Motor learning is particularly challenging in neurological rehabilitation: patients who suffer from neurological diseases experience both physical limitations and difficulties of cognition and communication that affect and/or complicate the motor learning process. Therapists (e.g.,, physiotherapists and occupational therapists) who work in neurorehabilitation are therefore continuously searching for the best way to facilitate patients during these intensive learning processes. To support therapists in the application of motor learning, a framework was developed, integrating knowledge from the literature and the opinions and experiences of international experts. This article presents the framework, illustrated by cases from daily practice. The framework may assist therapists working in neurorehabilitation in making choices, implementing motor learning in routine practice, and supporting communication of knowledge and experiences about motor learning with colleagues and students. The article discusses the framework and offers suggestions and conditions given for its use in daily practice.
DOCUMENT
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.
DOCUMENT
Objectives: To investigate immediate changes in walking performance associated with three implicit motor learning strategies and to explore patient experiences of each strategy. Design: Participants were randomly allocated to one of three implicit motor learning strategies. Within-group comparisons of spatiotemporal parameters at baseline and post strategy were performed. Setting: Laboratory setting. Subjects: A total of 56 community-dwelling post-stroke individuals. Interventions: Implicit learning strategies were analogy instructions, environmental constraints and action observation. Different analogy instructions and environmental constraints were used to facilitate specific gait parameters. Within action observation, only videotaped gait was shown. Main measures: Spatiotemporal measures (speed, step length, step width, step height) were recorded using Vicon 3D motion analysis. Patient experiences were assessed by questionnaire. Results: At a group level, three of the four analogy instructions (n=19) led to small but significant changes in speed (d=0.088m/s), step height (affected side d=0.006m) and step width (d=–0.019m), and one environmental constraint (n=17) led to significant changes in step width (d=–0.040m). At an individual level, results showed wide variation in the magnitude of changes. Within action observation (n=20), no significant changes were found. Overall, participants found it easy to use the different strategies and experienced some changes in their walking performance. Conclusion: Analogy instructions and environmental constraints can lead to specific, immediate changes in the walking performance and were in general experienced as feasible by the participants. However, the response of an individual patient may vary quite considerably.
DOCUMENT
