JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Effects of the Training of Non-Dominant on Hand Function
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Effects of the Training of Non-Dominant on Hand Function
Jang, Chel; Song, Minok; Kim, Boa; Han, Sujung;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Purpose : We described how the training of non-dominant hand that applicates the activity effects on dominant hand. Method : From November 6th to December 2nd 2013, We randomly selected 18 people that don`t have a damage of hand function and are in college of K in Busan. (cross stitch training group 9 people, control group 9 people) All participants agreed on the research after fully being aware of training procedures and spontaneously conducted. Each training was practiced for 40 minutes in once every second day. One researcher deals with three participants at silent environment. We used the study measurement, Purdue pegboard, to investigate the sharpness of hand. To investigate the advancement of hand function caused by cross stitch training, we practiced three times estimations of primary one before training, middle one after 2 weeks training, last one after four weeks training and obtained the following results. Result : First of all, We found that the group of hand training appeared to be advanced of dominant hand`s sharpness depending on the training period more than the control group. Second, We found that the group of hand training appeared to be advanced of non-dominant hand`s sharpness depending on the training period more than the control group. Third, We found that the group of hand training appeared to be advanced of both hand`s sharpness depending on the training period more than the control group. Fourth, We found that the group of hand training appeared to be advanced of the assembling function sharpness depending on the training period more than the control group. Conclusion : Put the results of this research together, we found that non-dominant hand training that used the activity was of help to advance the function of dominant hand. So, we thinks that hand training might help the recovery of affected hand function to the person that have a problem of hand function like hemiplegia patient. It will be required to practice the further study targeting the person that have a problem of hand function like hemiplegia patient. We hope that this research will be apply to clinical occupational therapy.
 Keywords
non-dominant hand;dominant hand;activity;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
공미희(2009). 성인 뇌손상 환자의 쓰기 훈련이 손기능에 미치는 효과. 동신대학교, 석사학위 논문.

2.
김환희, 김경미, 장문영(2012). 뇌졸중 환자의 상지기능 회복을 위한 중재에 대한 체계적 고찰. 대한작업치료학회지, 20(1), 129-145.

3.
김종임, 김현리, 김선애(2002). 손과 손가락 근관절운동이 노년기 여성의 악력과 잡기력에 미치는 영향, 류마티스건강학회지, 9(1), 18-27.

4.
김진호, 한태륜(2002). 재활의학. 서울, 군자출판사.

5.
심용철 (2007). 우리나라 뇌졸중 환자의 재활서비스 개선을 위한 연구. 명지대학교 사회복지대학원, 석사학위 논문.

6.
오혜원(2007). 한국 정상 성인의 미세 손 조작 능력에 대한 연구. 가야대학교 논문집, 15, 157-177.

7.
이상진(2008). 뇌졸중 재활에서의 물리치료, 작업치료, 언어치료 동안의 심박수 변화. 부산대학교 대학원, 석사학위 논문.

8.
이택영(1999). 뇌졸중 환자의 환측 상지 기능이 건측 손의 기민성에 미치는 영향, 대한작업치료학회지, 7(1), 56-67.

9.
하미숙(2012). 상지 운동과 쥐기 운동이 여성노인의 손기능에 미치는 영향. 코칭능력개발지, 14(3), 125-132.

10.
Backman C, Mackie H, Harris J(1991). Arthritis hand function test: development of a standardized assess ment tool. Occup Ther J Res, 11, 245 -255.

11.
Carroll DA(1965). Quantitative test of upper extremity function. J Chronic Dis, 18, 479-491. crossref(new window)

12.
Exner C(1996). Development of hand function. In: Occupational Therapy for Childeren. 3rd ed, St. Louis, Mosby-Year Book Inc.

13.
Faber SD(1991). Assessing neuromotor performance enablers. Occupational Therapy: overcoming human performance deficits. New Jersey, Slack, pp.52.

14.
Gallahue DL(1968). The relationship between perceptual and motor abilities. Res Q Am Assoc Health, 39(4), 948-951.

15.
Hopkins HL, Smith HD(1978). Willard and Spackman's occupational therapy, 5th ed, Philadelphia, Lippincott. pp.564-583.

16.
Henter JM, schneider LH, Mackin EJ, et al(1984). Rehabilitation of hand, St. Louis, CV Mosby. pp.101-132.

17.
Jebsen RH, Taylor N, Trieschmann RB, et al(1969). An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 50(6), 311-319.

18.
Johanne D, Daniel B, Gina B, et al(1996). Performance of the unaffected upper extremity of elderly stroke patients, Stroke, 27, 1564-1570. crossref(new window)

19.
Katrak P, Bowring G, Conroy P, et al(1998). Predicting upper limb recovery after stroke: The place of early shoulder and hand movement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 79(7), 758-761. crossref(new window)

20.
Kellor M, Frost J, Silberberg N, et al(1971). Hand strength and dexterity. Am J Occup Ther, 25, 77-83.

21.
Kim DQ, Cho SH, Han TR, et al(1998). The effect of VDT work on work-related musculoskeletal disorder. Korean J Occup Environ Med, 10(4), 524-533.

22.
Martenuik RG, Mackenzic CL, Baba DM(1984). Bimanual movement control: Information processing and interaction effects. Quart J Exp Psychol, 36A, 335-365.

23.
Mathiowetz V, Kashman N, Volland G, et al(1985). Asult norms for the box and block test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther, 39, 386-391. crossref(new window)

24.
Trombly CA(1989). Occupational therapy for physical dysfunction. 3rd ed, Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 512-530.

25.
Waldron JR, Anton BS(1995). Effects of exercise on dexterity. Percept Mot Skills, 80, 883-889. crossref(new window)

26.
Willams HG(1983). Perceptual and motor development. Englewood Ciffs, Prentice Hall inc.