Objective. Clinicians may use implicit or explicit motor learning approaches to facilitatemotor learning of patients with stroke. Implicit motor learning approaches have shown promising results in healthy populations. The purpose of this study was to assess whether an implicit motor learning walking intervention is more effective compared with an explicit motor learning walking intervention delivered at home regarding walking speed in people after stroke in the chronic phase of recovery. Methods. This randomized, controlled, single-blind trial was conducted in the home environment. The 79 participants, who were in the chronic phase after stroke (age = 66.4 [SD = 11.0] years; time poststroke = 70.1 [SD = 64.3] months; walking speed = 0.7 [SD = 0.3] m/s; Berg Balance Scale score = 44.5 [SD = 9.5]), were randomly assigned to an implicit (n = 38) or explicit (n = 41) group. Analogy learning was used as the implicit motor learning walking intervention, whereas the explicit motor learning walking intervention consisted of detailed verbal instructions. Both groups received 9 training sessions (30 minutes each), for a period of 3 weeks, targeted at improving quality of walking. The primary outcome was walking speed measured by the 10-MeterWalk Test at a comfortable walking pace. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, immediately after intervention, and 1 month postintervention. Results. No statistically or clinically relevant differences between groups were obtained postintervention (between-group difference was estimated at 0.02 m/s [95% CI = −0.04 to 0.08] and at follow-up (between-group difference estimated at −0.02 m/s [95% CI = −0.09 to 0.05]). Conclusion. Implicit motor learning was not superior to explicit motor learning to improve walking speed in people after stroke in the chronic phase of recovery. Impact. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the effects of implicit compared with explicit motor learning on a functional task in people after stroke. Results indicate that physical therapists can use (tailored) implicit and explicit motor learning strategies to improve walking speed in people after stroke who are in the chronic phase of recovery.
Movement is an essential part of our lives. Throughout our lifetime, we acquire many different motor skills that are necessary to take care of ourselves (e.g., eating, dressing), to work (e.g., typing, using tools, care for others) and to pursue our hobbies (e.g., running, dancing, painting). However, as a consequence of aging, trauma or chronic disease, motor skills may deteriorate or become “lost”. Learning, relearning, and improving motor skills may then be essential to maintain or regain independence. There are many different ways in which the process of learning a motor skill can be shaped in practice. The conceptual basis for this thesis was the broad distinction between implicit and explicit forms of motor learning. Physiotherapists and occupational therapists are specialized to provide therapy that is tailored to facilitate the process of motor learning of patients with a wide range of pathologies. In addition to motor impairments, patients suffering from neurological disorders often also experience problems with cognition and communication. These problems may hinder the process of learning at a didactic level, and make motor learning especially challenging for those with neurological disorders. This thesis focused on the theory and application of motor learning during rehabilitation of patients with neurological disorders. The overall aim of this thesis was to provide therapists in neurological rehabilitation with knowledge and tools to support the justified and tailored use of motor learning in daily clinical practice. The thesis is divided into two parts. The aim of the first part (Chapters 2‐5) was to develop a theoretical basis to apply motor learning in clinical practice, using the implicit‐explicit distinction as a conceptual basis. Results of this first part were used to develop a framework for the application of motor learning within neurological rehabilitation (Chapter 6). Afterwards, in the second part, strategies identified in first part were tested for feasibility and potential effects in people with stroke (Chapters 7 and 8). Chapters 5-8 are non-final versions of an article published in final form in: Chapter 5: Kleynen M, Moser A, Haarsma FA, Beurskens AJ, Braun SM. Physiotherapists use a great variety of motor learning options in neurological rehabilitation, from which they choose through an iterative process: a retrospective think-aloud study. Disabil Rehabil. 2017 Aug;39(17):1729-1737. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1207111. Chapter 6: Kleynen M, Beurskens A, Olijve H, Kamphuis J, Braun S. Application of motor learning in neurorehabilitation: a framework for health-care professionals. Physiother Theory Pract. 2018 Jun 19:1-20. doi: 10.1080/09593985.2018.1483987 Chapter 7: Kleynen M, Wilson MR, Jie LJ, te Lintel Hekkert F, Goodwin VA, Braun SM. Exploring the utility of analogies in motor learning after stroke: a feasibility study. Int J Rehabil Res. 2014 Sep;37(3):277-80. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000058. Chapter 8: Kleynen M, Jie LJ, Theunissen K, Rasquin SM, Masters RS, Meijer K, Beurskens AJ, Braun SM. The immediate influence of implicit motor learning strategies on spatiotemporal gait parameters in stroke patients: a randomized within-subjects design. Clin Rehabil. 2019 Apr;33(4):619-630. doi: 10.1177/0269215518816359.
