Study Design: Repeated-measures experiment. Objective: To compare measures of end point accuracy (EPA) for 2 feedback conditions: (1) visual and kinesthetic feedback and (2) kinesthetic feedback alone, during shoulder movements, at 3 different speeds. Background: Shoulder joint kinesthesia is typically reported with EPA measures, such as constant error. Reporting multiple measures of EPA, such as variable error and absolute error, could provide a more detailed description of performance. Methods and Measures: Subjects were seated with the shoulder abducted 90° in the scapular plane and externally rotated 75°, with the forearm placed in a custom shoulder wheel. Subjects internally rotated the shoulder 27° to a target position at 48° of shoulder external rotation for both conditions. Motion analysis was used to determine peak angular velocity and 3 EPA measures for shoulder movements. Each EPA measure was compared between the 2 feedback conditions and among the 3 speeds with a separate 2-way analysis of variance. Results: Movements performed with kinesthetic feedback alone, measured by constant error (P<.01), variable error (P<.01), and absolute error (P<.01), were less accurate than movements performed with visual and kinesthetic feedback. Faster movements were less accurate when measured by constant error (P = .01) and absolute error (P<.01) than slower movements. Subjects tended to overshoot the target in the absence of visual feedback; however, movement speed played minimal role in the overshooting. Conclusions: Multiple measures of EPA, such as constant, variable, and absolute error during simple restricted shoulder movements may provide additional information regarding the evaluation of a motor performance or identify different central nervous system control mechanisms for joint kinesthesia.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2004;34(8):468-478. doi:10.2519/jospt.2004.1151 

Key Words: kinesthesia, proprioception, target accuracy, upper extremity