ADHD, Asperger's Syndrome, Attention Deficit Disorder, Cerebral Palsy, Dyslexia, Stroke, Traumatic Brain Injury
Conditions
Keywords
haptic, rehabilitation, fine-motor skill, handwriting
Brief summary
This study will assess whether a computer haptic peripheral device programmed to provide repetitive motion training is as effective as the same repetitive motion training provided by a human being.
Detailed description
This study builds on a large body of neurological research that uses robot-guided repetitive motion training to induce neuroplasticity and improvements in upper extremity motor skills in adults and children. This research study is looking at handwriting, a fine-motor task that is used daily. In our study, we want to see if 3-dimensional robotic-assisted repetitive motion training can be a safe and effective intervention for school-age children with fine motor deficits arising from several different impairment origins. Our research construct is: Legible handwriting = function of (tactile feedback, visual feedback, duration, and fine-motor control). Independent variables: * Tactile feedback is a continuous variable of force-feedback measured in pounds of force. * Duration is a continuous variable measured in seconds and number of repetitions. * Visual feedback is the letter scribed on the paper. Dependent variable: * Legible handwriting will be measured by scoring on the Test of Handwriting Skills and the Print Tool™ evaluation. * Fine motor deficit/control will be measured directly and objectively by quantifying the error between the desired scribing task and the actual scribing task. The robotic device is an affordable (\<$200) computer haptic (the Falcon(R)) that currently is approved by the FCC for home and office. It is \*not\* approved for medical use. This is an investigational, nonsignificant risk device.
Interventions
DEVICEMy Scrivener(R)
Twenty 20-minute sessions of the Handwriting Without Tears(R) instructional handwriting program, with substitution of hand-over-hand or self-generated repetitive motion writing by computer guided repetitive motion.
Sponsors
Obslap Research LLC
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
5 Years to 19 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Meet the following base prerequisites for writing: orientation to written language; eye-hand coordination, single handed utensil or tool manipulation (BAMF score \>= 6), recognize all letters of the alphabet (unless the child has dyslexia). * Children have illegible printing for their grade, or legible printing but a speed less than the norms for their grade and sex. * Be able to grasp a pen. * Be able to speak and understand English. * Be able to follow instructions. * Be able to devote at least 20 minutes to the assigned tasks (short breaks will be allowed). * Be enrolled in school at grade K or above. * A score lower than 80% on the Print Tool™ or the Cursive Tool.
Exclusion criteria
* Unable to pass the informed assent screener. * Unwilling to sign or mark the informed assent documents. * Uncontrolled spasticity. * A BAMF score lower than 6 (includes severe paralysis of the upper extremity). * Cerebral palsy other than hemiplegia cerebral palsy * Severe autism or intellectual disabilities that prevent productive interactions with the investigator
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Print Tool and Cursive Tool | after 20 interventions |
| Deviations from desired 3-D writing path | after 5, 10, 15, 20 interventions |
| Beery Motor Coordination Subtest | after 20 interventions |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Brief Assessment of Fine Motor Skills | after 20 interventions |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed