Correction to: J NeuroEng Rehabil (2019) 16:48
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-019-0518-8
The original article [1] contains several errors which the authors would like to rectify:
Figs 3B & 3C contain duplicate data from Fig. 5. The correct version of Fig. 3 can be viewed ahead.
-
The Authors’ contributions section contains a minor typo and should instead read as the following:
“KMG, SAH, JW, MPK and RLR contributed to experimental design. KMG and SAH wrote the manuscript. KMG and RLR provided engineering. KMG, KR, VW and EG conducted data collection. SAH, MPK, and RLR provided funding. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.”
Tables 2 & 3 contain minor formatting errors. The correct presentation of both tables can be viewed ahead.
Fig. 3.
Devices for assessing wrist flexion and extension force and range of motion. a Diagram of isometric wrist force module. Red arrows indicate force direction. b Example of single wrist flexion and extension trials from uninjured and cSCI participants. c cSCI participants produce significantly lower wrist flexion and extension forces compared to uninjured controls. d Diagram of the isotonic wrist flexion and extension ROM device showing direction of movement. e Example of single flexion and extension ROM trials performed by uninjured and cSCI participants. f Wrist flexion and extension ROM is significantly reduced in cSCI participants compared to uninjured participants. Individual data is depicted with open circles. Error bars indicate SD. Significant differences were determined by Wilcoxon rank sum tests and are noted as *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Table 2.
Novel system measurement results by participant group (N = 13). CV, coefficient of variation; †Values based on n = 12
| Peak | CV | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UI | cSCI | UI | cSCI | ||||
| Measure | Task (units) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | p-val | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | p-val |
| Force | Finger Flexion (N)† | 78.3 (22.7) | 2.94 (2.49) | < 0.001 | 6.8 (2.3) | 40.1 (25.3) | < 0.001 |
| Finger Extension (N)† | 17.3 (5.42) | 1.23 (1.99) | < 0.001 | 12.7 (5.2) | 71.1 (34.6) | < 0.001 | |
| Wrist Flexion (Nm) | 5.41 (2.46) | 0.89 (0.75) | < 0.001 | 14.7 (4.0) | 27.4 (18.2) | 0.009 | |
| Wrist Extension (Nm) | 3.24 (1.29) | 1.27 (0.98) | < 0.001 | 12.4 (4.6) | 25.7 (12.8) | 0.002 | |
| Handle Pronation (Nm) | 6.36 (2.37) | 1.76 (1.36) | < 0.001 | 8.3 (2.9) | 31.4 (33.2) | 0.015 | |
| Handle Supination (Nm) | 4.58 (1.71) | 1.10 (0.67) | < 0.001 | 8.0 (3.5) | 21.0 (16.5) | 0.013 | |
| Doorknob Pronation (Nm) | 3.63 (1.14) | 0.30 (0.28) | < 0.001 | 10.3 (3.6) | 60.7 (44.9) | < 0.001 | |
| Doorknob Supination (Nm) | 3.51 (1.40) | 0.38 (0.32) | < 0.001 | 11.6 (5.9) | 28.6 (13.3) | < 0.001 | |
| Range of Motion | Wrist Flexion (°) | 81.3 (5.56) | 56.5 (26.7) | 0.027 | 4.0 (2.7) | 8.4 (7.8) | 0.11 |
| Wrist Extension (°) | 71.9 (8.36) | 48.5 (20.9) | 0.002 | 2.7 (1.3) | 7.6 (7.1) | 0.026 | |
| Handle Pronation (°) | 104.1 (12.6) | 95.9 (36.9) | 0.92 | 4.5 (2.4) | 6.5 (4.4) | 0.87 | |
| Handle Supination (°) | 74.0 (14.5) | 56.8 (24.2) | 0.051 | 5.3 (1.6) | 4.3 (2.4) | 0.31 | |
| Doorknob Pronation (°) | 107.1 (20.9) | 94.7 (41.5) | 0.72 | 4.4 (2.4) | 21.7 (36.7) | 0.12 | |
| Doorknob Supination (°) | 72.1 (19.8) | 56.7 (35.1) | 0.25 | 5.4 (2.4) | 36.8 (69.7) | 0.13 | |
Table 3.
Test-retest reproducibility results of the novel metrics for cSCI participants (N = 10). MDD, minimally detectable difference; SD20, standard deviation of 20 trials; ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; †Values based on n = 9
| Measure | Task (units) | Change (SD) | p-val | MDD | 1.96*SD20 | ICC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Composite Score | 0.03 (0.06) | 0.72 | 0.107 | – | 0.95 | |
| Force | Finger Flexion (N)† | 0.21 (3.42) | 0.88 | 5.99 | 2.52 | 0.40 |
| Finger Extension (N)† | −0.08 (1.99) | 0.94 | 3.48 | 1.29 | 0.63 | |
| Wrist Flexion (Nm) | 0.65 (1.99) | 0.45 | 3.70 | 0.96 | 0.45 | |
| Wrist Extension (Nm) | 0.34 (0.63) | 0.55 | 1.17 | 0.68 | 0.85 | |
| Handle Pronation (Nm) | 0.13 (1.37) | 0.88 | 2.55 | 1.10 | 0.75 | |
| Handle Supination (Nm) | 0.16 (0.16) | 0.75 | 1.79 | 0.76 | 0.62 | |
| Doorknob Pronation (Nm) | 0.005 (0.16) | 0.97 | 0.30 | 0.28 | 0.90 | |
| Doorknob Supination (Nm) | −0.05 (0.22) | 0.65 | 0.41 | 0.24 | 0.67 | |
| Range of Motion | Wrist Flexion (°) | 1.52 (10.8) | 0.90 | 20.1 | 10.8 | 0.93 |
| Wrist Extension (°) | 4.46 (6.4) | 0.67 | 11.9 | 8.3 | 0.95 | |
| Handle Pronation (°) | 3.49 (18.7) | 0.84 | 34.7 | 15.5 | 0.88 | |
| Handle Supination (°) | 0.07 (7.6) | 0.99 | 14.0 | 7.4 | 0.96 | |
| Doorknob Pronation (°) | 5.29 (20.8) | 0.76 | 38.7 | 22.1 | 0.86 | |
| Doorknob Supination (°) | 0.03 (9.4) | 0.99 | 17.5 | 14.9 | 0.93 |
Footnotes
The original article can be found online at 10.1186/s12984-019-0518-8
Reference
- 1.Grasse KM, Hays SA, Rahebi KC, Warren VS, Garcia EA, Wiggington JG, et al. A suite of automated tools to quantify hand and wrist motor function after cervical spinal cord injury. J NeuroEng Rehabil. 2019;16:48. doi: 10.1186/s12984-019-0518-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]