Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 51-3 | Page 75

Finger soaking enhances effects of light touch in DCD revealed that sensitivity to LT did not differ between Tests 1 and 2 (p = 0.39), but was significantly greater in Test 3 than Test 2 (p < 0.05). Lastly, there was no significant Group × Sensitivity Assessment interaction (F(2, 50) = 0.26, p = 0.52). Post-hoc tests revealed that both groups showed a similar trend of changes in sensi- tivity to LT across 3 tests: sensitivity to LT did not differ between Tests 1 and 2 (for the DCD group, p = 0.33; for the TDC group, p = 0.16), whereas sensitivity to LT was significantly greater in Test 3 than in Test 2 (for the DCD group, p < 0.05; for the TDC group, p < 0.05). In addition, children with DCD expressed significantly lower sensitivity to LT than TDC in Test 1 (p < 0.05), Test 2 (p < 0.05) and Test 3 (p < 0.05). Body sway Fig. 4 depicts AP body sway in the NT, LT and LTAS conditions for children with DCD and TDC. For the DCD group, the mean AP sway was 0.81 ± 0.07 cm in the NT condition, 0.63 cm (SD 0.06) in the LT condi- tion, and 0.54 cm (SD 0.04) in the LTAS condition. For the TDC group, the mean AP sway was 0.75 cm (SD 0.10) in the NT condition, 0.54 cm (SD 0.04) in the LT condition, and 0.53 cm (SD 0.03) in the LTAS condition. ANOVAs for AP body sway identified a main ef- fect of Group (F(2, 50) = 54.47, p < 0.05, η 2  = 0.69), showing that children with DCD had significantly greater AP body sway than did TDC. In addition, the results revealed a main effect of Touch Condition (F(2, 50) = 7.51, p < 0.05, η 2  = 0.24), showing that AP body sway significantly differed among NT, LT and LTAS conditions. Post-hoc tests revealed that AP body sway was significantly greater in the NT than LT condition Fig. 4. Mean body sway in anteroposterior (AP) direction in the no fingertip touch (NT), light fingertip touch (LT), and light fingertip touch after soaking in surfactant-water solution (LTAS) conditions for children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) (black triangles) and typically developing children (TDC) (grey squares). Bars represent standard errors. Daggers denote a significant difference between experimental conditions. Asterisks denote a significance difference between children with DCD and TDC. 221 (p < 0.05), as well as significantly greater in the LT than LTAS condition (p < 0.05). Lastly, the results revealed a Group × Touch Condition interaction (F(2, 50) = 4.12, p < 0.05, η 2  = 0.08), implying that the effects of different touch conditions (NT, LT and LTAS) on AP body sway varied significantly for children with DCD and TDC. Post-hoc tests revealed that, in the DCD group, AP body sway was significantly greater in the NT than LT condition (p < 0.05), as well as significantly greater in the LT than LTAS condition (p < 0.05). However, different results were obtained in the TDC group: AP body sway was significantly greater in the NT than LT condition (p < 0.05), whereas AP body sway did not differ between the LT and LTAS conditions (p = 0.14). In addition, children with DCD expressed significantly greater AP body sway than TDC in both the NT (p < 0.05) and LT conditions (p < 0.05), but not in the LTAS condition (p = 0.10). No significant effects were achieved for ML body sway data. DISCUSSION This study compared sensitivity to LT between children with DCD and TDC, and investigated how changes/ increases in sensitivity to LT impact the effects of LT on reducing body sway in both groups. Since no signifi- cant differences in upper limb movement (finger, palm, forearm, or upper arm) were detected between groups and across different touch conditions, it was concluded that the confounding effects of arm configuration were not relevant in this study. The main findings are as fol- lows: firstly, sensitivity to LT is impaired in children with DCD compared with their cohorts; secondly, finger soaking improved sensitivity to LT in both the DCD and the TDC groups. Lastly, finger soaking enhances the effects of LT on reducing body sway only for children with DCD. These main findings are discussed below. Our first hypothesis, that sensitivity to LT is lower in children with DCD, was confirmed, since the present data show that children with DCD have inferior sensi- tivity to LT compared with TDC for both sensitivity to LT tests 1 and 2. These results were comparable with earlier findings that children with DCD have difficulty with tactile localization and identification of stimuli on the fingers (25, 26), implying that sensitivity to LT affects children with DCD. Future studies are needed to investigate the characteristics of sensitivity to LT regarding various electrophysiological measurements (i.e. changes in intracellular ion concentration, num- bers of tactile-evoked potentials, and nerve conduction velocity), to further clarify why children with DCD have deficits in LT sensation. In short, this study pro- vides initial empirical evidence for abnormal or lower sensitivity to LT in children with DCD. J Rehabil Med 51, 2019