Oral Presentations / Gait & Posture 24S (2006) S7–S97 S43 Table 1 Clinical and instrumental results Pre CIMT Post CIMT 3 Months after CIMT Unaffected limb Clinical eval. MAL aou 40 ± 23 87 ± 26 a 77 ± 28 b MAL qou 46 ± 22 82 ± 21 a 75 ± 27 b WMFT 57 ± 7 59 ± 8 58 ± 6 WMFT-time 2.7 ± 1.0 1.8 ± .5 a 2.0 ± .5 b Hand To Mouth MD 1 (s) 1.27 ± .14 1.07 ± .15 a 1.03 ± .15 b .96 ± .20 d AE 1 ( ◦ ) 131 ± 4 130 ± 4 131 ± 6 137 ± 4 d, e , f AVE 1 ( ◦ /s) 36 ± 8 41 ± 8 42 ± 7 58 ± 21 d, f CPA 1 (–) .80 ± .07 .84 ± .10 .87 ± .07 .91 ± .04 d NJ 1 (–) 35 ± 10 24 ± 10 23 ± 9 23 ± 7 d Reaching MD 2 (s) 1.61 ± .37 1.27 ± .31 a 1.31 ± .24 b 1.10 ± .10 d, f AAF 2 ( ◦ ) 76 ± 11 74 ± 9 82 ± 8 b, c 81 ± 3 AE 2 ( ◦ ) 37 ± 6 42 ± 15 40 ± 10 23 ± 5 d, e , f AVE 2 ( ◦ /s) 29 ± 9 36 ± 17 37 ± 12 b 58 ± 5 d, e , f CPA 2 (–) .81 ± .10 .89 ± .05 a .92 ± .02 b .95 ± .02 d, e NJ 2 (–) 63 ± 36 34 ± 17 a 35 ± 10 b 30 ± 2 d Note: Symbols indicate p < 0.05 at the Wilcoxon test. a Pre CIMT vs. post CIMT. b Pre CIMT vs. 3 months after CIMT. c post CIMT vs. 3 months after CIMT. d Unaff limb vs. pre CIMT. e Unaff limb vs. post CIMT. f Unaff limb vs. 3 months after CIMT. motor control. More patients should be studied to verify the correctness of this supposition. Main conclusions refer to the feasibility of our method to monitor the effect of CIMT in the follow-up. References [1] Taub E, et al. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:347–54. [2] Schaechter JD, et al. Neurorehabil Neur Repair 2002;16(4):326–38. [3] Alberts, et al. Neurorehabil Neur Repair 2004;18(4):250–8. [4] Molteni, et al. Eur Med Phys 2003;39(Suppl. 1–3):89–91. [5] Molteni, et al. Eur Med Phys 2004;40(Suppl. 1–3):320–2. [6] Teulings HL, et al. Exp Neurol 1997;146:159–70. [7] Winstein CJ, et al. Neurorehabil Neur Repair 2003;17(3):137–52. [8] Morris DM, et al. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82:750–5. [9] Sabatini AM. Biol Cybern 2002;86(4):253–62. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.11.032 O-25 3D kinematics of upper extremity tasks Carolien van Andel a,b,c,∗ , Nienke Wolterbeek a,b,c , Caroline Doorenbosch a,c , Jaap Harlaar a,b,c , DirkJan Veeger b,c,d a Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands b Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands c MOVE Institute for Human Movement Research, The Netherlands d Man Machine Systems, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands 1. Summary/conclusions This study presents a measurement method for the 3D kinematics of the upper extremity (UX). Also a series of standardised UX tasks and their kinematic ranges are pre- sented. These results are the basis for a ‘UX analysis report’ compared to the ‘gait analysis report’. 2. Introduction Though the kinematics of the UX have been studied before [1], these studies did not include sets of standard functional movements of the UX that included the correct hand orien- tation. Since hand orientation is a major determinant in the