دوره 15، شماره 4 - ( December 1396 )
جلد 15 شماره 4 صفحات 376-367 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
چکیده: (5702 مشاهده)
Objectives: The present study aimed to investigate the possible effects of laterality and handedness on higher-order sensory functions and manual dexterity of the elderly.
Methods: In this non-experimental cross-sectional study, 58 elderly people aged 60-75 years (35 right-handed) were recruited through a convenience sampling method. Laterality of the selected subjects was examined using the Edinburg test, while the higher-order sensory functions were assessed via haptic performance along with weight and texture discrimination tests. Gross and fine manual dexterity functions were assessed with the help of the box-and-block and Purdue pegboard tests, respectively.
Results: Results showed that the main effects of laterality and handedness, as well as the interaction effect of laterality × handedness on the haptic performance of the elderly were not significant. However, the main and interaction effects of laterality and handedness on the texture and weight discrimination of the elderly were significant. On the other hand, the main and interaction effects of laterality and handedness on the gross and fine manual dexterity of the elderly were not found to be significant.
Discussion: Laterality has no effect on the higher-order sensory functions of right- and left-handed elderly people. However, effects of laterality on fine motor dexterity in right-handed individuals were detected.
Methods: In this non-experimental cross-sectional study, 58 elderly people aged 60-75 years (35 right-handed) were recruited through a convenience sampling method. Laterality of the selected subjects was examined using the Edinburg test, while the higher-order sensory functions were assessed via haptic performance along with weight and texture discrimination tests. Gross and fine manual dexterity functions were assessed with the help of the box-and-block and Purdue pegboard tests, respectively.
Results: Results showed that the main effects of laterality and handedness, as well as the interaction effect of laterality × handedness on the haptic performance of the elderly were not significant. However, the main and interaction effects of laterality and handedness on the texture and weight discrimination of the elderly were significant. On the other hand, the main and interaction effects of laterality and handedness on the gross and fine manual dexterity of the elderly were not found to be significant.
Discussion: Laterality has no effect on the higher-order sensory functions of right- and left-handed elderly people. However, effects of laterality on fine motor dexterity in right-handed individuals were detected.
فهرست منابع
1. Kalisch T, Kattenstroth JC, Kowalewski R, Tegenthoff M, HR D. Age related changes in the join position sense of the human hand. Clinical Interventions in Aging. 2012; 7:499. doi: 10.2147/cia.s37573 [DOI:10.2147/CIA.S37573]
2. Bowden J, McNulty P. Age related changed in cutaneous sensation in the healthy human hand. Age. 2013; 35(4):1077-89. doi: 10.1007/s11357-012-9429-3 [DOI:10.1007/s11357-012-9429-3]
3. Civardi C, Cavalli A, Naldi P, Varrasi C, Cantello R. Hemispheric asymmetries of the cortico cortical connections in the human hand motor areas. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2000; 111(4):624-9. doi: 10.1016/s1388-2457(99)00301-6 [DOI:10.1016/S1388-2457(99)00301-6]
4. Francis KL, Spirduso WW. Age differences in the expression of the manual asymmetry. Experimental Aging Research. 2000; 26(2):169-80. doi: 10.1080/036107300243632 [DOI:10.1080/036107300243632]
5. Ozcan A, Tulum Z, Pinar L, Baskurt F. Comparison of pressure pain threshold, grip strength, dexterity and touch pressure of dominant and non dominant hands within and between right and left-handed subjects. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2004; 19(6):874-8. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2004.19.6.874 [DOI:10.3346/jkms.2004.19.6.874]
6. Pauli P, Wiedemann G, Nickola M. Association with behavioural measure of cerebral laterality. European Journal of Pain. 1999; 3(2):151-6. doi: 10.1053/eujp.1999.0108 [DOI:10.1053/eujp.1999.0108]
7. Hage JJ, Van der Steen LP, de Groot PJ. Difference in sensibility between the dominant and non dominant index finger as tested using the Semmes weinstein monofilaments pressure aesthiometer. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 1995; 20(2):227-9. doi: 10.1016/s0363-5023(05)80012-7 [DOI:10.1016/S0363-5023(05)80012-7]
8. Van Turnhout AAWM, Hage JJ, de Groot PJM, De Lange De Klerk ESM. Lack of difference in sensibilty between the dominant and non dominant hands as tested with Semmes Weinstein monofilaments. Journal of Hand Surgery. 1997; 22(6):768-71. doi: 10.1016/s0266-7681(97)80445-7 [DOI:10.1016/S0266-7681(97)80445-7]
9. Teixeira LA. Categories of manual asymmetry and their variation with advancing age. Cortex. 2008; 44(6):707-16. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2006.10.002 [DOI:10.1016/j.cortex.2006.10.002]
10. Buckingham G, Ranger NS, Goodale MA. Handedness, laterality and the size weight illusion. Cortex. 2012; 48(10):1342–50. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.09.007 [DOI:10.1016/j.cortex.2011.09.007]
11. Bruce MF. The relation of tactile thresholds to histology in the fingers of elderly people. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 1980; 43(8):730–4. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.43.8.730 [DOI:10.1136/jnnp.43.8.730]
12. Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1989; 42(8):703-9. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90065-6 [DOI:10.1016/0895-4356(89)90065-6]
13. Froghan M, Jafari Z, Shirin Bayan P, Farahani Z, Rahgozar M. Normalization of mini mental state examination in older adults in Tehran (Persian)]. Advances in Cognitive Sciences. 2008; 10(2):29-31.
