T George Hornby1, Jennifer L Moore, Linda Lovell, Elliot J Roth. 1. aDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana bRehabilitation Institute of Chicago cDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA dSoutheastern Regional Knowledge Translation Center, Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Research findings from the fields of motor learning and exercise physiology suggest specific training parameters that can be manipulated during physical rehabilitation profoundly influence skilled task performance. This review details the rationale for some of these training variables and their application in selected intervention studies focused on improving walking function in patients poststroke. RECENT FINDINGS: Basic and applied studies have shown that the amount, intensity, and variability of specific task practice applied during rehabilitation interventions can affect recovery of walking poststroke. Many studies detailing the effects of conventional, therapist, and mechanically assisted interventions may incorporate some of these training parameters but minimize others, and their relative contributions may influence walking outcomes. Specific patient factors, such as the stroke acuity and degree of impairments, appear to influence the relative contributions of these training variables, and different patient subgroups may benefit from greater emphasis on specific parameters. SUMMARY: The present findings suggest these training parameters should be considered when evaluating or implementing physical interventions directed toward improving locomotor function poststroke. More work is needed to understand their optimal combinations to maximize walking outcomes in patients with different levels of impairment poststroke.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Research findings from the fields of motor learning and exercise physiology suggest specific training parameters that can be manipulated during physical rehabilitation profoundly influence skilled task performance. This review details the rationale for some of these training variables and their application in selected intervention studies focused on improving walking function in patients poststroke. RECENT FINDINGS: Basic and applied studies have shown that the amount, intensity, and variability of specific task practice applied during rehabilitation interventions can affect recovery of walking poststroke. Many studies detailing the effects of conventional, therapist, and mechanically assisted interventions may incorporate some of these training parameters but minimize others, and their relative contributions may influence walking outcomes. Specific patient factors, such as the stroke acuity and degree of impairments, appear to influence the relative contributions of these training variables, and different patient subgroups may benefit from greater emphasis on specific parameters. SUMMARY: The present findings suggest these training parameters should be considered when evaluating or implementing physical interventions directed toward improving locomotor function poststroke. More work is needed to understand their optimal combinations to maximize walking outcomes in patients with different levels of impairment poststroke.
Authors: Prithvi K Shah; Yury Gerasimenko; Andrew Shyu; Igor Lavrov; Hui Zhong; Roland R Roy; Victor R Edgerton Journal: Eur J Neurosci Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 3.386
Authors: Don D Straube; Carey L Holleran; Catherine R Kinnaird; Abigail L Leddy; Patrick W Hennessy; T George Hornby Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2014-03-13
Authors: Pamela W Duncan; Katherine J Sullivan; Andrea L Behrman; Stanley P Azen; Samuel S Wu; Stephen E Nadeau; Bruce H Dobkin; Dorian K Rose; Julie K Tilson; Steven Cen; Sarah K Hayden Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bernward Winter; Caterina Breitenstein; Frank C Mooren; Klaus Voelker; Manfred Fobker; Anja Lechtermann; Karsten Krueger; Albert Fromme; Catharina Korsukewitz; Agnes Floel; Stefan Knecht Journal: Neurobiol Learn Mem Date: 2006-12-20 Impact factor: 2.877
Authors: Catherine E Lang; Jillian R Macdonald; Darcy S Reisman; Lara Boyd; Teresa Jacobson Kimberley; Sheila M Schindler-Ivens; T George Hornby; Sandy A Ross; Patricia L Scheets Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Gabrielle Brazg; Meghan Fahey; Carey L Holleran; Mark Connolly; Jane Woodward; Patrick W Hennessy; Brian D Schmit; T George Hornby Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Laura Kyguoliene; Albertas Skurvydas; Nerijus Eimantas; Neringa Baranauskiene; Rasa Steponaviciute; Laura Daniuseviciute; Henrikas Paulauskas; Margarita Cernych; Marius Brazaitis Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2018-05-12 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: Carey L Holleran; Patrick W Hennessey; Abigail L Leddy; Gordhan B Mahtani; Gabrielle Brazg; Brian D Schmit; T George Hornby Journal: J Neurol Phys Ther Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Jennifer L Moore; Jan E Nordvik; Anne Erichsen; Ingvild Rosseland; Elisabeth Bø; T George Hornby Journal: Stroke Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Marzieh M Ardestani; Christopher E Henderson; Seyed H Salehi; Gordhan B Mahtani; Brian D Schmit; T George Hornby Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 5.269