. In McCauley RL (2005): Functional and aesthetic reconstruction of burned patients, CRC Press.)
Exercise and Activities Before initiating an exercise regimen, available active and passive ROM as well as dexterity should be evaluated. This may require sterile instruments and tools. In situations in which goniometric measurements are difcult, the therapist should record functional measures. Although this is not as reliable as goniometric measures specic to each joint, it does give some idea of the childs ability at that point in time. Ask questions such as: Can the child touch the distal palmar crease when asked to make a st? Can the child extend the ngers, touch each nger to the thumb in opposition, or bring the thumb down to touch the base of the small nger? Exercise must be tailored to the age and comprehension of the child, as well as the depth of the burns. In supercial burns, active ROM should be started immediately with minimal limitations. For children with deep burns, extreme care must be given to protect structures that might have been affected, such as tendons. If nerves are involved, the hand may be insensate, and extreme attention must be given not to overexercise the part. To allow early motion, but also protect potential weakened structures, the ROM must be done protectively. For example, if the extensor tendons are exposed over the dorsum of the hand, composite sting must be avoided. ROM should be performed one joint at a time or in a tenodesis manner. As an example, the wrist should be extended when the child is flexing the MCP joints with dorsal burns that expose or affect the extensor tendons. Passive motion may be applied, but with caution, so excess stress is not placed on the tissue the therapist is holding or stretching. Care should be given to maintaining the hand clean and elevated during exercise session. Whenever possible, the hand should be used in a functional pattern because it assists the child in the ADLs and exercise should be incorporated into active
Figure 17-33 Night position splint for burn hand. (From Serghiou M. In McCauley RL (2005): Functional and aesthetic reconstruction of burned patients, CRC Press.)
exercise. Intrinsic stretching, placing MPs in extension while flexing the IPs, and intrinsic strengthening should be incorporated. Tendon gliding, blocking ROM, and other targeted exercises are employed as indicated. Graded exercise activities should be incorporated that provide ROM, strengthening, dexterity, and psychological stimulation. The activity should be changed often to keep the child engaged. Activities of Daily Living In Phase II, the child should engage in light ADL, but stay away from play or activities that could irritate the scar. Equipment and tool modication should be provided to aid in independent function. This is based on functional limitation and age. In Phase III, there are no precautionsthe child should engage in all ADLs he or she can perform, with and without equipment as dictated by the condition. Skin care instruction should be given to the child and parents, as well as education as to sun exposure and other dangers that might damage the healing area.
General Comments
Treatment of a child with a burned hand must take into account not only physiologic healing, but also psychological and emotional healing. The childs treatment plan should be formed with the consideration of the childs family situation, social situation, environment, and available resources. Treatment varies with each developmental stage and the individual response of the child to his or her injury. Play should be incorporated whenever possible. The experience of being burned is frightening and painful to the child. Thus this must be considered in the approach and design of the treatment plan. The literature suggests variation in care at different institutions. Sheridan and co-workers (1999) looked at long-term results of acutely burned hands in 495
Figure 17-32 Custom ordered burn pressure wrap. (Courtesy of Shrine Burns Hospital, Galveston, TX.)
394
Part III Therapeutic Intervention International Federation of Societies for Surgery of the Hand Classification of Congenital Differences
children involving 698 injured hands, over a 10-year period. These authors used ranging and splinting early and throughout the treatment, with prompt sheet autograft wound closure as soon as was practical, and selective use of axial pin xation and flaps for stability and coverage. They reported normal function in 97% of second-degree burns, 85% of third-degree burns, and 20% normal function in children who had deep structure involvement (e.g., tendon); however, 70% of severely involved children were able to perform ADLs (Sheridan et al., 1999). Barillo and co-workers reported on a rehabilitation protocol for MCP joints in which they used static splinting alternating with continued passive motion (CPM) 4 hours for sedated patients; and CPM alternating with active ROM and night time splinting for MP joints with less than 70 degrees of flexion; and active range and progressive resistance for alert patients with MCP joint flexion of more than 70 degrees. Their patients had an average of 220.6 degrees of motion at discharge and 229.9 at 3 months, with mean grip strength of 60.8 pounds at discharge and 66 pounds at 3 months (Barillo et al., 1997). Roberts and co-workers (1993) reported on seven patients hand strength that was followed by ROM, compression therapy, and splinting. They showed that although both grip and pinch strength improved at 6 weeks after injury, strength remained signicantly less than normal compared with the norm for age and sex at 6 months. They concluded that although their ndings were lower than normal, this did not indicate poor performance in ADLs.
BOX 17-2
Failure of formation Failure of differentiation of parts Duplication Overgrowth Undergrowth Constriction ring syndrome Generalized abnormalities and syndromes
classication categorized the types of congenital differences (Box 17-2). The treatment of two of the most commonly seen congenital differences, syndactyly and radial club hand, are discussed.
SYNDACTYLY
Syndactyly falls under the failure of differentiation classication. It is a fusing of adjacent ngers that can be simple (involving only skin) to complex (in which the bones of two digits are fused). Syndactyly is one of the most common hand deformities. It is found in males more than females, and is present in 50% of cases bilaterally. Often syndactyly is associated with other problems, such as polydactyly, clefting, symbrachydactyly, or ring constriction. When these occur, surgery and therapy should take these anomalies into account when planning intervention. The goal of a syndactyly surgical release is to create a functional hand with as few surgical procedures as possible. Intervention can be done as early as 6 months of age or even earlier, especially in border ngers in which length discrepancy is a concern. Full thickness skin graft is almost always necessary for the soft tissue coverage after separation and reconstruction (Smith & Laing, 2000; Dao et al., 2004). Island flap reconstruction in incomplete syndactyly has been advocated by Brennen and Fogarty (2004), in which skin and fat are rotated for coverage, with good results, minimal scarring, and rare need for follow-up skin grafting (Dao et al., 2004).
Clinical Implications
Children with hand burns should be seen by a therapist early for positioning and gentle motion. Splint design should be dictated by burn location. Children should be followed until the scar has matured, which could take up to two years.
should be specic to each child, keeping in mind not only where pressure is needed, but also positional issues that may be present with the digits. Strapping should be carefully placed to discourage rotational deformities or flexion contractures. With good circulation in the flap or grafts, gentle ROM may be initiated. In addition, the child and parents or guardians are educated about how to care for the wounds, change the dressing if necessary, and maintain the hand to prevent or minimize edema; also, the child is encouraged to wear his or her molds and splints.
Phase III
Figure 17-34 Syndactyly, after release.
Figure 17-35
Scars may continue to heal for up to 12 months or longer after injury. Attention should be given to scar management for as long as there is active scarring. This may take the form of night splinting with pressure molds and day pressure wraps. These wraps can be made in a variety of colors and can include just the affected digit(s) or the whole hand. Always leave the tip of the nger open to monitor circulation. With any pressure application, the parents must be taught to look at the color of the exposed tip to make sure the wrap is not too tight (Fuller, 1999). Strengthening exercises and desensitization activities should be incorporated into the childs home program, and the use of the affected digits should be encouraged. In some cases, sensory re-education should be included. The child also should be encouraged to use the hand in functional patterns; this can take the form of games and ADLs, as well as playing with toys that facilitate dexterity. In each stage of healing an evaluation should be done before the initiation of therapy, and at regular intervals thereafter. The scar can be monitored through
396
Clinical Implications
Children that have had syndactyly releases should be seen in therapy for positioning and scar management immediately postoperatively. AROM and functional patterning should be initiated as soon as the grafts or flaps are healed.
Function
Functional limitations vary based on the severity of the radial club hand, as well as the childs age and adaptation to the condition and environment. Clinicians must be cautious not to assume functional limitations based
Figure 17-37
Figure 17-38
398
3. Increasing ROM once the child is cleared to move the involved extremity 4. Re-education of prehension patterns and functional tasks 5. Scar and edema management 6. Providing the child with appropriate assistive devices and adaptations Starting with the initial visit to therapy, the child is instructed in patterning for independent function that is age appropriate. Adaptive use of the hand is encouraged with emphasis on elbow motion and digital prehension. Bilateral activities are encouraged, as is manipulation and grasp and release activities in a graded manner. Play activities are encouraged.
Clinical Implications
When treating a child with congenital differences, the assessment should be based on the specic child and his or her adaptation, rather than typical children of the same age. Often children adapt beautifully to their differences and minimal intervention is necessary.
SUMMARY
This chapter has provided a base line for the healing process for common injuries or surgical interventions. The process of evaluation also has been discussed, as well as common treatment protocols. With each injury or condition the actual treatment plan is individualized to the specic child and his or her special situation based on the evaluation. Knowledge of normal development, normal healing, and good observation skills may be the most valuable evaluation tools, especially with infants and small children. Gaining the childs trust and helping him or her overcome fear is the rst step in therapy. After an injury or surgery, the child may regress in development and adaptive skills. The parents or guardians also may be fearful and confused as to what is happening to the child. Each child presents with unique qualities. When determining a treatment plan, these qualities are considered, along with the childs home environment, diagnosis, and the type of medical intervention received. Realistic functional goals are then formulated that are specic to that child. Children are resilient and bring new meaning to the notion of what is possible rather than impossible.
REFERENCES
Aaron DH, Stegink Jansen CW (2003). Development of the functional dexterity test (FDT): Construction, validity, reliability, and normative data. Journal of Hand Therapy, 16(1):1221. Adams LS, Greene LW, Topoozian E (1992). Range of motion. Clinical assessment recommendations, 2nd ed. Chicago, American Society of Hand Therapists. al-Quattan MM, Posnick JC, Lin KY, et al. (1993). Fetal tendon healing development of an experimental model. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 92(6):11551160. Apfel ER, Carramza J (1992). Functional limitation level evaluation: Dexterity. Clinical assessment recommendations, 2nd ed. Chicago, American Society of Hand Therapists. Aulicino PL (2002). Clinical examination of the hand. In EJ Macking, AD Callahan, TM Skirven, LH Schneider, AL Osterman, JM Hunter, editors: Rehabilitation of the hand and upper extremity (pp. 311330). St Louis, Mosby. Baldwin JE, Weber LJ, Simon CL (1992). Wound and scar. Clinical assessment recommendations, 2nd ed. Chicago, American Society of Hand Therapists.
Figure 17-39
400
Mahabir RC, Kazemi AR, Cannon WG, Courtemanche DJ (2001). Pediatric Emergency Care, 17(3):153156. Manske PR, McCarroll HR Jr (1998). Radial club hand. In D Buck-Gramcko, editor: Congenital malformations of the hand and forearm (pp. 433447). Philadelphia, Churchill Livingstone. Mathiowets V, Wiemer DM, Federman SM (1986). Grip and pinch strength: Norms for 6- to 19-year-olds. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 40(10):705711. Maurer GL, Jezek SM (1992). Clinical assessment recommendations, 2nd ed. Chicago, American Society of Hand Therapists. McCauley RL (2000). Reconstruction of the pediatric burned hand. Hand Clinics, 16(2):249259. Mulder GD, Brazinsky BA (1995). Factors complicating wound repair. In JM McCulloch, LC Kloth, JA Feedar, editors: Wound healing alternatives in management (pp. 4759). Philadelphia, FA Davis. Penttengill KM, van Strien G (2002). Postoperative management of flexor tendon injuries. In EJ Mackin, AD Callahan, TM Skirven, LH Schneider, AL Osterman, JM Hunter, editors: Rehabilitation of the hand and upper extremity (pp. 431456). St Louis, Mosby. Pratt PN, Allen AS, Carrasco RC, Clark F, Schanzenbacher KE (1989). Instruments to evaluate component functions of behavior. In PN Pratt, AS Allen, editors: Occupational therapy for children (pp. 168217). St Louis, Mosby. Pryde JA (2003). Inflammation and tissue repair. In MH Cameron, editor: Physical agents in rehabilitation, from research to practice (pp. 1337). St Louis, Saunders. Roberts L, Alvarada MI, McElory K, Rutan RL, Dasai MH, Herndon D, Robertson MC (1993). Longitudinal hand
Chapter
SPLINTING THE UPPER EXTREMITY OF A CHILD
Kimberly Brace Granhaug
18
CHAPTER OUTLINE
SPLINTING PRINCIPLES BENEFITS AND GOALS OF SPLINTING SPLINT SELECTION Problem-Based Splint Selection Type of Splint: Static, Serial Static, Static Progressive or Dynamic? Material Selection for Low Temperature Thermoplastics Splint Fabrication for the Child SPLINTING FOR COMMON PEDIATRIC HAND PROBLEMS Thumb in Palm Fisted Hand Wrist Flexion Wrist Ulnar Deviation Wrist Radial Deviation Supination and Pronation Weight Bearing on the Upper Extremities Individual Finger Control Splinting Infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit SPLINTING FOR PEDIATRIC ORTHOPEDIC PROBLEMS Fractures Flexor Tendon Splinting in Children Juvenile Arthritis Brachial Plexus Injury and Peripheral Nerve Injury
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS IN PEDIATRIC HAND SPLINTING Wearing Schedule for Pediatric Splints Complications and Precautions SUMMARY CASE STUDY: A child with Radial Nerve Palsy APPENDICES
Splinting is the intentional application of external loads to specic anatomic structures to manipulate the internal reaction forces and thus enhance or restore function of the extremity (Austin, 2003, p. 59).
Splinting is an ancient art. It has been practiced for thousands of years, as the Egyptians used twigs, reeds, and vines for fracture stabilization (Fess, 2002a). There are many tried and true splint designs; however,
Of paramount importance is the understanding that there are no rote splinting solutions to combating pathologic conditions of the hand. Splints must be individually created to meet the unique needs of each patient, as evidenced by designs that incorporate the variable factors of anatomy, physiology, kinesiology, pathology, rehabilitation goals, occupation, and psychological status (Fess, 2002b, p. 1818).
The most important reason to apply a splint on a child is to improve function. Of course there are other primary reasons and secondary benets such as to improve joint range of motion, decrease joint stiffness and contractures, improve hygiene, and modify behavior. Dysfunction or decits in the upper extremity pediatric population can be divided into three major groups: infants and children with congenital or birth injuries that require splinting to prevent development of deformity or correct existing deformities, children
401
402
with congenital defect who have undergone corrective surgery, and those who require treatment secondary to pathology or trauma (Byron, 2002). Splinting and postoperative protocols are more standardized for orthopedic involved cases as compared to splinting and protocols for neurological involvement. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to cover the numerous splint designs and fabrication instructions for multiple diagnoses. Instead, an overview of splint decision making, as well as splint ideas, is the focus. It must be appreciated that the plasticity and immaturity of a childs system allows gentle forces to both promote developmental hand function, as well as potentially result in harmful effects. It is important to realize both the structural and developmental differences in a childs hand when splints are being applied. Developmentally disabled children have not experienced normal hand function or weight bearing and consequently lack the normal conguration of arches and grasping patterns (Hogan & Uditsky, 1998). Therefore splints should support the normal congurations, as well as promote functional developmental grasp and release patterns. Special care needs to be taken with the child who is nonverbal because of age or disability who may experience problems with decreased sensitivity, tactile defensiveness, and splint pressure. The immature or youthful lack of experience with normal motion and function also requires observation, consideration, and instruction for the child or parents.
SPLINTING PRINCIPLES
Mechanical principles used in splinting adults and children are the same. Once the concepts of the anatomical and mechanical principles are understood there is little requirement for splint patterns. Applying the softened splint material and positioning the hand and affected joints in the desired and optimal biomechanical position for the purpose the splint is intended are the keys to effective splinting. Generally, the experienced therapist uses less splint material without a pattern than a novice splinter with a pattern because it takes both perception of what the splint will do and what forces the splint will exert, as well as the vision of how the splint will accomplish this to be an effective and efcient splint maker. The splint is used to place body parts into the most benecial position for the preestablished goal with proper biomechanics considered for the extremity, injury, and splint. The mechanical principles that must be understood and applied include force, pressure, torque, friction, and shear stress. Obviously an entire chapter could be dedicated to biomechanics and mechanical principles; instead an overview of the important mechanical prin-
Figure 18-1 Areas prone to pressure because of splint or strap force include: (1) dorsal metacarpals, especially with dorsally based splints; (2) volar surface of metacarpals and thumb at distal end of wrist cock-up splints and C-bars; (3) volar surface of digits with resting hand splints resulting from spasticity or contractures; (4) dorsal surface of first phalanges and proximal interphalangeal joints; (5) ulnar styloid; (6) thumb metacarpal; (7) not shown, but center of the palm with too much transverse arch in the palm; (8) base of the thumb with vulnerable radial nerve; (9) proximal end of the splint. (From Malik M [1985]. Manual on static hand splinting. Pittsburgh, AREN.)
Figure 18-2 Splints should include proximal joints to assist in splint stability and decrease the probability that they will be removed.
Allow for efcient construction and t. Plan design to limit construction time and readjustment; sometimes prefabricated splints are the most reasonable, especially when time and expenses are considered. Provide for ease of application and removal. Independent donning and dofng of splints improve compliance; caretakers of small children also need quick and efcient means of fastening and unfastening splints for application and removal. Consider the splint or exercise regimen: It may be possible to have both flexion and extension systems built into the same splint (Van Straten & Sagi, 2000). Similarly, a long arm thumb spica may be trimmed to a hand-based thumb spica as therapy and healing progress. The cost factor also should be considered at this point. Finally, the splint should be safe from hard or sharp edges, as well as any attachments or straps that may come off or be swallowed.
Strive for simplicity and pleasing appearance. Some patients have low gadget tolerance and are much more accepting and compliant with a simple, cosmetically pleasing splint. Children also tend to be more compliant if they are involved in helping to choose a color or favorite sticker to decorate the splint. Allow for optimum function of the extremity without needless immobility of the uninvolved joint, unless it is necessary to secure the splint to prevent removal. Children are less likely to suffer stiff joints for a prolonged period if proximal joints are used to stabilize or secure the splint from removal by the child (Figure 18-2). Allow for optimum sensation:
Without sensation the hand is perceptively blind and functionally limited . . . splint designs should leave as much of the palmar tactile surface areas as free from occlusive material as possible (Fess et al., 2005, p. 213).
