Nicole K Rendos1, Laura Zajac-Cox1, Rahul Thomas1, Sumire Sato2, Steven Eicholtz1, Trisha M Kesar1. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Division of Physical Therapy, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. Neuroscience and Behavior Graduate Program, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fast treadmill walking combined with functional electrical stimulation to ankle muscles (FastFES) is a well-studied gait intervention that improves post-stroke walking function. Although individualized verbal feedback is commonly incorporated during clinical gait training, and a variable practice structure is posited to enhance learning, the influence of these two factors on motor learning during locomotor interventions such as FastFES is poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: To determine if the addition of individualized verbal feedback or variable practice to a FastFES training session enhances motor learning of targeted gait patterns. METHODS: Nine individuals with post-stroke hemiparesis completed a crossover study comprising exposure to 3 dose-matched types of gait training: (1) FastFES (FF), comprising five 6-minute bouts of training with intermittent FES, (2) FF with addition of individualized verbal instructions and faded feedback delivered by a physical therapist (FF+PT), (3) FF with variable gait speed and FES timing (FF+Var). Gait biomechanics data were collected before (Pre), immediately after (Post), and 24-h following (Retention) each training type. Within-session and retention change scores of 3 targeted gait variables were calculated to assess locomotor learning. RESULTS: FF+PT resulted in larger improvements within-session and at retention in trailing limb angle, and a trend for larger improvements in paretic pushoff compared to FF. FF+Var failed to show greater learning of biomechanical variables compared to FF. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of individualized verbal feedback (FF+PT) to a single session of gait training may enhance within- and across-session learning of targeted gait variables in people post-stroke, and merits more investigation.
BACKGROUND: Fast treadmill walking combined with functional electrical stimulation to ankle muscles (FastFES) is a well-studied gait intervention that improves post-stroke walking function. Although individualized verbal feedback is commonly incorporated during clinical gait training, and a variable practice structure is posited to enhance learning, the influence of these two factors on motor learning during locomotor interventions such as FastFES is poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: To determine if the addition of individualized verbal feedback or variable practice to a FastFES training session enhances motor learning of targeted gait patterns. METHODS: Nine individuals with post-stroke hemiparesis completed a crossover study comprising exposure to 3 dose-matched types of gait training: (1) FastFES (FF), comprising five 6-minute bouts of training with intermittent FES, (2) FF with addition of individualized verbal instructions and faded feedback delivered by a physical therapist (FF+PT), (3) FF with variable gait speed and FES timing (FF+Var). Gait biomechanics data were collected before (Pre), immediately after (Post), and 24-h following (Retention) each training type. Within-session and retention change scores of 3 targeted gait variables were calculated to assess locomotor learning. RESULTS: FF+PT resulted in larger improvements within-session and at retention in trailing limb angle, and a trend for larger improvements in paretic pushoff compared to FF. FF+Var failed to show greater learning of biomechanical variables compared to FF. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of individualized verbal feedback (FF+PT) to a single session of gait training may enhance within- and across-session learning of targeted gait variables in people post-stroke, and merits more investigation.
Authors: Jennifer Fox; Peter Garber; Monica Hoffman; David Johnson; Paul Schaefer; Julie Vien; Christine Zeaton; Ladora V Thompson Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Nicole K Rendos; Kysha Harriell; Shayaan Qazi; Rebeca C Regis; Taislaine C Alipio; Joseph F Signorile Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: John W Krakauer; S Thomas Carmichael; Dale Corbett; George F Wittenberg Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 3.919
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