Detecting motor abnormalities in preterm infants

As a consequence of the fragility of various neural structures, preterm infants born at a low gestation and/or birthweight are at an increased risk of developing motor abnormalities. The lack of a reliable means of assessing motor integrity prevents early therapeutic intervention. In this paper, we propose a new method of assessing neonatal motor performance, namely the recording and subsequent analysis of intraoral sucking pressures generated when feeding nutritively. By measuring the infant's control of sucking in terms of a new development of tau theory, normal patterns of intraoral motor control were established for term infants. Using this same measure, the present study revealed irregularities in sucking control of preterm infants. When these findings were compared to a physiotherapist's assessment six months later, the preterm infants who sucked irregularly were found to be delayed in their motor development. Perhaps a goal-directed behaviour such as sucking control that can be measured objectively at a very young age, could be included as part of the neurological assessment of the preterm infant. More accurate classification of a preterm infant's movement abnormalities would allow for early therapeutic interventions to be realised when the infant is still acquiring the most basic of motor functions. (C) Springer-Verlag 2000.

Does the level of graphical detail of a virtual handball thrower influence a goal-keeper's motor response?

The authors investigated how different levels of detail (LODs) of a virtual throwing action can influence a handball goalkeeper's motor response. Goalkeepers attempted to stop a virtual ball emanating from five different graphical LODs of the same virtual throwing action. The five levels of detail were: a textured reference level (L0), a non-textured level (L1), a wire-frame level (L2), a point-light-display (PLD) representation (L3) and a PLD level with reduced ball size (L4). For each motor response made by the goalkeeper we measured and analyzed the time to respond (TTR), the percentage of successful motor responses, the distance between the ball and the closest limb (when the stopping motion was incorrect) and the kinematics of the motion. Results showed that TTR, percentage of successful motor responses and distance with the closest limb were not significantly different for any of the five different graphical LODs. However the kinematics of the motion revealed that the trajectory of the stopping limb was significantly different when comparing the L1 and L3 levels, and when comparing the L1 and L4 levels. These differences in the control of the goalkeeper's actions suggests that the different level of information available in the PLD representations ( L3 and L4) are causing the goalkeeper to adopt different motor strategies to control the approach of their limb to stop the ball.