14. Weinstein S. Fifty years of somatosensory research: From the Semmes Weinstein monofilaments to the Weinstein enhanced sensory test. Journal of Hand Therapy. 1993; 6(1):11-22. PMID: 8343870 [DOI:10.1016/S0894-1130(12)80176-1]
15. Oldfield RC. The assesment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971; 9(1):97-113. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 [DOI:10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4]
16. Norman JF, Crabtree CE, Norman HF, Moncrief BK, Herrmann M, Kapley N. Aging and the visual, haptic, and cross-modal perception of natural object shape. Perception. 2006; 35(10):1383-95. doi: 10.1068/p5504 [DOI:10.1068/p5504]
17. Bird T, Choi S, Goodman L, Schmalbrock P. Sensorimotor training induced reorganization after stroke: A case series. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy. 2013; 37(1):27-36. doi: 10.1097/npt.0b013e318283de0d [DOI:10.1097/NPT.0b013e318283de0d]
18. Williams PS, Basso DM, Case Smith J, Nichols Larsen DS. Development of the hand active sensation test: Reliability and validity. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2006; 87(11):1471-1477. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.08.019 [DOI:10.1016/j.apmr.2006.08.019]
19. Desrosiers J, Bravo G, Hébert R, Dutil É, Mercier L. Validation of the Box and Block Test as a measure of dexterity of elderly people: Reliability, validity, and norms studies. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1994; 75(7):751-5. PMID: 8024419 [PMID]
20. Buddenberg LA, Davis CH. Test retest reliability of the Purdue-Pegboard test. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2000; 54(5):555-8. doi: 10.5014/ajot.54.5.555 [DOI:10.5014/ajot.54.5.555]
21. Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL. Haptic classification of common objects: Knowledge driven exploration. Cognitive Psychology. 1990; 22(4):421–59. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(90)90009-s [DOI:10.1016/0010-0285(90)90009-S]
22. Craddock M, Laawson R. The effect of size changes on haptic objects recognition. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. 2009; 71(4):910-23. doi: 10.3758/app.71.4.910 [DOI:10.3758/APP.71.4.910]
23. Kalisch T, Kattenstroth JC, Kowalewski R, Tegenthoff M, Dinse HR. Cognitive and tactile factors affecting human haptic performance in later life. PLoS One. 2012; 7(1):e30420. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030420 [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0030420]
24. Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL. Haptic perception: A tutorial. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics. 2009; 71(7):1439-59. doi: 10.3758/app.71.7.1439 [DOI:10.3758/APP.71.7.1439]
25. Meudell PR, Greenhalg M. Age related difference in left and right hand skill and in visuo spatial performance: Their possible relationships to the hypothesis that the right hemisphere ages more rapidly than the left. Cortex. 1987; 23(3):431–45. doi: 10.1016/s0010-9452(87)80005-9 [DOI:10.1016/S0010-9452(87)80005-9]
26. Chua R, Pollock BJ, Elliott D, Swanson LR. The influences of age on manual asymmetries in movement preparation and execution. Developmental Neuropsychology. 1995; 11(1):129-37. doi: 10.1080/87565649509540608 [DOI:10.1080/87565649509540608]
27. Cole KJ. Lifting a familiar object: Visual size analysis, not memory for object weight, scales lift force. Experimental Brain Research. 2008; 188(4):551–7. doi: 10.1007/s00221-008-1392-y [DOI:10.1007/s00221-008-1392-y]
28. Cary I, Adams J. A comparison of dominant and non dominant hand function in both right and left-handed individuals using the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure (SHAP). The British Journal of Hand Therapy. 2003; 8(1):4-10. doi: 10.1177/175899830300800101 [DOI:10.1177/175899830300800101]
29. Morita T, Kang H, Wolfe J, Jadhav SP, Feldman DE. Psychometric curve and behavioural strategies for whosker-based texture discrimination in rats. PLoS One. 2011; 6(6):e20437. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020437 [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0020437]
30. Weller MPI, Latimer Sayer DT. Increasing right hand dominance with age on a motor skill task. Psychological Medicine. 1985; 15(04):867. doi: 10.1017/s0033291700005109 [DOI:10.1017/S0033291700005109]
31. Raw RK, Wilkie RM, Culmer PR, Mon Williams M. Reduced motor asymmetry in older adults when manually tracing paths. Experimental Brain Research. 2011; 217(1):35–41. doi: 10.1007/s00221-011-2971-x [DOI:10.1007/s00221-011-2971-x]
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |