Avaliação da percepção do movimento biológico por meio do sistema Percebi Move em indivíduos pós-AVC: um estudo transversal

Abstract

Introduction: The perception of biological motion (PBM) is the ability of the visual system to perceive human movements effortlessly. It is believed that an individual with movement changes in his body may have the perception when observing another also modified. Some studies have shown that patients with some neuronal loss may be impaired in the perception of movements, however, there is still little evidence in cases of stroke. Objective: To analyze whether the Perception of Biological Motion in poststroke individuals is impaired, and if there is an association between motor impairment and the tasks of Biological Perception of Motion. Materials and Methods: This is an observational, cross-sectional, quantitative nature. The sample consisted of 12 individuals allocated in the stroke group (SG) and 12 in the healthy group (HG). All participants were evaluated separately, for both groups the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) was used to assess cognitive function and for motor impairment assessment the motor subsection of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) only in the SG. Next, the PBM task was applied, consisting of thirteen human movements in the form of light points. In the statistical analysis, the Shapiro-Wilk test was used to verify the normality of the data, the T-test to compare the outcome variables (number of correct answers and response time) between the groups (SG and HG), and the Spearman coefficient to relate PBM with motor impairment. To establish significance between the parameters analyzed, a value of p<0.05 was observed. The software JASP 0.17.1 was used for the statistical analysis. Results: Regarding the PBM task when comparing the two groups there were no significant differences for natural and unnatural movements. However, for tasks with and without objects, the SG hit less (4.33 (±1.44)) than the HG (5.42 (±0.67)) for the tasks that did not involve objects. When separating the results by PBM task, there were no significant differences. However, in the tasks without objects, the SG obtained a lower number of correct answers than the HG, in which 91.67% of the participants correctly answered the tasks without objects. There was also no significance for the association variables. Conclusion: The SG had impaired PBM in one task, but there was no association between the level of motor impairment and PBM