404
BOX 18-1
exploration in the child centers around the use of his or her upper extremities. Other goals for a positional splint include enabling or improving existing function, augmenting the benets of therapy, and substituting for weak or absent muscles. Functional splinting may be used to hold or adapt eating or writing instruments, as well as to aid in the management of assistive technology for environmental controls or educational access. This may be attained through isolation of a digit for pointing and touching a keyboard or creating a flat palm to access a touch pad for a fan or light switch. On the other hand, a custom fabricated joy stick gripping splint may mean increased independence of computer use or may improve accuracy in controlling an electric wheelchair for a child with a neurologically involved hand. Also, a hand-based thumb spica splint may be the key to thumb control that a child requires to manipulate clothing, fasteners, or a pencil. Another potential goal is to improve or prevent hygiene problems. This is usually more of an issue with the neurologically involved hypertonic hand. The difculty of relaxing the hand to allow air flow and hand washing can be assisted through splinting for hand position, as well as protection of the palmar surface. Finally, splinting goals can be to help modify or prevent undesired behaviors that interfere with safety or upper extremity use. This might include, but is not limited to, elbow extension splinting to keep the hands away from the mouth or necessary life support equipment or medical equipment in use with the child. In some cases splinting and behavior modication can be tools to improve self-injurious behavior (Hogan & Uditsky, 1998). Orthopedic or post trauma splinting is discussed later in the chapter.
SPLINT SELECTION
THE PROBLEM-BASED SPLINT SELECTION C HART
Hogan and Uditsky (1998) have developed a priority rating form, as well as a splint selection flow chart (Figure 18-3), which is helpful for determining the
Figure 18-3 The Pediatric Splint Selection Flow Chart. (From: Hogan T & Uditsky T [1998]. Pediatric splinting: Selection, fabrication, and clinical application of upper extremity splints. San Antonio, TX, Therapy Skill Builders. p. 20.)
406
Table 18-1
Table 18-1
(Modied from: Hogan L & Uditsky T [1998]. Pediatric splinting: Selection, fabrication, and clinical application for upper extremity splints. San Antonio, TX, Therapy Skill Builders. p. 31.)
408
Figure 18-6 Static progressive splint. MERiT component used to progress wrist extension.
Figure 18-4
Figure 18-7 Dynamic splint. Used here as an exercise splint to increase strength and proprioceptive input at the distal interphalangeal joint after a flexor digitorum profundus repair.
of the traction. Through the continuum of healing there are basic guidelines for splint selection. Note that joint, injury, or contracture t into these categories; however, it is a basic rule of thumb that may help you decide what splint design the child needs. Constant reassessment of tissue healing, joint motion, growth, and splint t are important to maximize the positive aspects of the splint and minimize the negative effects that are possible when applying a splint to the extremity of a child (Figure 18-8). Paul Brand, a pioneer in hand surgery and hand therapy, lists the 10 questions one should ask before dynamic splints are made.
Figure 18-5 Serial static splint. This splint can be reapplied as the joints improve range of motion.
. . . the rst step is to dene the object of the dynamic splint for the specic hand we are treating and for the specic joint or joints that we want to mobilize or modify. Then we should ask 10 questions in relation to the forces we propose to use: (1) How much force? (2) Through what surface? (3) For how long? (4) To what structure? (5) By what leverage? (6) Against what reaction? (7) For what purpose? (8) Measured by what scale? (9) Avoiding what harm? and (10) Warned by what signs? (Brand, 2002, pp. 1811-1817).
splinting is custom made, although some components may be prefabricated and kits are available. Dynamic splinting uses articulations and force components to constantly put a dynamic pull on the tight or healing tissue. Dynamic splinting uses the elastic properties of the tissue, as well as the splint components such as rubber bands, springs, or elastic cord, to exert controlled mobilization (Figure 18-7). It may be used conversely to strengthen or give proprioceptive feedback when exercise is done against the line of pull
These principles seem simple; however, they make the difference between a successful, well-designed dynamic splint and a disaster that has potential to harm the child.
Proliferative
Remodeling
Figure 18-8 Tissue is in constant change when healing, always moving between stages. Observe tissue healing and scar maturation when considering which type of splint to use, and constantly re-evaluate tissue change and splint effectiveness. (Modified from Jacobs M, Austin N [2003]. Splinting the hand and upper extremity: Principles and process. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.)
BOX 18-2
Drapability and conformability Stretch Memory Bondability Rigidity Working times and heating Other Thickness Perforations Color
drapability; therefore, watch heating time. A high drapable material is Polyform; midrange materials are Polyflex II, TailorSplint, and Ort; and low drapable materials are Synergy and Orthoplast. Highly drapable materials should be handled in the horizontal plane to prevent overstretching the material. The ability to stretch or resist stretch without buckling or loss of rigidity is another important characteristic that usually runs parallel to the amount of drapability a material has in it; the more drapability the easier the stretch, and vice versa. Around contours such as elbows and flexed metacarpals it is essential to have stretch without loss of strength or shape; however, too much drapability on a longer or larger splint can be difcult to control. Novice splinters may wish to start off with a midrange material such as Ezeform or Ort. Memory is the degree to which a material will return to its original shape. Aquaplast has a high memory. It can be molded and xed and dropped in the splint pan to return to its original shape. High memory is helpful if high tone or tactile sensitivity is an issue and the material may get smushed by a grasp reflex. It is excellent if the goal is serial splinting or if there will be a signicant change in edema; however, memory can be a problem if the material is taken off the patient before it is fully cooled because it will shrink and try to return to its original shape as it cools. This in turn creates both a poor t and edges that dig into the skin. Bondability, or the ability of the material to stick to itself when heated, is another property that must be weighed when choosing material. Material may have a coating that resists bonding and is easy to pop apart when cool. The coating may be left on and a damp paper towel or lotion can be used to help prevent bonding. Also, if bonding is desired for outrigger placement or sealing around the thenar web space, the coating can be removed with a solvent or scraped off with a sharp instrument. Rigidity is the relative amount of strength the material has when cool. The higher the rigidity the more the material resists passive bending and cracking. Higher rigidity is suggested for spasticity or long-term contractures. Rigidity also can be added to less rigid materials through contours, I- and T-beam supports, and multiple layering. Working time or setting time needs to be kept in mind when working with a material. Thin materials (1 16) have a short working time and set quickly once / removed from the splint pan. Other materials depending on the heating time and temperature and material qualities take up to 2 minutes to heat up and have 2 to 6 minutes of workable time before they set. Drying off the splint material also extends the working time because evaporation cools the material faster and less evenly.
410
Each material also is made up of a different combination of plastic, rubber, and polymers and the qualities also are influenced by the thickness of the material. Materials come in 1 16, 1 12, 3 32, and 1 8 thickness. / / / / Most nger-based splints are made from the thinnest 1 / materials to help reduce bulk between the ngers 16 and they are strong enough to maintain the correct position in a nger. Childrens hand or wrist splints can be made from this material as well if spasticity is not an issue. However, hand, wrist, and forearm splints should be made from thicker materials so they will retain their strength across the joint. Other physical characteristics include the option of perforations, as well as color. Many splinting materials exist and new ones come on the market all the time. It is a good learning experience to have your local sales representative bring out or send you samples of the various materials in different thicknesses. Different splint property charts go into great detail about the materials, but the best way to nd out how they will respond to your use of them is hands-on use. Play with the different materials and make the same splint out of several types and thicknesses of material. Use different strapping materials as well and you will nd out what works best for the most common splint types you make. If you work in a busy hand clinic you most likely have several different types of materials in various thicknesses because of the wide variety of hand and upper extremity diagnoses seen. The school, itinerant, or home health therapist may nd that he or she is making a similar type of splint for a similar age group and may select a couple of all-around good splint materials to have on hand. Remember not to leave them in the car! This is an expensive mistake for a traveling therapist, as the author learned from personal experience during one hot Texas summer. Soft splinting materials also are splints by denition. This includes, but is not limited to, Neoprene, Lycra, elastomer, strapping, and taping. Combinations of conventional splint and soft materials may be the best choice, depending on the specic needs of the child.
Figure 18-9 Prepadding the ulnar styloid and other critical areas (e.g., around percutaneous pins) helps avoid pressure areas.
FISTED HAND
The sted hand is difcult to distinguish in infants because the palmar grasp reflex is strong. This is easier to discern when looking at symmetry of the upper extremities. It may be appropriate to provide an antispasticity cone or soft cone if the hand does not open to explore or grasp in an age-appropriate pattern. Infant splints are tiny, and fabricating these miniature splints is an art in itself. It is perfectly ne to cheat and fabricate on the opposite hand and flip the splint, or look for a sibling or another similar-sized infant on which to fabricate the splint. In the older child the sted hand can be a problem for function, as well as hygiene. The least restrictive splint is always the better choice; however, extra strapping or including proximal joints may be necessary for splint security and the prevention of splint distal migration. For younger toddlers and pre-school-aged children, weight bearing on their upper extremities requires wrist and nger extension. A clamshell or bivalved splint provides both wrist and hand control during weightbearing activity. Splint material plays a bigger part in this splint than in others. Flexor tone and sting can immediately ruin a beautiful piece of soft Polyflex II by turning it into a squashed-up clump of material when applied to a sensitive or tactilely defensive hand. A more rigid splint material with more memory, such as
A B
Figure 18-10 A, Elastomer used as a splint base for a 2-month-old infant with fisted hand and thumb in palm. Strapping is made of neoprene and is run through slits in the material. (Splint courtesy KG Staines, Hand Care of Houston.) B, Adapt-It pellets used to form finger separation and control alignment within a resting splint.
412
Figure 18-11 A, Fifteen-year-old child. with athetoid cerebral palsy demonstrating adducted thumb. B, ThumbDuction strap on child to improve resting posture. C, ThumbDuction strap used to stabilize thumb carpometacarpal joint while working on strengthening and manipulation activity.
Ezeform or Aquaplast, allows some touching of material to itself without instant bonding. The nished splint also has fewer ngerprints and rough edges. It also may be easier to use precooled Thera-Band or Ace wrap for a proximal third hand or to complete the proximal forearm shape and then reheat only the distal or hand part of the splint that will be shaped for the hand. This is a useful splint for supervised weightbearing activities. Because there is progression, the dorsal part of the splint can be used alone with individual nger strapping, which provides tactile and kinesthetic input through the palm. With spasticity in the upper extremities and hands, the position obtained with the antispasticity ball or cone helps reduce tone (Figure 18-13). In the most severe of hand contractures, in which the goal is to prevent skin breakdown and maintain hygiene, the Freedom Finger Contracture
Orthosis or carrot, may be used (Figure 18-14). There is now an inflatable version for progressive hand opening.
WRIST FLEXION
The wrist is considered the key to the hand because the hand is dependent on the wrist for correct placement and stability to allow nger motion. It is crucial that the wrist be controlled to allow the ngers and thumb freedom. The optimal wrist position for nger function is 25 to 30 degrees of wrist extension. To allow maximum tactile input, dorsal splinting is preferred; however, pressure on a thin or bony wrist can become uncomfortable and cause skin breakdown. There are as many prefabricated and precut wrist splints as there are ideas for custom designs. If one splint
Figure 18-12 Thumb saddle splint with wrist strap used for thumb postioning and carpometacarpal stabilization. (Splint courtesy KG Staines, Hand Care of Houston.)
Figure 18-14 Fifteen-year-old child with variable flexor tone, demonstrating use of the finger contracture orthosis or carrot splint.
children, so learn to make a couple of types that suit your population (Figure 18-15). Prefabricated splints often are appropriate because they are time saving, which results in monetary savings as well.
Figure 18-13 Antispasticity ball splint with both dorsal and volar forearm. (Courtesy Sammons Preston Rolyan.)
design does not work after careful planning, then try another. This can be costly, but do not accept a splint that does not t well or perform its intended function, no matter how long it took to make it. Neoprene also is effective if the problem is mild tone or hypotonicity. In an older child with strong or xed contractures, it is not only painful, but useless to try to aggressively obtain wrist extension. More subtle measures such as static progressive splints or serial casting over a longer period of time are better choices. In general, the wrist cock-up splint is one of the most common upper extremity splints you will make on
414
Figure 18-15 A, Wrist cock-up splint fabricated for post wrist trauma in a young girl. (Splint courtesy KG Staines, Hand Care of Houston.) B, Prefabricated cozy wrist splint, with washable terry cover. The wrist support and hand rest can be bent to fit.
is serially modied as wrist alignment improves. If there are severe bony anomalies, then splinting is less effective.
Figure 18-16 Thumb abduction supination splint demonstrated here to aid in play activity.
1996). This suggests that function can be affected by weight bearing. Similar splint designs have been discussed for wrist flexion and sted hand problems in this chapter. (Figure 18-17).
A B
Figure 18-17 A, Four-year-old with athetoid cerebral palsy, unable to weight bear on open palm. B, Splint fabricated to assist in supervised weight-bearing activities. Adapt-It pellets used to support the palmar arches while weight bearing. C, Child in side sitting with weight-bearing splint on right hand.
isolation glove with computer keyboarding also is a good option (Figures 18-18 and 18-19). Thermoplastic splinting may be more appropriate with greater tone. Writing instrument or pointing stick grasp can be assisted with splinting as well. For functional tasks such as writing or coloring, the childs normal pattern of movement must be observed carefully because a splint can easily limit the child rather than promote function.
population, and traditional therapeutic approaches may not be adequate to prevent progressive deformity in the hand of these critically ill infants.
Medical instability, time constraints, lack of family participation in the therapeutic program, the complexity of the treatment program, and fear of harming the infant are considerations that may indicate the need for splinting as an adjunctive therapeutic intervention. A number of factors are particularly important in making splints for infants, including splint alignment and padding, strap attachment, and thermoplastic malleability (Anderson & Anderson, 1988).
Besides progressive deformities that cannot be handled solely by a hand treatment program, there are ve other indications for use of splinting in infants with signicant hand deformities (Anderson & Anderson,
416
Figure 18-18 Index finger isolation splint in neoprene. (Courtesy Benik Corp.)
Figure 18-19 Example of index finger isolation splint designed to improve keyboard accuracy.
1988). First, the amount of time needed to perform an adequate hand treatment program may be too much for both staff and family in an NICU environment, because both the number of critical infants and the lifethreatening nature of their condition make hand therapy intervention lower on the priority scale in terms of time. Second, the critical, medically unstable infant will be stressed by increased handling and movement. The infant must use the caloric input for survival and then maturing and growing. Splinting provides positioning without as much handling. Third, because of possible unwillingness or inability by the family to participate in the infants rehabilitation due to factors such as grief, sibling and family issues, work schedule, and sometimes transportation issues, splinting should be initiated early. When establishing hand positioning and function from the start through early intervention, these family com-
FRACTURES
Many nonoperative pediatric fractures are not even seen by therapists because the patients are doing well by the time they have their cast removal follow-up with the orthopedic physician. Postoperative fractures, on the other hand, may nd their way to your clinic. Percutanous pins and external xators can be protected by splinting circumferentially with bivalved or clamshell splinting. The zipper splint is an excellent after cast splint because it is circumferential and rigid (Figure 18-20). Buddy taping or buddy strapping usually is effective to encourage movement in a stiff nger after immobilization. Taping stays on better, but parents or caregivers should be instructed in how to apply it because it does get dirty. Buddy straps are more easily removed
Figure 18-20 Zipper splint used afterforearm fracture and postcast removal for support and protection.
418
surgeon benet from working as a team to promote the highest level of outcome possible.
J UVENILE ARTHRITIS
As with adult onset arthritis, the patient with juvenile arthritis requires rest of inflamed joints and tissue. Although there are many classications of juvenile arthritis, the joint problems and functional task problems are similar. Resting hand splints for night splinting to rest the joints in the functional position is a good preventive measure. Thumb carpometacarpal splints to support the thumb are practical to prevent fatigue if the hands are involved (Figure 18-21). Functional splints for handwriting and computer keyboarding use also are benecial if the school-aged child will wear them in front of peers. For swan neck (Figure 18-22) and boutonnire (Figure 18-23) deformities, the same splint design as that used in adults can be employed. Proper alignment early on helps prevent joint contractures, which, when present, are more difcult to treat.
Figure 18-22 Prefabricated anti-swan neck splint. (Courtesy North Coast Medical.)
Figure 18-21 Static thumb carpal-metacarpal splint used to stabilize thumb for strengthening activity; may be used for handwriting activities as well.
holds the wrist and forearm in neutral. Postoperative treatment protocols vary according to the surgeons procedure, technique, and preferences. Peripheral nerves can be damaged in a number of ways: (a) ischemia; (b) physical agents such as traction, laceration, pressure, stretching, cold, and heat; (c) infection and inflammatory processes; (d) ingestion of drugs or metals; (e) inltration by pressure from tumors; and (f) the effects of systemic disease (Birch, Chir, & Achan, 2000). Nerve damage is extremely variable. Damage to part or an entire nerve can result from an open or closed injury, or it may be a healthy nerve with trauma or a more pathologic one with systemic illness. If there has been surgery, splints are designed around the postoperative protocols. Many times with children with peripheral nerve injury the wait and see rather than surgical exploration approach is taken if the nerve injury is a result of compression or stretch. In the wait and see period supportive splinting is recommended to maintain flexor and extensor balance to prevent contractures. Median nerve injury is the most commonly seen peripheral nerve injury in children resulting
SUMMARY
In conclusion, when splinting the child, remember to problem solve and prioritize the problems. The goals of splinting vary and may be intended to promote joint functional position or assist in holding an eating or writing utensil. One must keep in mind the normal conguration and architecture of the hand whether to prevent contractures or help restore soft tissue length after an injury. A well-designed splint should provide the needed support or restriction without interfering with normal exploration and movement patterns. Children who have not experienced normal movement patterns with grasp, release, or weight bearing may gain new information from their environment with the use of splints; however, sometimes the right answer is no splint. Splinting is a science, as well as an art. Once mastered, splinting is a great instrument to have in your therapy toolbox when treating children. Enjoy the journey.
420
BOX 18-3
TYPE I: HOUDINIS WHO REMOVE THE STRAPS AND SLIP OUT OF THE SPLINT Figure 18-24, A: Wrap self-adhesive bandage (e.g., Coban) around the straps or entire forearm. / Figure 18-24, B: Wrap a 2 length of 1 4 loop Velcro around the forearm and weave it under the overlapping loops. When removal is attempted, it just tightens. Figure 18-24, C: Use a square metal ring or plastic D-ring applied with sticky back Velcro to the proximal end of the splint. Run the tail end of the Velcro through it. When removal is attempted, the tail end will not lift up. Figure 18-24, D: Cut each strap 1 longer than is needed and Velcro together with sticky back hook tab that has been made from doubling a piece of sticky back hook on itself. Figure 18-24, E: Make holes along the border of the splint and use a regular or curly shoestring to tie the splint on. Toddler shoestring holders can hold these ties away from prying ngers and mouths. Also, the strap is slipped through a slot that has been placed near the edge of the splint, making strap removal difcult. Figure 18-24, F,G: Permanently attach one end of the strap with a rivet or custom rivet using splint material.
