| Literature DB >> 35756980 |
Naomichi Mizuta1,2, Naruhito Hasui2, Yuki Nishi1, Yasutaka Higa2, Ayaka Matsunaga2, Junji Deguchi3, Yasutada Yamamoto2, Tomoki Nakatani2, Junji Taguchi2, Shu Morioka1,4.
Abstract
Objective: To examine the relationship between temporal asymmetry and complexity of muscle synergy during walking using rhythmic auditory cueing (RAC) and the factors related to changes in muscle synergy during walking with RAC in survivors of stroke. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Wards at 2 medical corporation hospitals. Participants: Forty survivors of stroke (N=40; mean age, 70.4±10.3 years; time since stroke, 72.2±32.3 days) who could walk without physical assistance. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: The participants were assessed in a random block design under 2 conditions: comfortable walking speed (CWS) and walking with RAC. Single-leg support time, kinematics, and electromyograms were measured. Factors related to the complexity of muscle synergy (variance accounted for by 1 synergy [VAF1]) between the walking conditions were examined using hierarchical multiple regression analysis.Entities:
Keywords: CWS, comfortable walking speed; Central pattern generators; Cues; EMG, electromyogram; FMA, Fugl-Meyer assessment; Gait disorders; Hemiplegia; NNMF, nonnegative matrix factorization; RAC, rhythmic auditory cueing; Rehabilitation; Stroke; VAF1, variance accounted for by 1 synergy; Walking
Year: 2022 PMID: 35756980 PMCID: PMC9214337 DOI: 10.1016/j.arrct.2022.100187
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl ISSN: 2590-1095
Demographics of participants
| Age (y), mean ± SD | 70.4±10.3 |
| Sex (n), male/female | 24/16 |
| Affected side (n), right/left | 32/8 |
| Time since stroke (d), mean ± SD | 72.2±32.3 |
| Functional Ambulation Category, mean ± SD | 3.58±0.78 |
| Using assist device (n), no use/T-cane/Q-cane | 29/8/3 |
| FMS (lower limb): max=22, mean ± SD | 20.6±2.49 |
| FMA sensory score (lower limb): max=12, mean ± SD | 9.56±3.36 |
| Modified Ashworth Scale: max=5, median (min-max) | 0.00 (0-3) |
| Trunk Impairment Scale, mean ± SD | 17.9±4.17 |
| Short Form Berg Balance Scale, mean ± SD | 22.3±4.39 |
Abbreviation: FMS, synergy score of the Fugl-Meyer assessment.
Synergy score of the Fugl-Meyer assessment.
Sensory score of the Fugl-Meyer assessment.
To evaluate the spasticity of the ankle plantar flexor muscle, a Modified Ashworth Scale was used and evaluated on a 0-5 scale.
Comparison of walking parameters between comfortable walking and rhythmic auditory cueing conditions
| Walking Conditions | 95% CI | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | CWS | RAC | Mean Difference | Lower | Upper | Cohen | |
| Walking speed | 0.90±0.06 | 0.92±0.06 | −0.011 | −0.028 | 0.006 | −0.203 | .208 |
| Cadence | 105.9±2.96 | 106.4±2.98 | −0.406 | −1.88 | 1.069 | −0.088 | .581 |
| Peak flexion angle in the lower limb | 13.7±0.79 | 15.0±0.53 | −2.106 | −2.767 | −1.445 | −1.095 | <.001 |
| Peak extension angle in the lower limb | −18.7±1.32 | −20.2±0.90 | 1.399 | −0.702 | 3.501 | 0.229 | .185 |
| Peak flexion angle in the knee joint | 44.3±1.62 | 48.3±1.85 | −4.124 | −6.837 | −1.410 | −0.522 | .004 |
| Single-leg support time | 34.4±0.71 | 37.8±0.67 | −3.422 | −4.421 | −2.422 | −1.095 | <.001 |
| Symmetry index in single-leg support time | −2.92±0.59 | −1.78±0.46 | −1.142 | −1.941 | −0.342 | −0.456 | .006 |
| VAF1 | 76.9±0.80 | 73.9±0.92 | 3.023 | 1.136 | 4.910 | 0.512 | .002 |
NOTE. Data are reported as mean ± SE. The P value indicates a paired t test between the walking conditions.
P<.001.
P<.01.
Fig 1Comparison of the walking parameters between CWS and RAC conditions. The light gray bar shows the CWS, and the dark gray bar indicates the RAC condition. Data are reported as mean ± 95% CI. *P<.001. †P<.01.
Fig 2Muscle activity patterns in each walking condition. Solid black lines and gray areas represent mean ± SE. The values are given as percentages. (A) is the CWS condition, and (B) is the RAC condition. From the top to the bottom, the figure shows the TA, Sol, MG, VM, RF, MH, LH, and GM muscle activity during the 100 percent gait cycle. Abbreviations: GM, gluteus medius; LH, biceps femoris; MG, medial gastrocnemius; MH semitendinosus; RF, rectus femoris; Sol, soleus; TA, tibialis anterior; VM, vastus medialis.
Fig 3Correlation matrix of walking parameters. The matrix of Spearman rank correlation coefficients of walking parameters is shown in the color scale. The ρ value is indicated only in the pixels when the correlation was significant at P<.05. (A) Walking parameters in the CWS condition and VAF1 associated with walking speed, cadence, lower limb flexion, and extension angles and single-leg support time on the paretic side. (B) Changes between the CWS and RAC conditions. ΔVAF1 was associated with Δcadence and Δsingle-leg support time on the paretic side.
Relationship between temporal factors of walking and ΔVAF1 on hierarchical multiple regression analysis
| Independent Variable | Unstandardized Coefficients | SE | Standardized Coefficients | 95% CI | Collinearity Statistics | BIC | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | Tolerance | VIF | |||||||||
| Step 1 | 0.039 | 242.1 | .738 | |||||||||
| ΔLower limb flexion angle | −0.429 | 0.568 | −0.134 | −0.495 | 0.227 | 0.990 | 1.010 | −0.755 | .456 | |||
| ΔLower limb extension angle | 0.116 | 0.182 | 0.115 | −0.253 | 0.483 | 0.952 | 1.051 | 0.639 | .527 | |||
| ΔKnee flexion angle | 0.038 | 0.141 | 0.048 | −0.318 | 0.415 | 0.958 | 1.043 | 0.269 | .790 | |||
| Step 2 | 0.427 | 227.6 | .002 | |||||||||
| ΔLower limb flexion angle | 0.353 | 0.479 | 0.110 | −0.195 | 0.414 | 0.860 | 1.163 | 0.737 | .467 | |||
| ΔLower limb extension angle | 0.085 | 0.143 | 0.084 | −0.206 | 0.374 | 0.95 | 1.053 | 0.593 | .558 | |||
| ΔKnee flexion angle | 0.069 | 0.111 | 0.088 | −0.201 | 0.377 | 0.955 | 1.047 | 0.623 | .538 | |||
| ΔSingle-leg support time | −1.248 | 0.277 | −0.670 | −0.974 | −0.366 | 0.862 | 1.160 | −4.504 | <.001 | |||
NOTE. The results of a hierarchical multiple regression analysis with ΔVAF1 as the dependent variable were reported. All independent variables were the change values between the walking conditions. Step 1 confirmed the effect of the Δkinematic variables on the paretic side; however, the model was not significant. To further examine the effect of the temporal factor, when Δsingle-leg support time on the paretic side was included in step 2, the explanatory rate of the model increased to 38.8% from step 1.
Abbreviations: BIC, bayesian information criterion; VIF, variance accounted for.
P<.001.
P<.01.