Background: The support of people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD) rarely focused onmotor activity, which might have negative consequences for the quality of life of these people. Evidence-based motor activity programs that present individually tailored and structural motor activity for these people are, regretfully, lacking. This study developed such a program for these people and evaluated the implementationprocess.Methods: The motor activity program is developed in accordance with the theoretical premises of the educational program and consists of four methodological steps in which the content is individually filled with: motor activitystructurally embedded within the activities of daily living, and 3–5 motor activities aimed at a specific goal, which is evaluated. Program delivery consisted of a manual, explanation to the teams, and coaching of one contact personper participant (n = 9). Process evaluation included the delivered fidelity, dose, reach, and adaptations made during the program. In addition, mechanisms of impact and the influence of contextual factors were evaluated. Data collection included researcher logbooks, individual program content, and staff reports.Results: The intended fidelity, dose, and reach were not obtained in most participants. Content has been made explicit for seven participants, but only in one participant all critical steps in implementation were performed asintended, though later in time. In three participants, previously offered motor activities were described within the weekly program, but without all activities having a clear link with the goal set. It is showed that the core elementsof the program were affected with the conceived implementation plan. The time schedule, critical elements in implementation and program content were influenced by a lack of conditions such as professionals’ motivationand responsibility, methodical working, interdisciplinarity and continuity in staff.Conclusions: The results suggest that the implementation might be improved in case more attention is paid to the organizational conditions and implementation structure. The findings led to substantial changes in the implementation strategy. This study underlines the importance of process evaluation prior to testing foreffectiveness.
Everyone has the right to participate in society to the best of their ability. This right also applies to people with a visual impairment, in combination with a severe or profound intellectual and possibly motor disability (VISPIMD). However, due to their limitations, for their participation these people are often highly dependent on those around them, such as family members andhealthcare professionals. They determine how people with VISPIMD participate and to what extent. To optimize this support, they must have a good understanding of what people with disabilities can still do with their remaining vision.It is currently difficult to gain insight into the visual abilities of people with disabilities, especially those with VISPIMD. As a professional said, "Everything we can think of or develop to assess the functional vision of this vulnerable group will help improve our understanding and thus our ability to support them. Now, we are more or less guessing about what they can see.Moreover, what little we know about their vision is hard to communicate to other professionals”. Therefore, there is a need for methods that can provide insight into the functional vision of people with VISPIMD, in order to predict their options in daily life situations. This is crucial knowledge to ensure that these people can participate in society to their fullest extent.What makes it so difficult to get this insight at the moment? Visual impairments can be caused by a range of eye or brain disorders and can manifest in various ways. While we understand fairly well how low vision affects a person's abilities on relatively simple visual tasks, it is much more difficult to predict this in more complex dynamic everyday situations such asfinding your way or moving around during daily activities. This is because, among other things, conventional ophthalmic tests provide little information about what people can do with their remaining vision in everyday life (i.e., their functional vision).An additional problem in assessing vision in people with intellectual disabilities is that many conventional tests are difficult to perform or are too fatiguing, resulting in either no or the wrong information. In addition to their visual impairment, there is also a very serious intellectual disability (possibly combined with a motor impairment), which makes it even more complex to assesstheir functional vision. Due to the interplay between their visual, intellectual, and motor disabilities, it is almost impossible to determine whether persons are unable to perform an activity because they do not see it, do not notice it, do not understand it, cannot communicate about it, or are not able to move their head towards the stimulus due to motor disabilities.Although an expert professional can make a reasonable estimate of the functional possibilities through long-term and careful observation, the time and correct measurement data are usually lacking to find out the required information. So far, it is insufficiently clear what people with VZEVMB provoke to see and what they see exactly.Our goal with this project is to improve the understanding of the visual capabilities of people with VISPIMD. This then makes it possible to also improve the support for participation of the target group. We want to achieve this goal by developing and, in pilot form, testing a new combination of measurement and analysis methods - primarily based on eye movement registration -to determine the functional vision of people with VISPIMD. Our goal is to systematically determine what someone is responding to (“what”), where it may be (“where”), and how much time that response will take (“when”). When developing methods, we take the possibilities and preferences of the person in question as a starting point in relation to the technological possibilities.Because existing technological methods were originally developed for a different purpose, this partly requires adaptation to the possibilities of the target group.The concrete end product of our pilot will be a manual with an overview of available technological methods (as well as the methods themselves) for assessing functional vision, linked to the specific characteristics of the target group in the cognitive, motor area: 'Given that a client has this (estimated) combination of limitations (cognitive, motor and attention, time in whichsomeone can concentrate), the order of assessments is as follows:' followed by a description of the methods. We will also report on our findings in a workshop for professionals, a Dutch-language article and at least two scientific articles. This project is executed in the line: “I am seen; with all my strengths and limitations”. During the project, we closely collaborate with relevant stakeholders, i.e. the professionals with specific expertise working with the target group, family members of the persons with VISPIMD, and persons experiencing a visual impairment (‘experience experts’).
The central aim of this project is to increase the participation of people (all ages) with severe multiple disabilities (PIMD) in the field of sport, exercise and physical activity, by expanding the number of coaches and organizations who offer a Motor Activity Training Program in a professional and custom way. This aim will be achieved by the following activities:- Creating a more appropriate and varied offer of sport, exercise, and physical activity to increase the choice of the PIMD target group. - To develop a curriculum for MATP Coaches and Trainers (PE Teachers, Physical Therapists, etc). - To implement, test and contextualize a PIMD offer in 3 EU countries, this will be done with local stakeholders. - Strengthening the connection between sport, education and health care organizations to enable participation of the PIMD people in the field of sport, exercise, and physical activity. - Consortium members create a European network and exchange knowledge, including through best practices