Figure 18-24 AK, Anti-Houdini splinting. (See box 18-3 for legends.)
422
I J
Figure 18-25 Dorsal blocking splint designed to bring a smile to a childs face and improve wearing compliance.
Figure 18-26 Splinting can be fun and creative. (Splint courtesy KG Staines, Hand Care of Houston.)
Figure 18-27 Demonstrates maximum effort for wrist and finger extension.
B A
Figure 18-28 A, Volar view of radial nerve splint using Thera-tubing for digital support. B, Dorsal view of radial nerve splint. C, Maximum extension effort with splint on. D, Maximum flexion effort with splint on.
424
A B
Figure 18-29
loops are made with a continuous loop of Thera-tubing in the light yellow strength. The holes in the splint were made with a Dremel tool with a round rotary blade. Carlos mother was instructed in donning and dofng the splint, as well as a daytime wearing schedule and in recognizing problems with the splint. A resting hand night splint also was fabricated because his mother stated his hand stayed sted at night (Figure 18-29). On his next visit approximately 2 weeks later his wrist and ngers appeared more balanced, with trace muscle activity noted in the long extensors of the left wrist and
digits (Figure 18-30). After approximately 2 more weeks, his mother reported that Carlos had started holding light objects in his left hand for play. At the 6-week visit the wrist extensors were at a fair grade and some clawing was still visible with wrist extension with effort (Figure 18-31). At the nal visit (20 weeks postoperative), Carlos was able to use his left hand and wrist with full function, and the radial nerve splint was discontinued (Figures 18-32 to 18-34). The night splint was advised to be worn for another 2 weeks, and thereafter only if Carlos was observed sting at night because of fatigue or overexertion.
Figure 18-31 After-visit demonstrating maximum effort for wrist and finger extension. The patient continues to improve wrist and finger control and uses the hand for light play and activity. Figure 18-30 Second visit demonstrates maximum effort for wrist and finger extension, improved muscle balance, and less clawing.
Figure 18-33 Final visit demonstrates normal control with finger flexion and grip. Figure 18-32 Final visit demonstrates good control of wrist and finger extension.
Figure 18-34 Final visit demonstrates functional use of hand for favorite activity with Yu-gi-oh cards.
426
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks to Otto, Eric, Karl, Stefan, mom and dad, Gloria Gogola, Trent Carlyle, Kimberly Staines, Jean Polichino, Karen Lahvis, and the girls. Also, the Spanish version of Appendix 18B is courtesy of A. Galindo.
SUGGESTED READING
Barnes KJ (1986). Improving prehension skills of children with cerebral palsy: A clinical study. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 6(4):227239. Bell-Krotoski J (2002). Plaster cylinder casting for contractures of the interphalangeal joints. In J Hunter, E Mackin, A Callahan, T Skirven, L Schneider, L Osterman, editors: Rehabilitation of the hand and upper extremity (pp. 18391845). St Louis, Mosby. Brand P (1985) Clinical mechanics of the hand. St Louis, Mosby. Brand P (2002) Lessons from hot feet: A note on tissue remodeling (1944), Correspondence from Dr. Brand to Elaine Ewing Fess, MS, OTR, FAOTA, CHT about soft tissue remodeling process. Journal of Hand Therapy: Splinting Special Issue, 15:133135. Colditz J (2002) Anatomic considerations for splinting the thumb. In J Hunter, E Mackin, A Callahan, T Skirven, L Schneider, L Osterman, editors: Rehabilitation of the hand and upper extremity (pp. 18581874). St Louis, Mosby. Colditz J (2002). Plaster of Paris: The forgotten hand splinting material. Journal of Hand Therapy, 15(2):144157. Exner CE, Bonder BR (1983). Comparative effects of three hand splints on bilateral hand use, grasp, and arm-hand posture in hemiplegic children: A pilot study. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 3:7592. Fitoussi F, Mazda K, et al. (2000). Repair of the flexor pollicis longus tendon in children. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 82(8):11771180. Glasgow C, Wilton J, Tooth L (2003). Optimal daily total end range time for resolution in hand splinting. Journal of Hand Therapy, 16(3):207218. Greenhalgh D (2000). Management of acute burn injuries of the upper extremity in the pediatric population. Hand Clinics, 16(2):175186. Keren O, Shnarch-Voda M, Barak D, Behroozi K (2003). A therapeutic splint for hypertonic flexed elbow in upper motor neuron diseased patients. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 27:6368. Lee M, LaStayo P, vonKersburg A (2003). A supination splint worn distal to the elbow: A radiographic, electromyographic, and retrospective report. Journal of Hand Therapy, 16:190198. Lin SC, Huang TH, Lin CJ, Hsu HY, Chiu HY (1999). A simple splinting method for correction of supple congenital clasped thumbs in infants. Journal of Hand Surgery (Br) 24(5):612 614. Lohman M (2001) Antispasticity splinting. In B Coppard, H Lohman, editors: Introduction to splinting: A criticalthinking & problem-solving approach (pp. 326349). St Louis, Mosby. MacKinnon J, Sanderson E, Buchanan J (1975). The MacKinnon splinting: A functional hand splint. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 42(4):157158.
REFERENCES
Anderson L, Anderson J (1988). Hand splinting for infants in the intensive care and special care nurseries. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 42(4):222226. Austin N, Jacobs M (2003) Splinting the hand and upper extremity: Principles and process. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Birch R, Chir F, Achan P (2000). Peripheral nerve repairs and their results in children. Hand Clinics, 16(4):579595. Brand P (2002). The forces of dynamic splinting: Ten questions before applying a dynamic splint to the hand. In J Hunter, E Mackin, A Callahan, T Skirven, L Schneider, L Osterman, editors: Rehabilitation of the hand and upper extremity (pp. 18111817). St Louis, Mosby. Byron P (2002). Splinting the hand of a child. In J Hunter, E Mackin, A Callahan, T Skirven, L Schneider, L Osterman, editors: Rehabilitation of the hand and upper extremity (pp. 19141919). St Louis, Mosby. Cunningham MW, Yousif NJ, Matloub HS, et al. (1985). Retardation of nger growth after injury to the flexor tendons. Journal of Hand Surgery, 10:115117. Fess EE (2002a). A history of splinting: To understand the present, view the past. Journal of Hand Therapy, 15:97132. Fess EE (2002b). Principles and methods of splinting for mobilization of joints. In J Hunter, E Mackin, A Callahan, T Skirven, L Schneider, L Osterman, editors: Rehabilitation of the hand and upper extremity (pp. 18181827). St Louis, Mosby. Fess EE, Gettle K, Philips C, Janson J (2005). Hand and upper extremity splinting: Principles & methods, 3rd ed. St Louis, Mosby. Flowers KR, Michlovitz SL (1988). Assessment and management of loss of motion in orthopedic dysfunction. In Postgraduate advances in physical therapy (pp 1-11). Alexandria, VA: American Physical Therapy Association. Gabriel L (1996). Splinting children who have developmental disabilities. In B Coppard, H Lohman, editors: Introduction to splinting: A critical thinking and problem-solving approach. St. Louis, Mosby. Hogan L, Uditsky T, (1998) editors: Pediatric splinting: Selection, fabrication, and clinical application of upper extremity splints. San Antonio, TX, Therapy Skill Builders. Kinghorn J, Roberts G (1996).The effect of an inhibitive weight-bearing splint on tone and function: A single-case study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50(10):807815. Osterman L, Paksima N (2002). Flexor tendon injuries and repair in children. In J Hunter, E Mackin, A Callahan, T Skirven, L Schneider, L Osterman, editors: Rehabilitation of the hand and upper extremity (pp. 19071913). St Louis, Mosby.
Appendix
SPLINT INSTRUCTIONS
18A
CARE OF YOUR SKIN 1. Stockinette is to help reduce irritation from the plastic, as well as to reduce the sweatiness underneath the splint. A tube sock with the toe-end cutoff makes a good substitute. 2. Corn starch or light powder is recommended for excessive perspiration. 3. 20-Minute rule: If your skin remains red for more than 20 minutes after removing the splint it indicates too much pressure from the splint. Please notify your therapist to schedule splint modication. 4. Problems with your splint that require immediate adjustment. Signicant swelling, color, or temperature change, skin irritation, increase in tingling, or numbness. WEARING SCHEDULE ____ As needed for ADL, sports, leisure, or work activity ____ Day time _______times per day for _______minutes; increase to _____________ ____ Night only ____ Full time except hygiene ____ Do not remove The above instructions have been explained to me and I understand the use, wear, care, and precautions about my splint.
____________________________ Therapist
429
Appendix
CUIDADO DE LA FRULA
18B
Nombre ______________________
Dato ________________
Frula ______________________
Las siguientes instrucciones se deben de aplicar para el cuidado y limpieza de su frula. LIMPIEZA 1. Plstico (frula) a. Limpie la frula con una toalla o esponja usando agua fria y jabn. b. Limpie la frula con alcohol para quitar tinta o manchas de peridico. c. Para manchas ms difciles use un detergente, por ejemplo, Lysol. Enjuague la frula muy bien antes de ponrsela porque los qumicos pueden irritar la piel. 2. Cintas de Velcro a. Las cintas de Velcro se pueden lavar a mano o en la lavadora. 3. Telas a. Lave a mano o remoje en jabn de lavar. b. Tambin se pueden poner dentro una funda o bolsa de lavandera y lavar en la lavadora. EVITE CALOR 1. La frula esta fabricada de un material que reacciona a lo caliente. Demasiado calor puede cambiar la forma o deretir la frula. a. No deje la frula cerca de objetos calientes. b. No deje la frula cerca de una ventana donde le pueda dar el sol. c. No deje la frula en un carro (automvil) especialmente durante los meses de verano. CUIDADO DE LA PIEL 1. Debe de usar la tela para comodidad y proteccin contra irritacin de la frula (plstico). 2. En caso de mucho sudor, use harina de maz (maizena) para mantener la piel seca. Pongase la harina de maz directamente en la mano o brazo antes de ponerse la tela. Tambin la puede poner la maizena directamente en la frula. 3. Observe la piel para sitios (partes) rojos al quitarse la frula. Sitios (partes) rojos que no se desaparecen en 1520 minutos indican puntos de presin. Debe de llamar y hacer una cita con la terapista para que le modiquen la frula. Si tiene algn problema o alguna pregunta acerca de la frula, favor de llamar a su terapista. _____ Duracion (uso) ____________________________________________________ _____ Dia ______________________________________________________________ _____ Noche ____________________________________________________________ _____ Tiempo completo excepto al banarse ____________________________________
Firma _____________________________________
Terapista _______________________________________
430
Appendix
LIST OF VENDORS
18C
1. Alimed Inc. 297 High Street Dedham, MA 02026-9135 (800) 225-2610 www.alimed.com 2. Benik Corporation 11871 Silverdale Way NW #107 Silverdale, WA 98383 (800) 442-8910 www.benik.com 3. DeRoyal/LMB 200 DeBusk Lane Powell, TN 37849 (800) 541-3992 www.deroyal.com 4. Joe Cool Company 9448 Lady Dove Lane South Jordan, UT 84095 (800) 233-3556 www.joecoolco.com
5. North Coast Medical 18305 Sutter Boulevard Morgan Hill, CA 95037-2845 (800) 821-9319 www.ncmedical.com 6. Sammons Preston Rolyan 4 Sammons Court Bolingbrook, IL 60440-4995 (800) 323-5547 www.sammonsprestonrolyan.com 7. 3-Point Products 1610 Pincay Court Annapolis, MD 21401 (888) 378-7763 www.3pointproducts.com
431
Chapter
EFFICACY OF INTERVENTIONS TO ENHANCE HAND FUNCTION
Jane Case-Smith
19
CHAPTER OUTLINE
LEVELS OF RESEARCH EVIDENCE CHILDREN WITH CEREBRAL PALSY Weight Bearing on Hands Neurodevelopmental Treatment Casting and Splinting Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy Surgical and Medical Intervention CHILDREN WITH DEVELOPMENTAL COORDINATION DISORDER OR MILD DISABILITIES Cognitive Orientation to Daily Occupational Performance Occupational Therapy Approaches with Preschool Children INTERVENTIONS TO IMPROVE HANDWRITING Instructional Approaches Occupational Therapy Approaches SUMMARY
Occupational therapists have assumed leadership roles in developing interventions to enhance childrens ne motor skills. As leaders in the development of practice models and strategies to improve hand function, occupational therapists also have researched the effectiveness of these interventions on childrens function. This chapter describes occupational therapy (OT) and other discipline research that has examined hand function intervention outcomes and synthesizes current knowledge on the effectiveness of these interventions.
433
434
Table 19-1
II
III
IV
Theories based on basic science. Adapted from Butler and Darrah (2001), Law (2002), and Phillips and co-workers (1998).
rather than randomized. Level II studies provide fair condence in the validity of the ndings, particularly if the sample size is large. Level III studies refer to cohort studies that compare existing patient groups who do or do not receive the intervention. It also includes single subject designs in which subjects are tested during baseline, intervention and return to baseline or when subjects receive a series of alternating interventions and are repeatedly measured during the treatment phases. An important aspect of these studies is that the subjects are evaluated on a repeated basis for an extended time frame and they serve as their own control (are measured when not receiving intervention). Level III studies also include case control studies in which subjects are matched by their outcomes. This type of study was not included in the review of hand function interventions. Level IV studies are case series studies in which only one group (cohort) of subjects, all of whom receive the intervention, are assessed. A control or comparison group is not used. This level includes case studies. These studies provide weak evidence, and minimal condence in the ndings. Level V research evidence refers to expert opinion, and is associated with low condence in the results. Level V evidence is not discussed in this chapter.
The rst section of this chapter describes interventions for children with cerebral palsy (CP) who had moderate to severe hand function limitations. The second section describes interventions for children with developmental coordination disorder and milder hand function limitations. The third section describes research of handwriting interventions. A summary discusses issues in research of hand skill interventions and future directions for research.
436
Table 19-2
Research studies examining the efficacy of interventions to enhance hand function in children with cerebral palsy (19852005)
Level of Evidence
Level IV AB single subject
Authors
Barnes (1989a)
Sample
N=3 spastic cerebral palsy (CP) 46 years N=3 spastic CP 5.97.5 years N = 10, spastic CP
Intervention
Weight bearing on extended arms; 1920 sessions
Measures
Erhardts assessment of prehension
Findings
Visual analysis. Prehension skills improved in two subjects. Visual analysis; two of three improved Hand surface increased. Reach did not improve. Grasp and release improved. Hand surface area and play activities did not improve. Arm position did improve. No difference between play and NDT effects
Barnes (1989b)
Weight bearing on extended arms; 4 sessions/wk for 10 wk Upper extremity weightbearing; 10 weeks with 2- to 5-week treatment
Erhardts assessment of prehension Videotape of reach, grasp, release. Hand weight-bearing surface area
N = 1, spastic quadriplegia CP
Level IV ABAB
Alternating play and neurodevelopmental treatment (NDT); 12 wk, six sessions of NDT and six of play Individualized NDT techniques, 2/wk for 8 wks
DeGangi (1994)
For child with hemiparesis: Posture, use of right hand, and bilateral and visual motor skills Upper extremity movement using kinematic analysis
Changes were not signicant for NDT alone; were signicant for treatments combined.
Table 19-2
Research studies examining the efcacy of interventions to enhance hand function in children with cerebral palsy (19852005)contd
Level of Evidence
Level I randomized clinical trial
Authors
Law et al. (1991)
Sample
79 children with spastic CP
Intervention
Intensive and regular NDT with casting, intensive and regular NDT alone for 6 months
Measures
PDMS-FM QUEST ROM of wrist
Findings
PDMS: not signicant; QUEST, more improved for children who wore casts No difference among treatment types
N = 50 spastic CP, with moderatesevere UE impairment, 18 months 4 years N = 1, spastic quadriparesis, 11 years
Intensive NDT with casting and regular occupational therapy; 4 mo, 2 mo washout, 4 mo
PDMS-FM QUEST
ROM increased with plaster cast and decreased with berglass cast. ROM increased and muscle tone decreased immediately after casting. At 6-month follow-up; ROM maintained; some hand function goals achieved. Reduced spasticity immediately, but not long term.
Level IV ABA
Plaster cast applied; study for 11 days, cast worn for 48 hours
Functional activities; modied Ashworth Scale; resistive movement ROM, grip strength, dexterity, and prehension patterns
438
Table 19-2
Research studies examining the efficacy of interventions to enhance hand function in children with cerebral palsy (19852005)contd
Level of Evidence
Level II alternative treatments
Authors
Reid & Sochaniwskyj (1992).
Sample
N = 10, children with CP with upper extremity involvement
Intervention
Children wore a hand position splint
Measures
Quality of movement in reaching, movement latency, time, average velocity, and movement units Analysis of play session for how often children used involved hand
Findings
No signicant differences with or without the splint
Constraint-induced (CI) therapy, wore a splint for 3 weeks, 2 weeks before and after were baseline, with 6-month follow-up
Use of involved hand doubled. Improvements in grasp, release, and sensory exploration were signicant. Hand function improved in 2 or 3 children; sensory discrimination improved in all; coordination of force improved in 1. All scores improved signicantly and used involved arm 100% in free play. Scores improved for the Wolf Motor Function Test, AMPS, and increased use of involved arm by selfreport.
Level IV AB design
N = 3, hemiparesis CP
PDMS-FM, DDST, Pediatric Motor Activity Log, Toddler Arm Use Test
Wolf Motor Function Test, Assessment of Motor and Process Skill (AMPS); 8-month follow-up
Table 19-2
Research studies examining the efficacy of interventions to enhance hand function in children with cerebral palsy (19852005)contd
Level of Evidence
Level I randomized clinical trial; crossover design
Authors
Willis, Morello, Davie, Rice, & Bennett (2002)
Sample
N = 25, hemiparesis CP, ages = 18 years
Intervention
CI therapy, cast was worn for 1 month, measured at 6 months, then crossover
Measures
PDMS-FM, parent report
Findings
PDMS-FM improved signicantly, more in CI group than control group; 21 of 22 parents reported improvement at follow-up Large gains with CI therapy, TAUT and PMAL improved signicantly. Gains were maintained at 3- and 6months follow-up. Children with diplegia improved in functional mobility and self-care on the PEDI. Did not improve in reach and coordination. Signicant gains on both scales
CI therapy; children wore bivalved casts and received 6 hours of therapy for 21 days or conventional therapy.
