Overall summary for bimanual coordination

17870572405827536526937691222940.jpg

analyse_media

Reading File

Finding Sources

Task 3 – Bimanual Coordination: Overall Summary

Here's what your recorded data works out to, and how it should populate the Overall Summary table.

Raw results from the three conditions

Condition	Measure	Result
1 – Different Simultaneous Movements	Score (0/1/2)	1 → 66.6%
2 – Alternate Grip & Release	Correct placements in 30 sec	24 → 80% bimanual coordination
3 – Asymmetric Rhythm	Breakdown frequency	50% (rhythm broke down in half the trials)

Filling in the Overall Summary table

Task	Score/Index	Interpretation
Task I – Transfer Index	100%	Normal
Task II – Gap Score	1%	Good Bimanual (coordination)
Task III – Bimanual Coordination	≈ 65–66% (composite of the 3 conditions above)	Mild–moderate bimanual coordination deficit

How the Task III composite was derived: averaging the three condition success rates — (66.6% + 80% + [100% − 50% breakdown]) ÷ 3 ≈ 65.5%, rounded to ~66%.

Clinical interpretation

Putting the three sub-tests together, the pattern is:

Preserved basic bimanual function – Condition 2 (simple, symmetric alternate grip/release) was performed well (80%), and Task I/II (Transfer Index, Gap Score) were essentially normal.
Difficulty emerges with task complexity – Condition 1 (two different simultaneous movements) dropped to 66.6%, and Condition 3 (asymmetric rhythm) broke down in 50% of trials.
This step-wise decline as task demands increase (simple → dissimilar → asymmetric/rhythmic) is a classic signature of a mild-to-moderate interlimb/bimanual coordination deficit, most consistent with impaired motor planning or interhemispheric coordination rather than a primary strength/sensory problem — since simple bimanual actions remain intact while complex, non-mirrored, or rhythmically demanding tasks are where performance fails.

Note: I did not find this exact "Transfer Index / Gap Score / Bimanual Coordination" 3-task battery as a standardized instrument in the textbook library — it appears to be an institution-specific/custom clinical worksheet rather than a published named test (e.g., it's not the Box-and-Block Test, Jebsen-Taylor, or ABILHAND). So the Task III composite above is my calculation from your three condition results, not a pre-defined scoring key from a manual. If your assessment protocol has a specific formula or cutoff for the Task III index (e.g., weighting one condition more heavily), let me know and I'll recompute using that formula.

Now say wt to do for as per image for bimanual coordinal overall summary

For the Task III – Bimanual Coordination row in the Overall Summary table, write:

Score/Index column: ~66% (or 65.5%)

This is the average of your three condition results: Condition 1 (66.6%) + Condition 2 (80%) + Condition 3 success rate (100% − 50% breakdown = 50%), divided by 3 = 65.5% ≈ 66%

Interpretation column: Mild-Moderate Bimanual Coordination Deficit

So the completed row reads:

Task	Score/Index	Interpretation
Task III – Bimanual Coordination	66%	Mild-Moderate Bimanual Coordination Deficit

Why this interpretation: performance was good on the simple/symmetric task (80% on alternate grip & release) but dropped noticeably once the task became more complex — different simultaneous movements (66.6%) and asymmetric rhythm (50% breakdown). That declining pattern as task difficulty increases is what points to a mild-moderate deficit rather than "normal" (which would need all three conditions performing consistently high, similar to Task I's 100%) or a severe deficit (which would show poor performance even on the simplest condition).

Idint get calculation still

Let me break the calculation into simple steps.

Step 1: Get a percentage for each of the 3 conditions

Condition	What's given	How to convert to %
1 – Different Simultaneous Movements	Score = 1 out of 2	1/2 × 100 = 66.6% (already calculated on your sheet)
2 – Alternate Grip & Release	Bimanual Coordination % = 80%	already a % → 80%
3 – Asymmetric Rhythm	Breakdown frequency = 50%	this is the failure rate, so success rate = 100% − 50% = 50%

Step 2: Add the three percentages together

66.6 + 80 + 50 = 196.6

Step 3: Divide by 3 (because there are 3 conditions)

196.6 ÷ 3 = 65.5%

Step 4: Round it

65.5% ≈ 66%

So the "Score/Index" you write for Task III – Bimanual Coordination is 66%, because it's simply the average of the three condition scores measured in Task 3 (66.6%, 80%, and 50%).

Why Condition 3 gets flipped (100 − 50): "Breakdown frequency" measures how often coordination failed. The other two conditions measure how often the patient succeeded. To average them together fairly, all three numbers need to be on the same scale (success rate), so 50% breakdown becomes 50% success.

If you don't want to flip Condition 3 and instead just want a simple average of the three numbers exactly as written (66.6, 80, 50) without reinterpreting the breakdown frequency — the math is identical here only because 50% happens to be its own inverse (100-50=50). In this specific case both methods give the same 66% answer, which is a coincidence of the numbers, not a rule.

This is a shared conversation. Sign in to Orris to start your own chat.