Neck XXXX and Proprioception Revisited Using the @entity3325 Test.

@entity1 @entity3325 @entity4048 @entity158 @entity717
BACKGROUND: Proprioceptive imprecision is believed to contribute to persistent @entity158 . Detecting imprecision in order to study or treat it remains challenging given the limitations of current tests. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether proprioceptive imprecision could be detected in @entity1 with @entity4048 by testing their ability to identify incongruence between true head motion and a false visual reference using the @entity3325 ( @entity3325 ) Test. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted. METHODS: Twenty-four @entity1 with @entity4048 and 24 matched controls repeatedly rotated to specific markers within a virtual world and indicated if their true @entity717 was more or less than the rotation suggested by the visual feedback. Visual feedback was manipulated at 6 corrections, ranging from 60% of true movement to 140% of true movement. A standard repositioning error (RPE) test as undertaken for comparison. RESULTS: Healthy controls were better able to detect incongruence between vision and true @entity717 (X  =75.6%, SD=8.5%) than @entity1 with @entity4048 were (X  =69.6%, SD=12.7%). The RPE test scores were not different between groups. The @entity3325 Test score related to self-reported @entity158 intensity but did not relate to RPE test score. LIMITATIONS: Causality cannot be established from this cross-sectional study, and further work refining the @entity3325 Test is needed for it to offer clinical utility. CONCLUSIONS: Proprioceptive precision for neck movement appears worse in @entity1 with @entity4048 than in those without @entity4048 , and the extent of the deficit appears to be related to @entity158 severity. The @entity3325 Test appears to be a more sensitive test than the RPE test and is likely to be useful for assessment of proprioceptive function in research and clinical settings.