Pediatric motor activity level (PMAL) Toddler Arm Use Test (TAUT)
N = 29, spastic CP
Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI); reach and coordination, 6- and 12month follow-up Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test (QUEST), WeeFIM, 1 year after surgery PEDI
440
Table 19-2
Research studies examining the efficacy of interventions to enhance hand function in children with cerebral palsy (19852005)contd
Level of Evidence
Level IV pre- and post-surgery with follow-up
Authors
Mittal, Farmer, Al-Atassi, et al. (2002b)
Sample
N = 70 at post-op, 45 at 3 years and 25 at 5 years; spastic CP, 3 to 7.4 years at the time of surgery 68 children with spastic CP, 73% were younger than 16 years
Intervention
Selective dorsal rhizotomy
Measures
PDMS-FM
Findings
Signicant gains at 3 years, maintained at 5 years
Level IV prospective case series study with no control, 3-month follow-up to 70 months Level IV prospective case series study with no control, 3- and 6-month follow-up
Intrathecal baclofen
Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Goal Attainment Scale, Assessment of limb function, Child Health Questionnaire, parent questionnaire, Modied Ashworth Scale, ROM
Improved on COPM, no change on the assessment of limb function or Child Health Questionnaire, reduction of muscle tone that returned to baseline at 6 months. No change in ROM.
sion, increased hand function. The evidence suggests that hypertonicity is decreased with weight bearing, allowing for improved active elbow, wrist, and nger extension. In addition, the Barnes studies show improvements in hand function. These ndings have limited validity and should be conrmed by more rigorous study.
N EURODEVELOPMENTAL TREATMENT
The effectiveness of NDT has been researched for the past 30 years. A number of these studies have used true
experimental designs (Level I); however, the majority have used quasi-experimental and pre-experimental designs (Levels II to IV) with small samples of convenience. In 2001, an extensive review of NDT efcacy research sponsored by the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine was published in Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. In this comprehensive review, Butler and Darrah (2001) synthesized the results of 21 studies. They concluded that 86 of 101 results (from 21 studies) were neutral or found an advantage for the comparison group; only 15 results favored NDT.
A historic perspective of NDT research that included hand function outcomes is helpful in understanding the effects of this approach. Two early studies, Carlsen (1975) and Scherzer, Mike, and Ilson (1976) found positive results when effects of NDT were compared with a contrasting therapy. Carlsen reported greater gross motor improvements in the NDT group, but ne motor improvement did not differ when NDT was compared with functional therapy. Scherzer and co-workers reported improvement in physiologic function, but ne motor skills were not specically measured. Studies in the 1980s examined gross motor and social outcomes of NDT with children with CP. These studies included several clinical trials that did not support the benets of NDT (Hanzlik, 1989; Palmer et al., 1988).
DeGangi (1994) implemented a case study design (level IV) to examine the short-term effects of NDT. DeGangi was interested in the specic effects of NDT and argued that measuring the immediate effects was an important step before large clinical trials. She believed that single subject designs were appropriate and useful for examining NDT effects because individual children vary in their performance and their limitations. DeGangi (1994) provided a detailed description of the goals and the techniques used to reach those goals. Successful performance on each goal as observed by the parent and the therapist was counted across observations. Of the three cases documented, one focused on ne motor performance in a 6-year-old child with right hemiparesis (the other cases focused on other domains, such as feeding). The goals included use of right hand as an assist to stabilize objects or materials, improve visual motor skills, and bilateral skills such as buttoning, zipping, and stringing beads. After 8 weeks of twice-a-week hour-long NDT sessions, the childs performance improved but remained inconsistent. In another study that examined the short term effects of NDT, Fetters and Kluzik (1996) compared the effects of NDT with practice of reaching on eight children with spastic CP. Each child received 5 days of NDT and 5 days of practice. Kinematic analysis of reach was used before and after each intervention to measure smoothness and speed of reaching movements. Although there were no difference between NDT and practice of reaching, when intervention time periods were combined and pre- and post-differences analyzed, all children improved in reaching speed and smoothness. These short-term small sample studies do not support positive effects of NDT when compared with other interventions; that is, they found that NDT did not result in greater positive effects than play or skill practice. However, these Level III to IV studies should not be considered conclusive; primarily, small sample trials develop instrumentation and methodologies for larger-scale studies.
442
xed contractures or severe developmental disability were excluded. The intervention period was 6 months. Children either received intensive NDT OT, dened as twice a week (90 total sessions) with a 30-minute-per-day home program or they received regular NDT occupational therapy, dened as once a week (sometimes less) with a 15-minute home program to be implemented three times a week. Children who received casting wore a bivalved inhibitive cast at least 4 hours a day. The cast immobilized the wrist in extension and did not include thumb or ngers. Details about the treatment were not provided. The measures included the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-Fine Motor (PDMS-FM), the Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test (QUEST), and range of motion of the wrist. The children were randomized into one of four groups: Intensive NDT plus casting, regular NDT plus casting, intensive NDT, and regular NDT without casting. Measures were taken at 6 months to capture immediate effects and 9 months to examine the long-term effects. Although the design called for 48 NDT sessions for the intensive NDT group, the mean number of sessions was 29, which was almost three times higher than the 11 sessions the regular NDT group received. Hand function as assessed by the PDMS-FM did not differ signicantly among the groups at the 6- or 9month measure. However, using age equivalent scores on the PDMS-FM, changes for all of the groups appeared to be clinically signicant (5.26 months at the 6-month measure and 6.33 months at the 9-month measure). The qualitative measure of arm and hand movements, the QUEST, was signicantly different for the children who wore casts with NDT when compared with those who received NDT only. This difference was more signicant at 6 months (p = 0.03) than at 9 months (p = 0.10). In a follow-up regression analysis, Law and coworkers (1991) found that positive outcomes related to parents estimate of their understanding, comfort, and compliance with the home program and the age of the child. Children who were younger and whose parents estimated compliance as high had better outcomes. This nding suggests that, when possible, therapists should initiate therapy at young ages and encourage parents participation in home programs. These researchers concluded that casting with regular NDT signicantly improves the quality of upper extremity movements. These effects are only partially sustained over time. Differences in the intensity of intervention did not produce clinically or statistically signicant differences in performance. One consideration in interpreting these results is that not all children in the intensive
Splinting
Splints have been designed to reduce hypertonicity and improve function in children with CP. Exner and Bonder (1983) evaluated three different splints on a group of 12 children using a counterbalanced research design. Each of the splints had signicant positive effects. The orthokinetic and MacKinnon splints demonstrated a greater effect than the short opponens; however, the former are rarely used in practice today. Although the short opponens was less effective in improving grasping skill, at present it is commonly
444
applied on children with CP. The short opponens splint holds the thumb in opposition to the ngers and may be made of neoprene or thermoplastic materials. Reasons for its frequent use may relate to its appearance, ease of use and comfort. The effectiveness of the short opponens splint was evaluated by Goodman and Bazyk (1991) using a 4year-old child with moderate spastic quadriparesis. The volar splint of thermoplastic materials positioned the thumb in opposition by supporting it at the thenar eminence. Measures included active range of motion, grip strength, and pinch strength, dexterity, and prehension patterns. A 4-week baseline phase was followed by a 4-week intervention phase in which the child wore the splint for 3 hours in the morning and 3 hours in the evening. Using visual analysis of graphed data, improvements were reported in ROM, dexterity, and quality of movement. Changes in strength were not observed. Reid and Sochaniwskyj (1992) examined the effects of a hand positioning splint on arm and hand movements using a sample of 10 children with CP (Level II study). Analysis in three dimensions of reaching path length, movement latency, movement time, average velocity, and movement units recorded no signicant differences when the splint was or was not worn. Although group differences were not signicant, a number of the children demonstrated improved performance on a visual motor test when wearing the splint. The research on splints and casts is inconclusive given inconsistent results and weak research designs (primarily Level IV). Despite lack of rigorous studies, Teplicky, Law, and Russell (2002) concluded from a review of the research on splinting and casting, that casting consistently increases ROM. Whether or not the increased ROM equates to improved function is less clear. The effects of splinting are equivocal, with limited evidence that splinting improves hand function. In cerebral palsy, function is affected by limited strength, abnormal muscle tone, impaired sensation, difculty in coordinating movements together, and in some children, limited cognitive ability. Intervention targeting one impairment may or may not improve function given that multiple systems contribute to functional performance (including sensory and cognitive). To conrm the effects of casting and splinting, large sample experimental design studies are needed.
Clinical Trials
Two randomized clinical trials of CI therapy have been completed. Willis and others (2002) implemented a study using 25 children with hemiparesis. A crossover design was used. A plaster cast was applied to the unaffected arm of the treatment group and was not removed for 1 month. The control group received no treatment. Fine motor skills of both groups were measured using the PDMS-FM before and after intervention. At 6 months after the rst intervention the control group (N = 10) received the intervention and the group previously casted served as a control. For the rst intervention period, changes in PDMS-FM scores were signicantly different, with gains by the intervention group much higher than gains by the control group. These changes were sustained when measured 6 months later. The second group (who began CI therapy at 6 months) also made signicant gains with intervention. Parents globally reported improved use of the affected arm. Several children did not tolerate the casts and the parents asked that they be removed. Taub and co-workers (2004) also completed a randomized trial (Level I) using 18 children. The CI therapy involved two components. The children in the intervention group were casted and the cast was bivalved for easy removal weekly. The intervention group also received 6 hours of therapy each day, implemented by occupational and physical therapists. Fine motor and daily living skills were shaped using therapeutic principles. The two measures, PMAL and TAUT, were reported earlier in the description of a case study by these same authors. The children who were casted improved signicantly on the parent interview (rating both the amount of use and quality of use) and also improved signicantly on the TAUT. Follow-up evaluation (using the PMAL) indicated that the gains were sustained over time. Taub and colleagues (2004) concluded that the CI therapy intervention produced large improvement in the use of the more affected extremity. The children gained 9.3 new motor behaviors in a 3-week therapy period. A critical therapeutic factor appears to be the concentrated extended nature of training conducted for many hours daily over consecutive weeks. The authors discuss the feasibility of concentrated doses of therapy. Because 6 hours of therapy each day is not reimbursed, not practical for busy families, and not feasible for certain
446
children, research studies using less intensive therapy schedules are needed. In summary, virtually all of the studies of CI therapy, including two Level I studies, demonstrate its effectiveness in promoting hand function in children with hemiparesis. This therapy requires forced, intense practice of the involved extremity in various functional tasks. Most of the children appear to tolerate the casting or splinting procedures; the primary limitation appears to be in applying the intensive therapy schedule of 4 to 6 hours per day. Such a schedule is difcult for families and therapists alike, but may be feasible to implement on a short-term basis.
448
Table 19-3
Research studies examining the efficacy of interventions to enhance hand function in children with developmental coordination disorders
Level of Evidence
Level IV pre- and postmeasures with intervention, no control
Authors
Polatajko, Mandich, Miller & Macnab (2001)
Sample
N = 13, children with developmental coordination disorder
Intervention
Children were taught verbal self-guidance and to set goals
Measures
Functional goals; Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration (VMI), Test of Motor Impairment (TOMI) COPM, Performance quality, Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS), BruininksOseretsky Test of Motor Prociency (BOTMP), Visual Motor Integration (VMI)
Findings
Achieved 9 of 10 goals. VMI and TOMI were not statistically different.
Cognitive Orientation to Daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) for 10 sessions or regular OT approaches (control) for 10 sessions.
COPM improved for both groups, but more for the CO-OP group. CO-OP also improved more in performance quality, and VABS Motor. Both groups improved on the BOTMP and VMI.
that can be generalized to other activities. In CO-OP, the child selects goals that he or she would like to accomplish. The childs performance is assessed and the therapist determines what problems interfere with task achievement (e.g., the child may have difculty with motivation, task knowledge, or performance). Then the therapist and child together develop a plan or strategy for accomplishing the task. Children are encouraged to talk their way through an activity. A number of facilitating strategies can be introduced, including altering body position, focusing on sensory aspects of the task, and attending to specic parts of the task. The child learns to self-evaluate so he or she can adapt the strategy or revise it when applying it again. The goal is that the child learns a strategy that results in success and that he or she can use independently in another situation. The efcacy of CO-OP has been investigated in small sample studies. Polatajko and others (2001)
reported a Level IV study of one aspect of CO-OP, Verbal Self-Guidance. Ten children participated in 13 one-on-one sessions in which they were taught to use verbal self-guidance to accomplish specic activities. The children were taught to develop goals and strategies to achieve specic activities. Most activities involved multiple steps of sequenced bilateral manipulation (e.g., making cookies, cutting, writing, keyboarding). In addition, specic motor skills were assessed using the Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration (VMI) and the Test of Motor Impairment (TOMI). All of the children improved in the activities that they had targeted and 9 of 10 met the performance criteria established. Small changes in motor skills as measured by the VMI and the TOMI were not statistically signicant. The effect size for the VMI was small (d = 0.16) and for the TOMI was moderate (d = 0.62). Given positive results from their pilot studies, Miller and co-workers (2001) completed a randomized clini-
The importance of play in therapy to childrens improvement in ne motor skills was also supported by Case-Smith (2000). In this Level IV study, 44 preschool children were evaluated before and after 8 months of intervention. The focus of the intervention and the measurement was ne motor function. The participants had delays in ne motor skills but no specic diagnoses (e.g., CP, autism, mental retardation, brain injury) and did not have severe sensory loss or health problems. In-hand manipulation, eyehand coordination, visual motor integration, and ne motor skills were measured. Functional skills using the PEDI also were evaluated. After the 9 months of occupational therapy, the participants made signicant gains in all ne motor measures. The number of therapy sessions and the types of activities that the occupational therapist implemented were recorded for each session. The number of sessions and percentage of therapy activities were used as predictors of the primary outcome variables. The two therapy activities that predicted the outcomes were use of play and peer interaction. These ndings suggest that the therapists use of play and peer
450
Table 19-4
Research studies examining the efficacy of interventions to enhance hand function in preschool children with sensorimotor delays
Level of Evidence
Level II crossover using a sample of convenience
Authors
DeGangi, Wietlisbach, Goodin, & Scheiner (1993)
Sample
N = 12, developmental delays, not severe disability; age = 3671 months
Intervention
Child-centered therapy emphasizing interaction and structured sensorimotor therapy for 8 weeks with crossover
Measures
PDMS-FM sensory integrative functioning, behavior, attention, play
Findings
Gain in ne motor skills was higher for child-centered therapy; gain in sensory integrative skills was higher for structured sensorimotor therapy; gross motor skills improved more with structured sensorimotor therapy; no denitive ndings for behavior, attention, and play Improvements in all assessments; interventions using play and social activities were most associated with visual motor and ne motor gains
Case-Smith (2000)
In-hand manipulation; eyehand coordination Visual perception (DTVP); PDMS-FM visual motor (DTVP); function (PEDI) (VMI) Visual Perception Motor Coordination
N = 43, 12 with disabilities who received OT, 16 typical children in OT, and 15 typical children; age = 36 years; mean = 53 months
Occupational therapy for two of three groups, 30 minutes of one-on-one and 30 minutes of group intervention for children with delays
Children with delays who received occupational therapy improved in visual motor integration and visual perception, but did not improve in motor coordination more than children without disabilities.
interaction are important to achieving performance goals. This study supports the ndings of DeGangi and colleagues (1993) and Miller and co-workers (2001) that incorporating play and social elements into therapy session promotes childrens ne motor skills and hand function. Play and social interaction may engage the
childs attention, motivate the child to achieve higher skills, or infuse emotions into certain activities, encouraging the child to repeat and remember them. In another study examining the effect of OT on hand skills of preschool children with mild delays, Dankert and co-workers (2003) used a quasi-experimental
I NSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES
Instructional approaches often follow behavioral principles, providing structure for learning, instructing children in practice of skills, and then providing feedback and reinforcement about the childs performance. Generally, these approaches involve guided practice. Learning principles are followed but instruction generally does not consider individual differences among children. Berninger and co-workers (1997) implemented a comprehensive study of handwriting interventions based on different instructional methods. A randomized experimental design was used with a sample of 144 rst-grade children who were identied as being at risk in handwriting. Five distinct instruction-based interventions were implemented. The rst was motoric imitation in which the teachers modeled motoric acts but were nonverbal. In the second instructional approach visual cues were provided using numbered arrows to cue the sequence of strokes. The third instructional approach involved memory retrieval; the children were required to cover letters and write them from memory. The fourth instructional approach
452
Table 19-5
Research studies examining the efficacy of interventions to enhance handwriting in school-age children
Level of Evidence
Level I randomized clinical trial
Authors
Hayes (1982)
Sample
N = 45, in kindergarten and N = 45 in third grade, typical children
Intervention
Five instructional conditions: copying with no prompting, visual demonstration with copying, visual and verbal demonstration with the child verbalizing during copying, control; one single 25minute session Self-instruction procedures. Students used card to guide their handwriting and to self-evaluate. In the nal phase, the students did not use the card but were instructed to self-cue. Instructional approaches: motor imitation, visual cuing, memory retrieval, visual cuing and memory retrieval, copying without cuing, control group; 24 20-minute sessions were provided Motor learning principles are taught; Selfinstruction and self-reflection on handwriting
Measures
Letter form reproduction
Findings
The most effective instructional method was visual and verbal demonstration with the child verbalizing. The least effective method (other than control) was copying only.
The students wrote more and the quality of their handwriting improved
Handwriting legibility, automaticity, dictation accuracy, writing fluency, and nger function
All intervention resulted in improvement in measures except automaticity. Visual cuing with memory retrieval was the most effective intervention.
Handwriting quality
Handwriting quality was signicantly higher in children who received the instructional approach.
Table 19-5
Research studies examining the efficacy of interventions to enhance handwriting in school-age childrencontd
Level of Evidence
Level II quasiexperimental
Authors
Case-Smith (2002)
Sample
N = 38, 29 who received occupational therapy and 9 who did not; all with poor handwriting, third, fourth, and fth grades
Intervention
Occupational therapy, 9 hours of direct services over 9 months
Measures
Visual motor control; visual perception; in-hand manipulation; Evaluation Tool of Childrens Handwriting (ETCH)
Findings
Children who received intervention improved more in in-hand manipulation, visual motor control, and letter legibility. They did not improve more in handwriting speed. Children in intervention scored higher on the MHT; specic gains were in spacing, alignment, and correct size. Speed did not improve. Scores on the ETCH did not change. Kinesthetic perception improved for all groups, but was not signicantly more improved in any one group. The teachers reported signicant changes in handwriting for all three groups.
N = 59, children with economic disadvantages; second grade; mean age = 7.1 yrs
Intervention group received occupational therapy 2/wk for 10 wks. Control group did not receive treatment.
N = 45 children with kinesthetic decits and handwriting difculties, rst grade; 15 in each of the three groups
One group received kinesthetic training; one received handwriting practice; one received no treatment. Treatment was 30 min/day for 6 days.
combined visual cues and memory retrieval. The fth approach involved copying without any cueing from the teachers. In each instructional method, the letter was named twice on each teaching trial. In the control condition, children received phonologic awareness training with no practice of writing. The researchers predicted that childrens performance after intervention would vary with each of the different approaches and that visual cueing and memory retrieval would achieve the greatest handwriting automaticity. The interventions were implemented over 24 20-minute
sessions held twice a week. Measures included handwriting legibility, handwriting automaticity, dictation accuracy, writing fluency, and nger function. The interventions produced signicant improvement in all handwriting assessments except the automaticity tasks and quality of one writing task. Visual cuing with memory retrieval was the most effective intervention across measures. Composition fluency improved in addition to handwriting legibility and improvements in handwriting skills appeared to have a positive effect on childrens ability to compose written text.
454
Jones and Christensen (1999) also found that handwriting instruction can improve both handwriting and story writing (composition). This Level II Australian study involved 19 6- and 7-year-olds who demonstrated difculty in handwriting speed and accuracy. A matched group of children without difculties served as a control group. An 8-week intervention (10 minutes per day) consisted of instruction in letter formation with practice. The pre- and postassessments included writing speed and accuracy, handwriting formation, and a test of written expression. The group that received intervention improved more than the control group. In addition, the correlation between handwriting speed/accuracy and written expression was 0.73; that is, 53% of the variance in story writing was accounted for by speed and accuracy in writing letters. These researchers concluded that the intervention was highly effective; in addition, it was cost effective because the instruction required 10 minutes a day and was implemented by parents. This study also suggested that handwriting skill has an essential influence on composition in early elementary years. Hayes (1982) implemented a study that appeared to be the model for the Berninger et al. (1997) study. Two groups were used, 45 children in kindergarten and 45 in third grade. The children were randomly assigned to one of ve conditions: control, copying with no prompting, visual demonstration with copying practice, visual and verbal demonstration with copying, and visual and verbal demonstration with the child verbalizing during copying. The children received these interventions for a single 20- to 25-minute session. Despite the short period for intervention, an effect resulted. Similar to the later ndings of Berninger and co-workers, the intervention that involved visual and verbal demonstration with the child verbalizing while copying was most effective and copying with no prompting was least effective for both age groups. Self-instruction is an approach to improving handwriting that actively involves the child in the learning process. A number of researchers have examined the effects of self-instruction (Blandford & Lloyd, 1987; Graham, 1983; Kosiewicz, Hallahan, & Lloyd, 1981). Blandford and Lloyd examined the effects of using a written card that cued letter formation to guide two fth-grade boys handwriting during journal writing. The card had self-evaluation questions to emphasize important aspects of correct handwriting. The students were to read the card and ll in answers based on their handwriting. Data were collected on correct letter formation and spacing for 25 days. The boys demonstrated improved handwriting (letter formation and spacing) when using the card and after using the card. Therefore, this method appears to yield a signicant effect with minimal teaching and can be implemented
456
As in the educational studies, use of a single learning method that emphasizes a single sensory system does not appear sufcient for effecting substantial improvement in handwriting.
SUMMARY
Research evidence about treatment effects helps practitioners make good clinical decisions, provides practitioners with explicit information to give to families, and helps practitioners justify treatment decisions to physicians and other professionals. When levels of research evidence are high and rigorous methods are used, therapists can generalize the ndings to their practice with condence. When levels of research evidence are low, ndings should be reported and applied with caution because of inherent limitations. The majority of studies on hand intervention effectiveness are Levels III and IV and use small convenience samples. These single-subject and case studies provide detailed information about treatment outcomes for individuals, but cannot be generalized beyond the characteristics of the children who participated. Although case studies and single subject design studies deepen understanding of intervention effects, they do not provide denitive information from which predictions about outcomes can be made. In the past decade more rigorous (Level I) randomized clinical trials have been completed, providing more denitive ndings and making important contributions to the knowledge base for hand function intervention outcomes. The studies reviewed in this chapter examined various levels of function and disability. Many hand intervention studies have examined impairment level (body structure and body function) outcomes. For example, the studies of upper extremity weight bearing examined ROM, muscle tone, and movement patterns (i.e., components of performance). Studies of casting also emphasized ROM and muscle tone. Even studies of comprehensive interventions (e.g., neurodevelopmental treatment) often used measures of arm and hand movement rather than functional or occupational measures. Impairment-level outcome measures leave unanswered questions about if and how performance and function changed given intervention effects. Measures of function and occupation, in addition to performance of specic skills, help to link interventions to childrens daily lives and social roles. Researchers (Butler & Darrah, 2001; Law & Baum, 2001) have suggested that outcome studies routinely couple specic performance measures with holistic, comprehensive assessment of function and occupation. Examples of holistic assessments to be included are those that
REFERENCES
Albright AL, Gilmartin R, Swift D, et al. (2003). Longterm intrathecal baclofen therapy for severe spasticity of cerebral origin. Journal of Neurosurgery, 98:291295. Barnes KJ (1989a). Relationship of upper extremity weight bearing to hand skills of boys with cerebral palsy. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 9:143154. Barnes KJ (1989b). Direct replication: Relationship of upper extremity weight bearing to hand skills of boys with cerebral palsy. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 9:235242. Behrman RE, Kleigman R, Jenson HB (2000). Encephalopathies: Cerebral palsy. In RE Behrman, R Kliegman, HB Jenson, editors: Nelson textbook of pediatrics, 16th ed. (pp. 843845). Philadephia, WB Saunders. Berninger VW, Vaughan KB, Abbott RD, et al. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89:652666. Blandford BJ, Lloyd JW (1987). Effects of a selfinstructional procedure on handwriting. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20:342346. Bly L (1983). The components of normal movement during the rst year of life and abnormal development. Oak Park, IL, Neurodevelopmental Treatment Association.
458
Exner CE, Bonder BR (1983). Comparative effects of three hand splints on bilateral hand use, grasp, and arm-hand posture in hemiplegic children: A pilot study. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 3:145151. Fetters L, Kluzik JA (1996). The effects of neurodevelopmental treatment versus practice on the reaching of children with spastic cerebral palsy. Physical Therapy, 76:346358. Gaebler-Spira D, Revivo G (2003). The use of botulinum toxin in pediatric disorders. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, 14:703725. Goodman G, Bazyk S (1991). The effects of a short thumb opponens splint on hand function in cerebral palsy: A single subject study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45:726731. Gordon AM, Charles J, Wolf SL (2005). Methods of constraint-induced movement therapy for children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy: Development of a child-friendly intervention for improving upper-extremity function. Archive of Physical Medical and Rehabilitation, 86: 837844. Graham S (1983). The effects of self-instructional procedures on LD students handwriting performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6:231234. Graham S, Harris KR, Fink B (2000). Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92:620633. Graham S, Weintraub N (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology Review, 8:787. Hanzlik J (1989). The effect of intervention on the freeplay experience for mothers and their infants with developmental delay and cerebral palsy. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 9:3351. Hayes D (1982). Handwriting practice: The effects of perceptual prompts. Journal of Education Research, 75:169172. Howle J (2002). Neuro-developmental treatment approach: Theoretical foundations and principles of clinical practice. Laguna Beach, CA, The North American NeuroDevelopmental Treatment Association. Jones D, Christensen CA (1999). Relationship between automaticity in handwriting and students ability to generate written text. Journal of Education Psychology, 91:4449. Jongmans MJ, Linthorst-Bakker E, Westenberg Y, SmitsEngelsman BCM (2003). Use of a task-oriented selfinstruction method to support children in primary school with poor handwriting quality and speed. Human Movement Science, 22:549566. Kinghorn J, Roberts G (1996). The effect of an inhibitive weight-bearing splint on tone and function: A single-case study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50:807815. Kosiewicz MS, Hallahan DF, Lloyd J (1981). The effects of an LD students treatment choice on handwriting performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4:281286. Law M (2002). Evidence-based rehabilitation: A guide to practice. Thorofare, NJ, Slack. Law M, Baum C (2001). Measurement in occupational therapy. In M Law, C Baum, W Dunn, editors: Measuring occupational performance: Supporting best practice in occupational therapy (pp. 320). Thorofare, NJ, Slack.
Glossary
Adapted tripod grip: Grip where the pencil is stabilized within the narrow web space between the middle and index ngers when writing. Affordances: The perceptual features of objects, places, and events that enable particular functional actions. Anticipatory control: The programming of action based on a mental representation of an objects properties that has developed through prior experience. It involves the activation of sensory and muscular systems for a specied activity that has been learned. Arches of the hand: The musculoskeletal structures that allow the flattening and cupping of the hand. The arches are the proximal transverse, distal transverse, and longitudinal. Attention: An active process in which certain stimuli in the environment are given preference over other stimuli depending on their perceived importance. Automatization; autonomous phase: The stage of a learned motor skill when the action is carried out with minimal attention. Base of support: The area of the body in contact with the support surface; when more body area is in contact with the surface, the base of support is wide; when less body area is in contact with the surface, the base of support is narrow. Bilateral hold, cooperative: An action in which one hand supports or stabilizes an object while the other hand explores or manipulates it. Bilateral or two-handed hold, symmetric: Holding objects with the two hands acting in unison. Bilateral simultaneous manipulation; complementary two-hand use: An action in which both hands are performing different but complementary actions at the same time, as in bead stringing. Central pattern generators: Neural networks that interact in an organized manner to produce a motor act. Cognition: The collection and organization of information into knowledge.
Coincidence anticipation: A form of anticipatory control in which movement coincides with an external event, such as catching a ball. Composite flexion: Fisting of the hand along with flexion of the wrist, thereby putting maximal strain on the extensor mechanism of the hand. Concept formation (knowledge): Conscious and active process that categorizes sensory information by associating it with conceptual categories. Constraint-induced movement: Immobilization of the less involved upper extremity to require the child to use the more involved extremity. Constructional skill: The ability to perform the sequences of movement involved in producing twoor three-dimensional representations, as in drawing or building. Constructional style versus contoured style of drawing: Refers to the execution of pictorial representations by the assembly of simple forms as opposed to beginning with a sketch of an outline. Dexterity: Ability to manipulate objects with the hands with accuracy and speed. Disk grip (five-jaw chuck): A ngertip grip using the pads of all the ngers and the thumb, as on the lid of a jar. Dissociation: Refers to the ability to carry out precise, independent joint movements without concurrent involuntary actions at other joints not involved in the task. Dorsal stream: Neural pathway that provides visual information for the guidance of movement. Dual motor systems: Refers to the differentiation between central nervous system control of skilled distal movements such as those of the hand and the proximal movements of the limbs and trunk. Dynamic splinting: Uses articulations and force components to constantly put a dynamic pull on tight or healing tissue; often incorporates rubber bands, springs, or other materials to exert controlled mobilization. Dynamic tone: The muscle tone that occurs with volitional movement.
461
462 Glossary
Dynamic tripod grasp (pencil): Grasp in which the pencil is stabilized against the side of the middle nger by the pads of the thumb and index nger. Writing includes localized movements of the ngers and thumb as well as the wrist. End range of movement: The distal range of motion at a joint as opposed to movements that occur in the middle of available range. Executive function of the hand: The use of the hand as a means of practical action on the environment, during which perceptual function is regulated by whatever is needed to achieve the action. Explicit (declarative) memory: Conscious awareness and intention to recall facts and events. Extensor lag: Inability to extend the DIP joint of the nger into full extension because of poor pullthrough of the terminal extensor tendon. Eyehand coordination: The integration of visual perceptual information with the purposeful movements of the hand and arm. Feedback: Sensory information that arises from movement. Fine motor coordination: Use of small muscle groups for precise movements, particularly in object manipulation with the radial digits. Finger differentiation or individuation: Controlled individual or isolated nger movements. Fixing: Volitional limitation of freedom to move at various muscles and joints in order to produce controlled movement in another body part. Graphomotor skill: The conceptual and perceptual motor abilities involved in drawing and writing. Grasp phase of reaching: The phase of reaching for an object in which the hand is shaped in anticipation of the contact with the object. Grip: The mechanical component of prehension; the hand conguration on the object during grasp. Grip force: The pressure exerted on an object in the act of lifting and holding. In precision grasping, grip force is matched to object qualities such as weight, texture, and rigidity. Hand preference: The consistent favoring of one hand over the other in the performance of skillful acts. Hand shaping: The adaptation of the hand arches and the nger postures to the objects size, shape, and use in anticipation of grasp. Handedness: Consistent and more procient use of the preferred hand. Its dimensions include hand preference (the hand chosen more often) and hand performance (the hand with superior ability). Handwriting: The process of transcribing letters to form words and words to form sentences; differentiated from writing, which is the composition and control of material that is handwritten. Haptic perception: Recognition of objects and object properties by the hand without the use of vision. Implicit (procedural) memory: Storage and recall of information without conscious awareness. Knowledge of how a task is done expressed through performance. Inferior or immature pincer grasp: A grasp between adducted thumb and side of the index nger. In-hand manipulation: The adjustment of a grasped object within one hand while it is being held. Includes translation, shift, and rotation with and without stabilization. In-hand manipulation with stabilization: Manipulating one object with the ngers while holding one or more additional objects within the same hand. Intermodal perception: The matching of objects or shapes that are perceived by one sensory modality, such as touch, to those which are perceived by a different sensory modality, such as vision. Intramodal perception: Matching objects or shapes within a single sensory system, for example, matching one object explored haptically to another also explored haptically. Kinesthesia: The conscious perception of the excursion and direction of joint movement and of the weight and resistance of objects. Lateral tripod grasp (pencil): Grasp in which the pencil is stabilized against the side of the middle nger, with the index nger pad on the pencil, and the thumb adducted with the thumb pad braced on the side of the index nger. Writing includes localized nger movements as well as wrist and arm movements. Learned non-use: When the more involved extremity is not used, changes occur in the central nervous system that reinforce the non-use of that hand. Memory: Process by which knowledge is encoded, stored, and retrieved. Mirror movements: Movements of the hands are coupled, with the use of one hand the same movements are observed in the second hand. Motor functions of the two sides of the hand: Refers to the differing functions of the ulnar (little nger) side and the radial (thumb) side of the hand. The primary function of the ulnar side of the hand is to hold, whereas that of the radial side is to manipulate.
Glossary 463
Motor learning: A set of processes associated with practice or experience leading to relatively permanent changes in the capability for producing skilled action. Movement unit: Constituted by one phase of acceleration of a limb followed by a deceleration. A movement can consist of one or more movement units. Multimodal exploration: The simultaneous use of more than one sensory system in object exploration. Occupation performance: Performance of skills that are essential for independent functioning in everyday living. Palmar grasp: A whole-hand grasp in which objects are held against the palm of the hand by the ngers. The thumb may be active or passive. Palmar grasp (pencil): A grasp in which the pencil is positioned across the palm and held in a sted grip. Pathologic handedness: Altered handedness resulting from neural insult. Perception: A process of collecting information from the environment based on vision, touch, hearing, and proprioception in order to construct an internal representation of the environment and body. Perceptual activity of the hand: Use of the hand as a perceptual system, in which motor activity is primarily exploratory and information seeking. Perceptual-motor processes: The reciprocal relationship between perception and action, wherein movement adapts to perception and movement influences perception. Pincer grasp; pinch; fine prehension: The grasp of an object with the index nger and thumb. Major types include palmar pinch (pad of nger to pad of thumb), tip pinch (using tips of both thumb and nger), and lateral pinch (thumb holding object against side of nger). Postural control: The maintenance of body position in space that evolves from the development of antigravity movement, postural adjustment reactions, and somatosensory input. Power grip: A static grip applying force to an object to immobilize it in the hand. Praxis: The planning and execution of a motor movement or a series of motor movements/tasks. Precision grip: The grasp of an object with the nger and thumb pads or tips. Precision grips may be static but often allow movement of the object by or within the ngers. Precision handling: The dynamic or manipulative characteristics of precision grip used for in-hand manipulation and for the use of many tools. Prehension: The voluntary act of grasping and manipulating objects with the hand. Preprogrammed movement/open loop movement: A learned movement in which the entire motor pattern is programmed before the movement is initiated and which is not under sensory control during execution. Prereaching; prefunctional reach: The more automatic movement of the very young infants hand toward an object before voluntary reach has developed. Proprioception: Sensory information about positions and movements of body parts from muscles, tendons, joints, and skin. Limb position sense and kinesthesia are forms of proprioception. Quadripod grip (pencil): Grip in which the pencil is held by three ngers and the thumb. May be static or dynamic. Radial digital grasp; inferior forenger grasp: Prehension of an object with the thumb, index, and middle ngers but with the object held proximal to the nger pads. Thumb may be in adduction or opposition. Radial palmar grasp: An immature grasp in which the index and middle ngers and thumb press an object into the palm. Radial-ulnar dissociation; separation of the two sides of the hand: The ability to perform holding functions with the ulnar ngers while manipulating objects with the thumb and radial ngers. Reflexive grasp: The stereotypic closing of the hand on an object in response to tactile or proprioceptive information. Palmar grasp reflexes occur normally in early infancy and may persist in children with brain damage. Reverse transverse grip; radial cross-palmar grasp (pencil): An immature pencil grip with the pencil positioned across the palm and the point projecting from the thumb side of the hand. The hand is sted with the forearm fully pronated. Rotation: An in-hand manipulation movement by which an object is turned in the ngers. Simple rotation involves turning or rolling the object 90 degrees or less with the ngers acting as a unit. Complex rotation involves turning an object 90 to 360 degrees using isolated nger and thumb movements. Scissors grasp: The prehension of small objects between the thumb and the lateral border of the index nger. Self-care activities: The basic daily living activities of eating, dressing, bathing, and use of the toilet. Sensory processing: The management of incoming sensory information by the central nervous system.
464 Glossary
Shift: An in-hand manipulation movement where there is slight adjustment of an object on or by the nger pads. Somatosensory: Refers to the tactile and proprioceptive senses that contribute to the perception of objects and events, as well as of the body and limbs. Spasticity: Velocity-dependent resistance to passive movement. Squeeze grasp: An immature grip in which an infant presses an object against the palm with total nger flexion. The thumb does not participate and force is not modulated. Stabilizing: Contraction of the muscles to xate or hold the body or a body part; also refers to the use of external systems or devices to provide support when an individual is unable to do so alone. Static splint: An immobilization or supportive splint that has no moving parts; serial static splints are periodically remodeled as the joint gains motion; static progressive splints use low load in a single direction over a long period of time to mobilize soft tissue at its end range. Static tripod grasp (pencil): Grasp in which the pencil is stabilized against the side of the middle nger and held by the pads of the index nger and thumb. The hand is moved as a unit by the wrist and forearm in writing. Stereognosis: The recognition of familiar objects through touch. Stiffness: A general term referring to difculty moving the limbs. Switched handedness: Occurs when an inherently left-handed child learns to draw and write with the right hand because of sociocultural influences. Tapping: A facilitation technique that is manually applied and used to generate volitional movement at individual muscles. Three-jaw chuck: A power grip of the ngertips. The object is held with the distal pads of the thumb, index, and middle ngers. Threshold tests: Tests that determine the minimal stimulus a person can perceive (e.g., pain, temperature, pressure). Tone: The resistance a muscle offers to being lengthened; abnormal tone is a result of both neural factors (e.g., spasticity) and biomechanical factors (e.g., brosis and atrophy), which cause changes in contractile properties of some muscle bers. Total end range time: Term used in soft-tissue adaptability that refers to the frequency of stretching multiplied by the duration of the stretch at the end range of a joints movement. Trajectory: The path taken by the hand as it moves toward a target and the speed at which it moves along the path. Translation: A form of in-hand manipulation by which an object is moved in a linear direction between the palm and the ngertips. Includes the movement of an object from the palm of the hand to the ngertips (palm-to-nger translation), and the movement of an object from the ngertips to the palm (nger-to-palm translation). Transportation phase; transport: The phase of reaching that brings the hand to the target or moves an object through space. Ventral stream: Neural pathway that provides visual information for the recognition of objects. Visual-motor integration: The coordination of visual information with movement. The term is used often to indicate the ability to copy geometric forms. Volition: Action in which the achievement of a goal is seen as resulting from ones own activity. Voluntary controlled release: Letting go of an object in a specic place and with timing that is appropriate for the specic task. Weight shift: Volitional or assisted movement of body weight which occurs with movement of a body part. Working memory: Short-term memory system that holds information so that it can be manipulated during tasks. Zone of proximal development: A period of developmental maturation in which particular skills are within reach of a child.
INDEX
A Abductor pollicis muscles, 31-34, 33f, 35f Acceleration illustration of rates of, 56f Accordion tube toys, 271 Active range of motion (AROM), 370, 371f, 373 Activities of daily living (ADLs) for burn victims, 393 evaluation of following hand wounds, 376, 377t-379t handedness issues with, 183-184 and self-care, 193-214 Adaptations for hand skill problems, 240-241 reaching and motor impairments, 96-97 Adapted tripod grip, 331f, 461 Adductor pollicis muscles, 34-35 Adults drawing skills in, 220 haptic manipulation strategies in, 70-71 reaching movements by, 94-95 role of vision and cognition in haptic perception, 74-76 Afferent feedback, 47-48, 218 Affordances, 461 Alpha motor neurons of hand muscles direct corticospinal connections to, 4-5 Ambidextrous denition of, 166b Anatomy of the hand, 21-43 Anterior intraparietal sulcus importance in movement, 16 Anticipatory control development of, 52-53 during infancy, 94 in developmentally disabled children, 56-57 glossary denition of, 461 and learning, 47 Anticipatory postural control, 346 Anticipatory scaling, 57 Anti-Houdini techniques, 419, 420b, 420f-422f Arches of the hands, 22, 23f, 461 Arms embryonic development of, 21-22 extrinsic muscles and tendons of, 27, 28f-29f, 29-31, 32f functions of kinesiologic aspects of, 349-348 isolated movements of, 247-249 Arousal, 104 Assessments of cerebral palsy, 351-352 of childrens drawings, 225-226 of hand injuries activities of daily living, 376 hand dexterity, 374-375 hand sensibilities, 376 hand strength, 373-374 interview and history, 370 pain, 375-376 range of motion, 370-373 wounds, edema and scarring, 375 of handedness by occupational therapists, 179-180 of handwriting skills, 291-307, 302t-305t, 311-318 of haptic perception in infants and children, 77-78 of self-care skills, 195-196, 197, 199 Attention denition of, 104, 461 in motor skill, 242 Attention decit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affecting reaching in children, 96 impaired hand function with, 54-58 prehensile force control in children with, 45-46 Autism and haptic perception, 81-82 Autism Spectrum Disorder, 278 Avoiding reactions, 130 B Balance development of in infants, 122-124 and reaching, 93 Base of support, 461 Bead stringing, 153f, 273-275, 324
Page numbers followed by f refer to gures; those followed by t refer to tables; and those followed by b refer to boxes.
465
466 Index
Bilateral hold cooperative denition of, 461 Bilateral integration and sequencing (BIS) dysfunction, 326-327 Bilateral skills difculties interventions for, 260-262 of manipulation, 256 needed for hygiene and grooming, 210, 211t, 212t sample short-term goals for, 244, 245b and self-care, 213 transitional, 131-134 Bimanual skills from birth to 12 months, 131-134 coordination of, 134 developmental sequence of birth through 24 months, 138t-139t and hand preference, 164 Blocked range of motion (BROM), 370, 371f, 373 Blocking gloves, 387f Bobath approach, 343, 344-347 Body charts to identify pain, 376 Bones anatomical diagram of hand, 22f embryonic development of, 21-22 Botulinum toxin (BOTOX), 447 Boutonniere deformities splinting, 418f Brachial plexus injuries, 418 Brain injuries and haptic perception problems, 81 Bristle blocks, 272, 277 Brodmanns areas, 8-9, 10f Bruininks-Oseretsky Test, 231, 449 Buddy taping, 417 Burns in children classication of severity, 392-394, 390t closed wound scarring phase of, 392-394 open wound phase of, 390-392 patterns of, 389-390 management of scars, 391-393 Buttoning, 154, 208, 209t, 210, 273, 275-276, 276-277 C Callosal dysfunction, 176 Capacity denition of, 104 Capitate anatomical diagram of, 22f description and position of, 22-23 ligaments of, 23, 24f Carpal bones diagram illustrating, 22f embryonic development of, 21-22 Carpometacarpal joints anatomy of, 23, 24, 25f and handwriting, 322 Carpus, 23, 24f, 25f Case studies on cognition and motor skills, 101-102 concerning cerebral palsy and neurodevelopmental treatment (NDT), 355-359 Case studies (Continued) concerning low muscle tone, 360-363 on preschool ne motor skill development, 285-286 on radial nerve palsy and splinting, 423-425 Casts; See also splinting efcacy of research studies on, 443-444 Friedrich and Baumel, 388f full arm, 380f as intervention adjunct, 263 Caterpillar pop game, 271 Central nervous system (CNS) and haptic perception, 69 and prehensile force control, 45-46 Central pattern generators, 461 Cerebral cortex and hand-object interactions, 3-4 Cerebral palsy (CP) affecting drawing abilities, 225 affecting grip force, 11, 54-58 anticipatory and postural control with, 346 assessment process, 351-352 biomechanical interactions of upper limbs with, 348-349 causes of, 344 denition of, 344, 434-435 hemiplegic reaching problems with, 97 hypertonia versus hypotonia, 349 impaired hand function with, 54-58 impairments seen with, 344 lift capacity of children with, 50f neurodevelopmental treatment (NDT) case study, 355-359 description of, 343-363 research studies, 440-443 prehensile force control in children with, 45-46 research studies on, 435, 436t-440t treatment planning, 352, 357t, 361t Checkrein ligaments, 27 Children anticipatory control development in, 52-53 with cerebral palsy (See cerebral palsy (CP)) drawing skills in, 220-221, 222f, 223-224 graphomotor skill acquisition in, 217-220 grasping coordination of, 48-51 hand therapy in, 367-398 congenital problems, 394-398 evaluation of, 369-376, 377t-379t introduction to, 367-368 phases of wound healing, 368-369, 370b thermal injuries, 389-394 traumatic injury treatment, 376, 380-394 handedness in assessment of, 170-172 classication of, 165-168 denition of, 161, 162, 163f, 164 development of, 177-179 factors influencing, 172-177 flow chart illustrating, 163f introduction to, 161-162 left and switch, 168-169 and pediatric occupational therapy, 179-184 prevalence of, 169-170 haptic manipulation strategies in, 73-74, 76-77
Index 467
Children (Continued) haptic perception development in, 65-67 illustration of hand ability in, 46f interventions for hand skill problems, 239-264 with motor impairments reaching/coordination problems in, 96-97 object manipulation development in, 154-158 prehensile force control development in, 45-46 preschoolers ne motor program for, 267-287, 289-291 role of vision and cognition in haptic perception, 74-76 using sensory information for reaching, 95 Childrens Handwriting Evaluation Scale (CHES), 302t-305t, 314-315 Chinese speed test, 304t-305t Chunking, 106, 108 Clot formation, 368-369, 370b Clumsiness causes of in children, 54-58 Cock-up splints, 381f Cognition denition of, 461 development of, 45, 110 factors in self-care, 214 and hand ability in children, 46f importance of for motor skill acquisition, 102-103 and motor skills adaptation, 102 attention and perception, 104-105 case scenario, 101-102 concept formation, 106-107 importance in acquisition of, 102-103 memory, 107-108 perceptual-motor processes, 105-106 processes of, 103-108 problems with cerebral palsy, 344 role in haptic perception, 74-76, 77 Cognitive neuroscience approach to cognition and motor skill development, 103 Cognitive Orientation to Daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP), 447-449 Cognitive skills; See cognition Coincidence anticipation, 461 Collagen, 368-369, 370b Collateral ligaments accessory, 25, 26f cord portion of, 25, 26f splinting of, 383-384 Columnar carpus, 23, 25f Communication using hands, 101 writing, 291 Complementary two-hand use, 152-153, 158 Composite flexion, 461 Computers and drawing, 224-225 and handwriting, 232 Concept formation denition of, 461 description of, 106-107 Congenital hand differences radial club hand, 396-398 syndactyly, 394-396 Consolidation phase of explicit memory, 108 Constraint-induced (CI) movement therapy denition of, 461 description of, 263 research and case studies on, 444-446 Constructional skills, 461 Contoured drawing, 220, 461 Cooperation and self-dressing, 205t Coordination development of, 45, 46f eye-hand and reaching, 89-97 force in grasping and lifting, 55-56 during grasping, 48-51 by infants when reaching, 93 Corpus callosum, 176, 177-179 Corticospinal tract connections to alpha motor neurons, 4-5 Culture and hand skill development, 121-122 and handedness, 176-177 and handwriting, 226-227 and self-care skill development, 196-197 Cursive writing kinesthetic approach to teaching, 335-336 motor patterns in, 3 teaching, 328-329 D Decision making concerning hand actions, 102 Deep pressure and joint approximation, 351 Denver Handwriting Analysis, 304t-305t Development process of, 102-103 stages of object manipulation, 143, 144-146, 144b theories for hand and motor skills, 117-121 Developmental coordination disorder (DCD) affecting sensorimotor control in hands, 54-58 efcacy and research studies, 447, 448t, 449 impaired hand function with, 54-58 self-care skill difculties in, 194-195 Developmental disabled children reaching skills impaired in, 96-97 self-care skill difculties in, 194-195 Developmental Gerstmann syndrome and haptic perception, 81-82 Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration (VMI), 325, 448-449 Dexterity and bead stringing, 273-275 diagram illustrating, 58f glossary denition of, 461 of hands and function, 374-375 Differentiation, 106, 108 Digital cleavage embryonic development of, 21-22
468 Index
Digital interphalangeal joints, 26f, 27 Digital pronate grasp, 281f Digits anatomical diagram of, 22f description and position of, 22-23 embryonic development of, 21-22 fractures and dislocations of, 383-384 ligaments of, 23, 24f, 25, 26f muscles and tendons of, 33-34, 36f Disabilities affecting drawing abilities, 225 and keyboarding, 232 Disk grip, 461 Dissociation, 461 Distal nger control practice sheet for, 339f Distal grips, 335b Distal phalanges anatomical diagram of, 22f description and position of, 22-23 ligaments of, 23, 24f Distal transverse arch anatomical diagram of, 23f description of, 22 Diversity; See culture Dorsal interossei muscles, 32-34, 35f Dorsal stream, 104-105, 461 Down syndrome affecting drawing abilities, 225 affecting grip force, 11 and haptic perception, 80-81 reaching skills affected by, 96 Drawing; See also graphomotor skills and computers, 224-225 denition of, 217 development in preschoolers, 280-284 and developmental evaluation, 225-226 instruction and practice, 229-232 motor learning theories, 218 nature of, 220-221, 222f, 223-224 and pencil grasp, 282-283 phases of, 221, 222f role of vision and kinesthesis in, 218-219 tools, 280-281 Dressing skills antecedents of, 203, 205t with fasteners, 208, 209t, 210 learning and hand skill development, 203, 205t, 206, 207t, 208, 209t, 210 order of difculty, 208b undressing, 206t without fasteners, 206, 207t Drinking, 199, 200t Dual motor systems, 461 Dynamic grasp, 280-281 Dynamic muscle tone, 461 Dynamic splinting, 408, 461 Dynamic tone, 461 Dynamic tripod grip, 210-220, 462 Dyspraxia and haptic perception, 81-82 E Earedness, 181 Eating, 199, 200t, 201, 202t, 203, 204t Ecological approach to cognition and motor skill development, 103 Edema description of, 375 management of burn, 391-392 sandwich splints for, 391f Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (EHI) description of, 170-171 reliability of, 170t Elbows casting and splinting, 380f, 381f embryonic development of, 21-22 Encoding phase of explicit memory, 108 End range of movement, 462 Episodic memory, 107-108 Epithelization, 368-369, 370b Ergonomics affecting handwriting, 298t, 301, 306 Ethnicity; See culture Evaluation Tool of Childrens Handwriting (ETCH), 302t303t, 316-317 Evaluations of hand injuries activities of daily living, 376 hand dexterity, 374-375 hand sensibilities, 376 hand strength, 373-374 interview and history, 370 pain, 375-376 range of motion, 370-375 wound, edema and scarring, 375 of handwriting actual performance, 300-301, 302t-305t, 306 ne motor skill, 296-297 gross motor skill, 295-296 keyboarding performance, 306-307 motor performance, 294-295 neuromuscular and neurodevelopmental status, 293 pre-evaluation data collection, 292 related performance components, 292-300 visual motor control, 297-298 visual perception components, 293-294 of haptic perception in infants and children, 77-78 Executive function of the hand, 462 Explicit memory, 107, 462 Exploration and haptic perception, 69-74 by infants, 73b movements used in object, 144-147 and object dimensions, 71t Extensor lag, 462 Extensor pollicis muscles of hand, 31-35, 32f Extensor tendons injuries to, 388-389 Extrinsic muscles and tendons of hands, 27, 28f-29f, 29-31, 32f Eyedness, 181 Eye-hand coordination denition of, 462 interventions to improve, 242-243 play activities to improve, 273-275 and reaching, 89-97
Index 469
F Face pain scale-revised (FPS-R) to measure pain, 376 Facilitation case study techniques of, 352, 357t, 362t denition of, 350 techniques of, 350-351 Fasteners, 208, 209t, 210 Feedback, 462 Feed-forward controlled movements, 47 Feeding; See self-feeding Fibroblastic stage of wound healing, 369 Fine motor coordination, 462 Fine motor skills activities that help children learn, 285b case study on preschoolers, 285-286 emphasis on in different cultures, 121-122 evaluating handwriting, 296-297, 298t goals for preschoolers, 267-268 and handwriting instruction, 230-231 instruments to assess, 296t learning on vertical surfaces, 268-269 planning, 278 problems in children, 239-262 and visual perceptual inventory for preschoolers, 290-291 Finger feeding, 199, 200t Finger plays, 289 Fingers; See also digits; phalanges biomechanics of flexor pulley system, 38f embryonic development of, 21-22 force coordination in, 55-56 fractures and dislocations of, 383-384 and in-hand manipulation skills, 255-260 isolation activities, 275 movements of, 4-5 in older children, 157-158 sensory function, 7-9 and tactile system, 48-54 and vision and object manipulation, 147-148, 149f Fisted hands problems with, 250 splinting for, 406t Fixing, 462 Flexor pollicis muscles, 31-34, 33f, 35f Flexor tendons injuries to, 385-388 splinting, 417-418 Food; See also self-feeding and learning to self-feed, 199, 200t, 201, 202t, 203, 204t serving and preparing, 203, 204t Footedness, 181 Force coordination in grasping and lifting, 55-56 Forearms embryonic development of, 21-22 muscles of, 31f nerves associated with tendons and muscles of, 28f-29f, 31f, 32f, 33f, 37-40 power of muscles in, 37, 38t Fractionate, 4, 16 Fractures of ngers, 383-384 splinting for, 417 of wrist, 380-383 Friction of objects and anticipatory control, 53 Friedrich and Baumel casts, 388f Full arm casts, 380f Functional range of motion, 370-371, 372f, 375 G Gamekeepers thumb, 383-384 Gender and haptic perception, 67 and self-care skills, 197 Geoboards, 272, 275 Gestation, 21-22 Glossary, 461-464 Graphesthesia test (GRA), 78 Graphomotor skills; See also drawing; handwriting acquisition of, 217-220 motor learning, 218 denition of, 217, 462 development of, 217-233 drawing, 220-226 grasping and manipulating tools, 219-220 handwriting, 226-232 role of vision and kinesthesis in, 218-219 ergonomic factors, 298t, 301, 306, 320 writing implements, 220 Grasp; See also grip and anticipatory control, 53 basic coordination of forces during, 48-51 case scenario concerning, 101-102 developmental sequence of birth through 24 months, 138t-139t experiments involving, 48-51 illustration of normal, 42f importance of postural control in, 346 by infants systems that influence, 122-126 interventions for problems with, 249-251 mass, 5 and object manipulation in infants and children, 143-158 and osseous arches, 23 power functional patterns of, 41-43 precision, 41-43 preparation and vision, 11-13, 16 in preschoolers for drawing/ writing, 280-281 primitive and transitional, 127-128 purposeful, 128-130 radial nger patterns, 251-253 role of somatosensory cortex in, 10-11 sample short-term goals for, 244, 245b of scissors, 279 and self-dressing, 205t and sensorimotor control, 53-54 and sensory feedback, 16 strength and Strong Hands, 273, 274b
