Relationship between motor abilities and executive functions in patients after pediatric stroke

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic and baseline variables of the patients and healthy controls.

	Patients	Controls	t(df)/χ^2(df)	p
Sex
n females (%)	11 (40.7)	27 (55.1)	1.436 (1)	.231
n males (%)	16 (59.3)	22 (44.9)
Age at exam (years)
M (SD)	14.57 (5.08)	14.29 (5.37)	.220 (74)	.845
range	6.14 − 23.14	6.35 − 25.97
Nonverbal IQ
M (SD)	97.78 (9.33)	103.71 (9.78)	–2.574 (74)	.012
Range	84−120	89−127
PSOM
M (SD)	0.44 (0.61)	−	−	−
Range	0−2
Age at stroke (years)
M (SD)	6.26 (5.24)	−	−	−
range	0−15.63
Time since stroke (years)
M (SD)	8.31 (3.56)	−	−	−
Range	2.09−15.57
Type of stroke
n neonatal (0–28 days)	6 (22.2%)	−	−	−
n childhood (>1 month)	21 (77.8%)
Lesion size^a
M (SD)	1.46 (2.69)	−	−	−
Range	.0025−11.68
Lesion laterality
n left (%)	17 (63.0)	−	−	−
n right (%)	5 (18.5)
n bilateral (%)	5 (18.5)
Lesion location
n cortical (%)	4 (14.8)	−	−	−
n subcortical (%)	13 (48.1)
n combined cortical and Subcortical (%)	10 (37.1)

Note. Patients, n = 27 and healthy controls, n = 49. M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; t = t-test; χ² = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; p = level of significance, two-tailed; PSOM = Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure (range 0–2).

^aLesion size in relation to the total brain volume (cm³): Lesion volume/total brain volume × 100.

Table 2. Relationships between motor and cognitive outcomes and potential confounders in patients.

	Age at exam	Age at stroke	Time since stroke	Lesion size	Sex^a	Lesion location^b	Lesion laterality^b
	r	r	r	r	r	F	F
Overall EF index	.741**	.461*	.379	–.298	.177	.648	.247
Working memory
Letter-number-sequencing	.056	–.129	.269	–.458*	–.053	.896	2.041
Coding	.839**	.694**	.119	–.295	.299	1.441	.091
Inhibition
CWIT 3rd condition	.731**	.485*	.266	–.374	.163	1.757	.115
Go/NoGo	.522*	.362	.212	–.008	.291	.389	1.317
Shifting
CWIT 4th condition	.590**	.410*	.162	–.185	.128	4.188	.149
TMT 4th condition	.605**	.296	.365	–.048	.260	.138	4.806*
Hand strength
Grip strength index	.726**	.576**	.189	–.315	–.148	1.247	.348
Pinch strength index	.665**	.661**	–.023	–.336	–.161	17.479**	.674
Upper limb performance
MUUL index	.295	.255	.045	–.684*	.014	.014	.419
ABILHAND-Kids	.354	.249	.139	–.400*	.351	.843	.007

Note. Patients, n = 27. EF = executive functions; CWIT = Color-Word-Interference Test; TMT = Trail-Making Test; MUUL = Melbourne Assessment of Unilateral Upper Limb Function; r = two-sided Pearson’s correlation; F = F-Statistics.

^a A point-biserial correlation was used as sex is a discrete dichotomous variable. ^bThe relationships with lesion location (cortical, subcortical, combined cortical and subcortical) and lesion laterality (left, right, bilateral) were computed using a one-way ANOVA as lesion laterality and lesion location are discrete variables.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 3. Partial correlation coefficients (in bold) and bivariate correlation coefficients (in parentheses) between motor abilities and executive functions in the patient group.

	Hand strength		Upper limb performance
	Grip strength index	Pinch strength index	MUUL Index	ABILHAND-Kids
Overall EF index	.071 (.683**)	.021 (.592**)	.463* (.575**)	.394* (.603**)
Working memory
Letter-Number-Sequencing^a	.124 (.249)	.286 (.279)	.285 (.514**)	.300 (.409*)
Coding^b	–.268 (.641**)	–.237 (.616**)	.280 (.530**)	.226 (.510**)
Inhibition
CWIT 3rd condition^a	.107 (.679**)	–.116 (.538**)	.332 (.504**)	.110 (.446*)
Go/Nogo^b	.120 (.433*)	.093 (.380*)	.402* (.433*)	.311 (.380*)
Shifting
CWIT 4th condition^a	–.027 (.499**)	–.148 (.388*)	.453* (.395*)	.250 (.430*)
TMT 4th condition^b	–.046 (.480**)	–.220 (.336)	.215 (.105)	.351 (.444*)

Note. Bold data represent partial correlation coefficients controlled for age at examination, age at stroke, and lesion size. Data in parentheses represent bivariate correlation coefficients without controlling for confounding variables. Patient group, n = 27. EF = executive functions; CWIT = Color-Word Interference Test; TMT = Trail-Making Test; MUUL = Melbourne Assessment of Unilateral Upper Limb Function.

^aTasks without manual involvement. ^bTasks with manual involvement. A positive relationship indicates that better performance in EF is associated with better performance in motor abilities.

*p < .05. **p < .01.