470 Index
Grasp (Continued) and tripod grips, 219-220 variability in, 155-157 Grasp phase denition of, 462 of reaching, 90-91 Grip; See also grasp affecting handwriting, 298t, 301, 306 assessment systems, 297 in children with cerebral palsy, 11 denition of, 462 force development, 51 interventions for problems with, 249-251 power description of, 41 functional patterns of, 41-43 precision functional patterns of, 41-43 precision versus power, 4-5 and preshaping hand, 12-14 role of somatosensory cortex in, 10-11 tripod, 219-220 Grip force coordination of, 55-56 denition of, 462 development of, 51 and friction, 53 illustration of, 50f illustration of rates of, 56f Grooming developing self-care skills in, 210, 211t, 212t Gross motor skills emphasis on in different cultures, 121-122 evaluation of for handwriting analysis, 295-296 Grouping, 106, 108 H Hamate anatomical diagram of, 22f description and position of, 22-23 ligaments of, 23, 24f Hammering, 42f, 171b, 172 Hand muscles; See also muscles direct corticospinal connections to alpha motor neurons, 4-5 and the primary motor cortex, 5 Hand performance denition of, 162 versus hand preference, 162, 163f, 164-165 skill and ability tests for, 171-172 Hand preference; See also handedness denition of, 162, 462 four components of, 164 versus hand performance, 162, 163f, 164-165 linked to immature grips, 220 in preschoolers, 281-282 tests for, 170-171 Hand skills complementary two-hand use, 152-153 development of importance of posture and senses in, 122-126 and infant play, 117-137, 138t-139t Hand skills (Continued) functional in infants, 120-121 grasp, release and bimanual development birth through 24 months, 138t-139t learning stages, 120-121 object manipulation, 143-158 and the primary motor cortex, 5-7 problems in children goal setting, 243-244, 245b impact on occupational performance, 239-240 intervention approaches, 240-241 intervention planning factors, 241-243 intervention strategies, 244-262 research, 244 splints, casts and constraints, 262-263 and self-care, 193-214 Hand strength in infants, 375 measuring of, 289 in middle childhood to adolescence, 374 Hand therapy pediatric, 367-398 congenital problems, 394-398 evaluation of, 369-376, 377t-379t introduction to, 367-368 phases of wound healing, 368-369, 370b thermal injuries, 389-394 traumatic injury treatment, 376, 380-394 Handedness categories of, 165-166, 166b in children assessment of, 170-172 classication of, 165-168 denition of, 161, 162, 163f, 164 development of, 177-179 factors influencing, 172-177 flow chart illustrating, 163f introduction to, 161-162 left and switch, 168-169 and pediatric occupational therapy, 179-184 prevalence of, 169-170 consistency of, 167-168 denition of, 462 development of from 2 years to age 6, 179 from birth to 24 months, 177-178 and drawing, 223-224 and haptic perception, 67-68 intervention theories for left, 182-184 for switched, 182 for unestablished, 180-182 in preschoolers, 281-282 theories concerning establishment of genetic, 173-174 intrauterine influences, 174-176 neuroanatomical and neurophysical, 172-173 pathologic, 174-176 sociocultural and environmental, 176-177 Handedness prole charts, 180f, 183b Hand-eye coordination; See eye-hand coordination Hand-object interactions cortical control of, 3-17 skills in prerequisites for, 3-4
Index 471
Hands anatomy and kinesiology of, 22-43 clumsiness or impaired function of in children, 54-58 diagram illustrating bones of, 22f embryonic development of, 21-22 extrinsic muscles and tendons of, 27, 28f-29f, 29-31, 32f functional patterns of, 41-43 isolated movements of, 247-249 joints and ligaments of, 23-27 movements of sensory function, 7-9 summary and therapeutic implications, 16 muscles and tendons of, 27, 28f-29f, 29-37 nerves associated with, 28f-29f, 31f, 32f, 33f, 37-40 osseous structures of, 22-23 perceptual functions of, 63-83 (See also haptic perception) power of muscles in, 37, 38t preference (See handedness) preshaping of, 12-14, 16 role of inferior parietal lobe in, 12-13 research studies on effects of cerebral palsy, 436t-440t sensation and anticipatory control in, 346-349 sensibility of, 376 skin and subcutaneous fascia, 40, 41f systems that contribute to abilities of, 46f Handwriting consequences of bad, 291 denition of, 217, 462 development in preschoolers, 280-284 developmental progression of, 226-229 diagram illustrating skilled, 218f ergonomic factors, 298t, 301 evaluation of actual performance, 300-301, 302t-305t, 306 ne motor skill, 296-297 gross motor skill, 295-296 keyboarding performance, 306-307 motor performance, 294-295 neuromuscular and neurodevelopmental status, 293 pre-evaluation data collection, 292 related performance components, 292-300 visual motor control, 297-298 visual perception components, 293-294 handedness actions involved in, 182-183 implement grasp and manipulation, 219-220 instruction and practice, 229-232 interventions to improve efcacy studies on, 451, 452t-453t, 454-456 kinesthetic approach to teaching, 335-340 learning on vertical surfaces, 268-269 legibility of, 226-228, 300-301 tests for assessing, 302t-305t, 311-318 manipulatives program before learning, 270-278 motor learning theories, 218 performance factors, 229-232 prosthetic devices, 331, 332f quality of, 227-228 reported mean speed, 228t role of vision and kinesthesis in, 218-219 and skilled tool use, 14-16 speed of, 226-228, 301 tests for assessing, 302t-305t, 311-318 teaching principles and practices, 319-342 Handwriting (Continued) bilateral integration, 326-327 kenesthetic approach to, 335-341 kinesthesia, 328-330 pencil grip, 330-331, 332f, 333-335 spatial analysis, 327-328 training groups, 319 upper extremity support, 320-321 visual control, 324-325 wrist and hand development, 321-324 tests for assessing, 302t-305t, 311-318 versus writing, 226 writing tools, 220 Handwriting Speed Test, 304t-305t, 317-318 Haptic perception accuracy, 67 denition of, 63-64, 462 development in children, 65-67 development in infants, 64-65 disorders of, 79-80 evaluation of in infants and children, 77-78 functions contributing to, 68-77 manual manipulation and exploration in adults, 70-71 in children, 73-74 in infants, 71-73 strategies, 69-74 and recognizing objects and shapes, 65-67 role of somatosensory sensation in, 69 summary and implications for practice, 67-68, 82 of texture, size and weight, 66 visual, 65-66 Healing phases of wound, 368-369, 370b Hemiplegic cerebral palsy coupled movements with, 97 High load brief stress (HLBS), 419 Holding skills bilateral, 133 Hygiene developing self-care skills in, 210, 211t, 212t Hypertonia versus hypotonia, 349 Hypotonia versus hypertonia, 349 I Ilizarov, 396 Imaginary play, 125 Implicit memory, 107, 462 Independence in self-care skills cultural and social factors, 196-197 and disabilities, 194-195 importance to children, 194 maturation and motivation, 197-198 motor factors, 198 sex difference, 197 Independent activities of daily living (IADLs) and self-care, 193-214 Index nger embryonic development of, 21-22 grip force rates, 56f splints, 416f
472 Index
Index grip, 333, 334f Infants bimanual skills in, 131-134 contexts of learning, 121-122 development of reaching skills, 92-95 hand skill development in contexts for, 121-122 in play context, 117-137, 127-137, 138t-139t systems that contribute to, 122-127 theories of, 117-121 haptic manipulation strategies in, 71-73, 76-77 haptic perception development in, 64-65 learning skills in, 108-110 measuring pain in, 375-376 neonatal splints, 415-417 object manipulation stages of, 143, 144-150, 144b object release in, 130-131, 136-137 play activities 12-24 months, 134-136 birth to 12 months, 127-129 and posture, 122-124 preterm haptic perception disorders in, 79-80 reaching movements by, 94-95 role of vision and cognition in haptic perception, 74-76 sensory progression in, 124-126 Inferior parietal cortex and tool use, 14-16 use-dependent organization of, 14 Inferior parietal lobes diagram illustrating, 13f functions of and hand movements, 12-13 role in preshaping of hand, 12-13 Inferior pincer grasp, 462 Inflammation clinical signs and implications of, 368-369 stage of, 368 In-hand manipulation assessment of, 297 denition of, 150, 462 ve basic types of, 255b general principles for developing, 256-260 important factors influencing, 156-157 intervention strategies, 255-260 sample short-term goals for, 244, 245b sequence of difculty, 256-257 and Smart Hands activities, 273 studies of, 154-155 Inhibition case study techniques of, 352, 357t, 362t denition of, 349 techniques of, 350 Intermodal perception, 462 Interpretive phase of drawing, 221, 222f Interventions for cerebral palsy neurodevelopmental treatment (NDT), 353-354 to enhance hand function efcacy of, 433-457 grasp levels, 251-253 for hand skill problems in children Interventions (Continued) goal setting, 243-244, 245b impact on occupational performance, 239-240 intervention approaches, 240-241 intervention planning factors, 241-243 intervention strategies, 244-262 research, 244 splints, casts and constraints, 262-263 for handedness, 180-184 to improve handwriting efcacy studies on, 451, 452t-453t, 454 muscle tone and posture, 247 positioning, 246 surgical and medical, 446-447 typical problem areas, 245b Intraparietal sulcus diagram illustrating, 13f Intrathecal baclofen, 446-447 Intrinsic hand muscles and alpha motor neurons, 4-5 and tendons, 31-35 J Joint capsules, 25, 26f Joints deep pressure, 351 embryonic development of, 21-22 metacarpophalangeal, 23, 25, 26-28 of phalanges, 23, 24f, 25, 26f stability and mobility and hand function, 277 Juvenile arthritis splinting, 418 K Key points of control with cerebral palsy, 350 in neurodevelopmental treatment (NDT), 349, 353-354 Keyboarding, 232, 306-307 Kinesiology of the hand, 21-43 Kinesthesia denition of, 219, 462 and proprioception, 48 role in graphomotor skills, 218-219 and teaching handwriting, 230-231, 328-330, 329b, 335-340 Kinesthetic Sensitivity Test (KST), 219, 231 Kinesthetic teaching techniques, 335-340 Kleinert splints, 385, 386f Knickerbockers test, 171b, 172 Knowledge components of, 106-107 and memory, 107 L Lacing activities, 273-275 Language disorders and haptic perception, 81-82 Lateral tripod grasp, 462 Learned movements description of, 47 Learned non-use, 462
Index 473
Learning denition of process of, 102, 108-110 descriptions of, 109b dressing skills, 203, 205t, 206, 207t, 208, 209t, 210 and sensorimotor control, 53-54 stages of in infants, 120-121 to write name, 283b Learning disabilities and haptic perception, 81-82 Left handedness consistent versus inconsistent, 168 denition of, 166b intervention theories for, 182-184 Letters presenting models for, 339-340 Lifting and anticipatory control, 53 coordination of forces during, 48-51 performed at different ages, 50f Ligaments checkrein, 27 collateral, 25, 26f of digital joints, 25, 26f splinting, 383 of wrist, 23, 24f Limb position sense and proprioception, 48 Load force illustration of, 50f illustration of rates of, 56f Loading phase and manipulation force development, 51 Longitudinal arch anatomical diagram of, 23f description of, 22 Low load prolonged stress (LLPS), 419 Lunate anatomical diagram of, 22f description and position of, 22-23 ligaments of, 23, 24f M Mallet nger, 384 Manipulation; See also in-hand manipulation; object manipulation and anticipatory control, 52-53 bilateral, 260-262 complexity of, 101 denition of, 144, 147 examples of strategies of by children, 74b force development, 51 general principles for developing in-hand, 256-260 grip and nger and self-care, 213 important aspects of, 102 by infants systems that influence, 122-126 in-hand intervention strategies, 255-260 versus prehension, 150 during preschool training, 270-278 role of in haptic perception in, 69-70 and sensorimotor control, 53-54 Manipulation (Continued) Strong Hands and Smart Hands, 272-278 and tripod grips, 219-220 Manual Form Perception (MFP) test, 77-78 Manuscript writing versus cursive, 324-326 kinesthetic approach to teaching, 335-336 Mastery motivation, 197-198 Mastication, 47 Matin Vigorimeter, 289 Maturation stage of wound healing, 369 Mechanoreceptors and touch, 48 Meissner corpuscles, 48 Memory denition of, 107, 462 storing information in, 102 working and handwriting performance, 229 Mental retardation; See also Down syndrome and haptic perception, 80-81 Metacarpals anatomical diagram of, 22f description and position of, 22-23 embryonic development of, 21-22 ligaments of, 23, 24f Metacarpophalangeal joints, 23, 25, 26-28 collateral ligaments of, 25f, 26 Middle phalanges anatomical diagram of, 22f description and position of, 22-23 ligaments of, 23, 24f Miller Assessment for Preschoolers, 77 Minnesota Handwriting Assessment (MHA), 302t-303t, 306, 311-312 Mirror movements, 462 Mixed handers denition of, 166b Mobility versus stability, 241 Motivation and hand ability in children, 46f to improve hand skills, 45-46 and interests of children to learn, 242-243 mastery, 197-198 Motor control summary of, 58-59 Motor impairments affecting drawing abilities, 225 affecting reaching skills, 96 Motor learning denition of, 347, 463 development of in infant play context, 117-137, 138t-139t and kinesthetic teaching techniques, 335-340 role of somatosensory cortex in, 11-12 theory of, 242 Motor programs denition of, 47 Motor skills affected by brain injuries, 81 and cognition adaptation, 102 attention and perception, 104-105
474 Index
Motor skills (Continued) case scenario, 101-102 concept formation, 106-107 importance in acquisition of, 102-103 memory, 107-108 perceptual-motor processes, 105-106 processes of, 103-108 denition of, 102 development of versus cognitive skill development, 110 in infant play context, 117-137, 138t-139t role of somatosensory cortex in, 11-12 variability in, 155-157 and evaluating handwriting, 294-295 goal setting interventions, 243-244, 245b important aspects of, 102 and kinesthetic teaching techniques, 335-340 repetition and practice, 242 and self-care, 193-214 Mouth two hands and exploration with, 145f used for object exploration, 146, 147-149 Movements acceleration and deceleration phases of, 93-95 and anticipatory control, 53 components of, 102 constraint-induced (CI) therapy description of, 263 research and case studies on, 444-446 control theories, 46-47 development of in small children, 51 disorders of cerebral palsy, 344 goal directed, 102 in infants and hand skill development, 117-121 isolated hand and arm, 247-249 learned description of, 47 mature reaching integration of sensory information, 92 role of proprioception, 91-92 role of vision in, 91 speed, 89-90 transport and grasp phase, 90-91 reaching beginning stage, 92-93 coordinating body parts, 93 development during infancy, 92-95 planning, 93-95 sensory information, 95 variations, 95 summary of object manipulation, 148-149 theories of, 102-103 units, 463 used in object exploration, 144-146 Multimodal exploration denition of, 64, 463 Muscle tone assessment of in cerebral palsy patients, 352 denition of, 349 neurodevelopmental approach to, 347 case study, 360-363 Muscles balance and biomechanical considerations, 35, 37 embryonic development of, 21-22 extrinsic of hands and arms, 27, 28f-29f, 29-31, 32f and hand ability in children, 46f intrinsic of hands, 31-35 and proprioception, 48 tendon movement with, 37 weakness with cerebral palsy, 344 work capacity of, 37, 38t Myelomeningocele (MMC) affecting drawing abilities, 225 affecting reaching movements, 96 N Needle threading, 323, 324f Neonatal infants haptic perception disorders in, 79-80 splints, 415-417 Neoprene thumb abduction splints, 334f, 335 Neovascularization, 368-369, 370b Nerves associated with tendons and muscles of hand, wrist and forearm, 28f-29f, 31f, 32f, 33f injuries to splinting approach, 418, 423-425 supply of to forearm, hand, and wrist, 37-40 Neurodevelopmental Treatment Association (NDTA), 344-347 Neurodevelopmental treatment (NDT) for cerebral palsy, 343-363 case studies, 355-359, 360-363 efcacy of, 354-355 research studies on, 440-443 facilitation techniques, 350-351 inhibition, 349-350 intervention process for cerebral palsy, 353 key points of control, 349, 353-354 planning treatment, 352, 357t, 361t and postural control, 347-346 role of sensation and anticipatory control in, 346-349 Neuromaturation model of motor development, 117-118 Newborns; See infants Newton Early Childhood Program, 267, 280, 283, 285-286, 289, 290-291 Nine-Hole Peg test, 297 Non-language learning disabilities (NLD), 327-328 Numeric rating scale (NRS) to measure pain, 376 O Object manipulation; See also manipulation and anticipatory control, 346-349 and haptic perception, 69-74 in infants and children, 143-158 of multiple objects, 148 in older children, 157-158 in preschool and early childhood years, 154-157
Index 475
Object manipulation (Continued) role of vision in infant, 147-148 during toddler years, 150-154 summary of, 153-156 Object release from 12 to 24 months, 136-137 from birth to 12 months, 130-131 control of by toddlers, 152 developmental sequence of birth through 24 months, 138t-139t Objects characteristics of and grasp interventions, 250-251 familiar versus unfamiliar, 56-57 and hand interaction cortical control of, 3-17 handling of multiple, 148 infant exploration actions, 73b in-hand manipulation of, 256-260 manipulation (See also object manipulation) and exploration, 144-147 and haptic perception, 69-74 in infants and children, 143-158 release of (See also object release) in infants, 130-131, 136-137 spatial orientation of, 67 substance, structure and function of, 71t transporting, 251 weight, size and friction of and anticipatory control, 52-53 Observation of Visual Motor Orientation and Efciency, 325 Occupational therapy approaches to handwriting efcacy research on, 454-456 approaches with preschoolers research studies, 449-450, 451t, 453-454 cerebral palsy research, 436t-440t effective sessions for preschoolers, 284-285 ne motor program for preschoolers, 267-287, 289-291 goal setting, 243-244, 245b interventions to enhance hand function, 433-457 for hand skill problems, 239-264 pediatric and handedness, 179-184 role of performance when treating cerebral palsy, 347 Opponens pollicis muscles, 31-34, 33f, 35f Osseous arches of the hands, 22, 23f P Pacini corpuscles, 48 Pain with cerebral palsy, 344 with fractures in wrists, 380-383 of hand wounds, 375-376 measurement tools, 376 Palmar aponeurosis, 40, 41f Palmar grasps, 128-130, 256-258, 463 Palmar interossei muscles, 32-34, 35f Parietal cortex and hand-object interactions, 3-4 Passive range of motion (PROM), 370, 371f, 375 Pathologic handedness denition of, 166b, 463 Peabody Developmental Fine Motor Scales, 3, 150, 243 Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI), 195-196, 197, 199 Pencil grips improper, 319 remediation, 331, 333f training, 330-335 Pencil Pal, 331, 333f Perception denition of, 104, 463 denition of process, 102 and hand ability in children, 46f importance in hand skill development, 119-120 in motor skills, 104-105 and self-care, 214 Perceptual skills; See perception Perceptual-motor processes, 105-106, 463 Peripheral nerves injuries to splinting approach, 418, 423-425 Personality factors in self-care, 214 Pervasive Developmental Disorder- Not Otherwise Specied (PDD-NOS), 278 Phagocytosis, 368-369, 370b Phalanges; See also digits; ngers embryonic development of, 21-22 fractures and dislocations of, 383-384 joints of, 23, 24f, 25, 26f Physical health functional denition of, 193 Piagetian approach to cognition and motor skill development, 103 Pincer grasps, 463 Pisiform anatomical diagram of, 22f description and position of, 22-23 ligaments of, 23, 24f Play activities and child motivation, 242-243 and ne motor development, 267-268 imaginary or symbolic, 125 in infants from 12 to 24 months, 134-136 from birth to 12 months, 127-129 for preschoolers, 271-272 Smart Hands, 272-278 Strong Hands, 273, 274b therapy research on efcacy of, 449 Play dough, 273, 278f Positioning and grip force, 50f of hand during burn healing phase, 391, 393 and self-care, 213 and splinting, 403-404 using vertical surfaces, 268-269 Posterior parietal lobes importance for hand-object interactions, 3-4 two parts of, 13 Postural control, 463
476 Index
Postural sway, 346 Posture affected by cerebral palsy, 344 affecting handwriting, 298t, 301, 306 anticipatory, 346 and hand skill difculties, 247 and handwriting instruction, 230-231 importance of in infant hand skill development, 122-124 in reaching, 93 inhibition and facilitation techniques, 349-351 and kinesthetic teaching techniques, 338, 341f reflex-inhibiting, 344-347 relationship to upper extremity function and cerebral palsy, 347-346 Power and hand preference, 164 Power grip denition of, 463 description of, 41 development of, 253-254 Praxis, 463 Precision grip alteration with object sizes, 41f denition of, 463 development of, 143 normal and impaired development of force control in, 45-59 versus power grip, 4-5 types of, 43f Precision handling denition of, 463 and handwriting, 323, 324f Preference; See hand preference; handedness Prehensile force control in children with central nervous system disorders, 45-46 sensory information used for, 57-58 Prehension skills from 12 to 24 months, 136 from birth to 12 months, 127-130 denition of, 463 patterns of versus manipulator patterns, 150 Premotor cortex and hand-object interactions, 3-4 Preschoolers; See also children ne motor program for, 267-287, 289-291 ne motor skills in and visual perceptual inventory, 290-291 object manipulation in, 154-157 occupational therapy research studies, 449-450, 451t, 453454 scissors skills in, 279-280 Primary motor cortex diagram of, 5f role in hand movements, 5-7 summary and therapeutic implications, 16 use-dependent organization of, 5-7 Primary sensory cortex connections to, 16, 17f Primary somatosensory cortex; See somatosensory cortex Priming denition of, 104 Primitive grasps, 128-130 Primitive wound contracture, 368-369, 370b Production Consistency Sheet, 329, 330f Pronation interventions to improve, 247-249 splints, 414 Proprioception denition of, 463 description of, 48 role in reaching, 91-92 Proprioceptive systems influencing hand skill development in infants, 124-126 Prosthetic devices for handwriting, 331, 332f Proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints description of, 23 dorsal dislocation of, 384 Proximal phalanges anatomical diagram of, 22f description and position of, 22-23 embryonic development of, 21-22 ligaments of, 23, 24f Proximal to distal development, 241 Proximal transverse arch anatomical diagram of, 23f description of, 22 Purposeful release, 131 Puzzles, 276 Q Quadrupodgrasp, 280-281 R Radial digital grasp, 251-253, 463 Radial nerve palsy case study on splinting, 423-425 Radial palmar grasp, 463 Radial-ulnar dissociation, 253, 463 Range of motion (ROM) assessment of in cerebral palsy patients, 352 in children and adolescents, 375 of hands following wounds or injuries, 370-375 in infants, 372 neurodevelopmental approach to, 347 in toddlers, 372-373 types of, 370-373 upper extremity and handwriting, 321, 324 Rapper snappers, 271 Reaching and anticipatory control, 53, 94 case scenario concerning, 101-102 denition of, 89 and eye-hand coordination, 89-97 and hand preference, 164 importance of postural control in, 346 in infancy, 143 and motor impairments adaptations, 96-97 in children, 96-97 with hemiplegic cerebral palsy, 97 planning and feedback control, 96
Index 477
Reaching (Continued) movements beginning stage, 92-93 coordinating body parts, 93 development during infancy, 92-95 integration of sensory information, 92 planning, 93-95 role of proprioception, 91-92 role of vision in, 91 sensory information, 95 speed, 89-90 transport and grasp phase, 90-91 variations, 95 and self-dressing, 205t two main parts of, 12 Reflexes control theories concerning, 46 Reflex-inhibiting postures (RIPs), 344-345 Regeneration of tissue wounds, 368 Release; See object release Repair of tissue wounds, 368 Representation denition of process, 102 Research evidence on cerebral palsy, 435, 436t-440t on hand function in cerebral palsy patients, 436t-440t on in-hand manipulation, 154-155 levels of, 433-434 summary of, 456-457 Retrieval phase of explicit memory, 108 Reverse transverse grip, 463 Right handedness consistent versus inconsistent, 168 denition of, 166b Rotation skills, 257-259, 323, 324f, 463 S Sandwich splints, 391f Scaphoid anatomical diagram of, 22f description and position of, 22-23 fractures, 380-383 ligaments of, 23, 24f Scar remodeling stage of wound healing, 369, 370b Scars management of burn, 391-393 from radial club hand operations, 396-398 sandwich splints for, 391f from syndactyly operations, 394-396 Scissors illustration of cutting, 153f motor functions of, 323 skill development in preschoolers, 279-280 Scissors grasp, 463 Selective attention, 104 Selective posterior rhizotomy, 446 Self-care skills acquisition of, 196-198 mastery motivation, 197-198 Self-care skills (Continued) maturation, 197 motor factors, 198 sex differences, 197 social and cultural issues, 197-198 chronology of acquisition activities of daily living, 212-214 cognitive and personality factors, 214 dressing and undressing, 203, 205t, 206, 207t, 208, 209t, 210 eating and drinking, 199, 200t hand skills in, 193-214, 213-214 hygiene and grooming, 210, 211t-212t self-feeding, 199, 200t serving and preparing food, 203, 204t utensil use, 201, 202t, 203b denition of, 463 development of, 196-210, 211t-212t, 213-214 and ngers, hands and grip abilities, 213-214 and hand skill development, 193-214 independence in in children, 194, 212-213 in the disabled, 194-195 measurement of nonstandardized measures, 195 standardized measures, 195-196 perceptual factors in, 214 Self-dressing; See dressing skills Self-feeding, 199, 200t, 201, 202t, 203, 204t Semantic memory, 107-108 Sensorimotor control organization of, 53-54 Sensorimotor cortex ring of haptic neurons in, 69 and hand-object interactions, 3-4 Sensorimotor system delay problems research studies on, 450t and hand ability in children, 46f Sensory awareness versus motor control, 241-242 typical activities for, 247b Sensory feedback and grasp, 16 and haptic perception, 69 importance of in motor learning, 11-12 Sensory information and development of reaching skills, 95 gathered by hands and ngers, 7-9 and hand skill development in infants, 119-120 integration of vision and proprioception, 92 processing and handwriting, 299-300 and reaching, 92 used for force control, 57-58 Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests (SIPT), 77-78, 179-180 Sensory systems impairments with cerebral palsy, 346-347 importance of in infant hand skill development, 124-126 Shift skills, 259, 463
478 Index
Shoes learning to tie, 209t, 210 and haptic perception, 63 Size haptic perception of, 66 of objects and anticipatory control, 52 Skiers thumb, 383-384 Skilled hand movements; See also movements role of sensory information in, 8-9 Skilled tasks versus unskilled, 164 Skills acquisition of, 108-110 denition of, 108 Skin of hands, 40, 41f Smart Hands, 272-278 Social isolation with cerebral palsy, 344 Somatosensory cortex circuit of, 17f and hand skills, 7-9 and hand-object interactions, 3-4 illustration of, 10f role in grasp, 10-11 role in motor learning, 11-12 role in sensory function, 7-9 use-dependent organization within, 9-10 Somatosensory sensation role in haptic perception, 69 Somatosensory system cortical organization of, 8-9 denition of, 463 feedback and graphomotor skills, 218-219 S.O.S. grids, 282 Southern California Sensory Integration Tests (SCSIT), 179180 Spasticity with cerebral palsy, 344 biomechanics of, 350-349 denition of, 464 neurodevelopmental approach to, 345-346 surgical and medical interventions, 446-447 Spatial analysis in handwriting, 327-328 Spina bida affecting drawing abilities, 225 Spinal cord ventral horn divisions of, 4-5 Splinting; See also splints anti-Houdini techniques, 420b, 418f-420f, 419 benets of, 402-403 case study on radial nerve palsy, 423-425 common problems requiring nger control, 414-415, 416f sted hand, 411-412 neonatal intensive care, 415-417 supination and pronation, 414 thumb in palm, 411 weight bearing, 414, 415f wrist flexion, 412-413 wrist ulnar and radial deviation, 413-414 efcacy of research studies on, 443-444 Splinting (Continued) fabrication for children, 410 history of, 401-402 as intervention adjunct, 262-263 material characteristics, 409-410 for orthopedic problems, 407t, 417-419 patient care instructions, 429-430 principles of, 402-403 selection of, 404, 405f, 406t-407t, 408-410 types of, 404, 405f, 406t-407t, 408 Splints; See also splinting nger and thumb, 383-384 Kleinert, 385, 386f for mallet nger, 384f neoprene, 334f, 335, 382f for tendon injuries, 385-389 vendors, 431 wearing schedules and precautions, 419 for wrist and elbow injuries, 380-382 Squeeze grasp, 464 Stability affecting handwriting, 298t, 301, 306 denition of, 464 and grasp, 250 importance of wrist in handwriting, 321-323 of materials and grasp, 259f, 260-262 versus mobility, 241 and self-dressing, 205t Stabilization; See stability Static splinting, 404, 464 Static tripod grasp, 464 Stereognosis, 464 Stickers, 276 Stiffness, 464 Storage phase of explicit memory, 108 Stringing activities, 273-275 Strong Hands, 272 Subcutaneous fascia of hands, 40, 41f Superior parietal lobes diagram illustrating, 13f effect of lesions in, 8f functions of and hand movements, 12-13 Supination interventions to improve, 247-249, 251 splints, 414 Swallowing and movements, 47 Swan neck deformities splinting, 418f Switched handedness denition of, 166b, 464 intervention theories for, 182 problems associated with, 169b theories concerning, 168-169 Symbolic play, 125 Syndactyly, 394-396 T Tactile apraxia, 15 Tactile cues, 351
Index 479
Tactile perception and brain injury, 81 impairments and learning disabilities, 81-82 Tactile scanning, 63 Tactile system awareness or discrimination, 246-247 denition of, 48 and friction, 53 identifying properties, 71b importance of in grasping and holding, 48-54 influencing hand skill development in infants, 124-126 and motor control, 241-242 and object recognition, 69 Tapping, 171b, 172, 351, 464 Teaching approaches to handwriting efcacy studies, 451, 452t-453t, 454 principles and practices of handwriting, 319-342 bilateral integration, 326-327 kinesthetic approach to, 335-341 kinesthesia, 328-330 pencil grip, 330-331, 332f, 333-335 spatial analysis, 327-328 training groups, 319 upper extremity support, 320-321 visual control, 324-325 wrist and hand development, 321-324 to write name, 283b Tendons balance and biomechanical considerations, 35, 37 extrinsic of hands and arms, 27, 28f-29f, 29-31, 32f injuries to hand, 385-389 and intrinsic muscles of hands, 31-35 movement with muscle contraction, 37 and proprioception, 48 Tensile strength and wound healing, 369 Test of Handwriting Skills (THS), 302t-303t, 312-313 Test of Legible Handwriting, 304t-305t Test of Motor Impairment (TOMI), 231, 448-449 Tests for assessing handwriting, 302t-305t Texture haptic perception of, 66 identifying, 71b The Development Test of Visual-Motor Integration, 227b The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery, 78 Therapeutic interventions; See interventions Thermal hand injuries in children classication of severity, 392-394, 390t closed wound scarring phase of, 392-394 open wound phase of, 390-392 patterns of, 389-390 Think breaks, 339f Three-jaw chuck, 464 Threshold tests, 464 Thumb in palm, 406t, 411 Thumb spica splints, 382f Thumb-index web space, 322 Thumbs embryonic development of, 21-22 grip force rates, 56f metacarpophalangeal joint of, 26-27 Ties, 208, 209t, 210 Tissue burn scarring of, 391-394 regeneration of wounds, 368 Toddlers; See also children complementary two-hand use by, 152-153 measuring pain in, 375-376 object manipulation by, 150-154 summary and therapeutic implications of object manipulation skills, 153-156 Toileting, 210, 211t Tone; See muscle tone Tools denition of, 198 features of skilled use of, 14-16 handwriting, 220 history of, 319 power grasps on, 253-254 role of inferior parietal cortex in use of, 14-16 and self-care activities, 198-210, 211t-212t skills with and hand preference, 164 stabilization of hand structures needed for, 333b Total end range time (TERT), 419, 464 Touch; See also tactile system importance of in grasping and holding, 48 Toys Smart Hand, 272-278 types of for ne motor skill development, 271-278 Tracing, 171b, 172, 282 Trajectory denition of, 89 of reaching, 91 Translation, 464 Transport phase of reaching, 90-91, 464 Trapezium anatomical diagram of, 22f description and position of, 22-23 ligaments of, 23, 24f Trapezoid anatomical diagram of, 22f description and position of, 22-23 ligaments of, 23, 24f Tripod grip adapted, 331f description of, 219-220 illustration of, 269f, 280f training children in, 330-331 Triquetrum anatomical diagram of, 22f description and position of, 22-23 ligaments of, 23, 24f Trunk functions of kinesiologic aspects of, 347-350 stability of and self-dressing, 205t
480 Index
U Unestablished handedness denition of, 166b intervention theories for, 180-182 Upper extremities casting research on efcacy of, 443-444 constraint therapy, 263 embryonic development of, 21-22 interventions for cerebral palsy a neurodevelopmental treatment approach, 343-363 motor development tests, 195 splinting, 401-419, 420f-422f case study, 423-425 and teaching handwriting, 320-321 and voluntary release, 254 Upper limbs biomechanical interactions of in cerebral palsy patients 350-349 functions of kinesiologic aspects of, 347-350 Use-dependent organization of inferior parietal and ventral premotor cortex, 14 within somatosensory cortex, 9-10 Utensils; See also tools learning progression for using, 201, 202t, 203b V Vasoconstriction, 368-369, 370b Vasodilation, 368-369, 370b Velocity illustration of rates of, 56f Ventral premotor cortex diagram illustrating, 13f role in preshaping hand, 13-14 use-dependent organization of, 14 Ventral stream, 104, 464 Verbal rating scale (VRS) to measure pain, 376 Vertical surfaces examples of activities for, 269b materials and suppliers, 289 teaching hand/wrist positions using, 268-269 Vestibular input, 351 Vibration, 144-145, 350, 353 Vision and grasp preparation, 12-13, 16 influencing hand skill development in infants, 119-120, 124-126 and manuscript versus cursive writing, 324-326 problems with cerebral palsy, 344 role of in graphomotor skills, 218-219 in haptic perception, 65-67, 74-75, 77 in object manipulation, 147-148 in reaching, 91 Visual analog scale (VAS) to measure pain, 376 Visual motor control evaluation of, 297-298 in handwriting, 324-326 Visual motor integration (VMI), 227, 231, 325, 448-449, 451, 452t-453t, 454 Visual perceptual inventory and ne motor skills for preschoolers, 290-291 Visual-motor skills instruments to assess, 296t Visual-perceptual skills evaluation of, 293-294 instruments to assess, 295t Volition, 464 Voluntary release denition of, 464 difculties intervention strategies, 254-255 sample short-term goals for, 244, 245b W Wake Up Hands, 271-272 Wee Functional Independence Measure (WeeFim), 195-196 Weight bearing splints, 414 on upper and lower limbs, 351 haptic perception of, 66 of objects and anticipatory control, 52 shifting, 351, 464 Wind-up toys, 276 Work capacity of muscles, 37, 38t Working memory, 229, 464 Wounds burns classication of severity, 392-394, 390t closed wound scarring phase of, 392-394 open wound phase of, 390-392 patterns of, 389-390 caused by congenital differences, 394-398 characteristics of, 375 phases of healing, 368-369, 370b Wrists embryonic development of, 21-22 fractures in, 380-383 joints of, 23, 24f nerves associated with tendons and muscles of, 28f-29f, 31f, 32f, 33f, 37-40 stabilizing of importance for handwriting, 321-322 supination and stability of, 251 and teaching handwriting, 321-324 ulnar and radial deviation, 413-414 using vertical surfaces when training, 268-269 Writing; See graphomotor skills; handwriting Written language assessments, 298-299 Z Zippers, 208, 209t, 210 Zone of proximal development, 240-241, 243, 464 Zoo sticks, 276