Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background and Purpose: Visual biofeedback can be used to help people post-stroke reduce biomechanical gait impairments. Using visual biofeedback engages an explicit, cognitively demanding motor learning process. Participants with better overall cognitive function are better able to use visual biofeedback to promote locomotor learning; however, which specific cognitive domains are responsible for this effect are unknown. We aimed to understand which cognitive domains were associated with performance during acquisition and immediate retention when using visual biofeedback to increase paretic propulsion in individuals post-stroke. Methods: Participants post-stroke completed cognitive testing, which provided scores for different cognitive domains, including executive function, immediate memory, visuospatial/constructional skills, language, attention, and delayed memory. Next, participants completed a single session of paretic propulsion biofeedback training, where we collected treadmill-walking data for 20 min with biofeedback and 2 min without biofeedback. We fit separate regression models to determine if cognitive domain scores, motor impairment (measured with the lower-extremity Fugl-Meyer), and gait speed could explain propulsion error and variability during biofeedback use and recall error during immediate retention. Results: Visuospatial/constructional skills and motor impairment best-explained propulsion error during biofeedback use (adjusted R2 = 0.56, P = 0.0008), and attention best-explained performance variability (adjusted R2 = 0.17, P = 0.048). Language skills best-explained recall error during immediate retention (adjusted R2 = 0.37, P = 0.02). Discussion and Conclusions: These results demonstrate that specific cognitive domain impairments explain variability in locomotor learning outcomes in individuals with chronic stroke. This suggests that with further investigation, specific cognitive impairment information may be useful to predict responsiveness to interventions and personalize training parameters to facilitate locomotor learning.
Background and Purpose: Visual biofeedback can be used to help people post-stroke reduce biomechanical gait impairments. Using visual biofeedback engages an explicit, cognitively demanding motor learning process. Participants with better overall cognitive function are better able to use visual biofeedback to promote locomotor learning; however, which specific cognitive domains are responsible for this effect are unknown. We aimed to understand which cognitive domains were associated with performance during acquisition and immediate retention when using visual biofeedback to increase paretic propulsion in individuals post-stroke. Methods: Participants post-stroke completed cognitive testing, which provided scores for different cognitive domains, including executive function, immediate memory, visuospatial/constructional skills, language, attention, and delayed memory. Next, participants completed a single session of paretic propulsion biofeedback training, where we collected treadmill-walking data for 20 min with biofeedback and 2 min without biofeedback. We fit separate regression models to determine if cognitive domain scores, motor impairment (measured with the lower-extremity Fugl-Meyer), and gait speed could explain propulsion error and variability during biofeedback use and recall error during immediate retention. Results: Visuospatial/constructional skills and motor impairment best-explained propulsion error during biofeedback use (adjusted R2 = 0.56, P = 0.0008), and attention best-explained performance variability (adjusted R2 = 0.17, P = 0.048). Language skills best-explained recall error during immediate retention (adjusted R2 = 0.37, P = 0.02). Discussion and Conclusions: These results demonstrate that specific cognitive domain impairments explain variability in locomotor learning outcomes in individuals with chronic stroke. This suggests that with further investigation, specific cognitive impairment information may be useful to predict responsiveness to interventions and personalize training parameters to facilitate locomotor learning.
Background Hand dexterity impairments in patients with stroke reduce activities of daily living (ADL) and quality of life. Task-specific training with feedback (FB) for stroke rehabilitation have yielded inconsistent results on enhancing motor learning among stroke survivors. Furthermore, visuospatial ability is associated with motor learning, but this has not previously been reported in patients with subacute stroke. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether visual terminal FB affects motor learning of hand dexterity, as well as the relationship among motor function, visuospatial ability, and motor learning, in patients with subacute stroke. Methods Seventeen patients (age: 66.1 ± 13.8 years) with subacute stroke who had mild upper limb motor impairment were included in this study. The experimental task was to adjust the force control task. The visuospatial task was the Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCFT). The experimental protocol was conducted on 2 consecutive days, with day 1 consisting of a pre-test (PRE), practice, and short-term retention test (SRT), and day 2 consisting of a long-term retention test (LRT) and the ROCFT. The difference between the target grasping force and the measurement results (grasping error) was assessed as the dependent variable, as a measure of motor learning, using the Friedman test and post hoc test. Spearman’s rank correlation analysis was used to evaluate correlations of the grasping error in each test, motor function (by Fugl–Meyer assessment of the upper extremity and action research arm test), and copy, organization, and recall ROCFT scores. Results Grasping error significantly decreased in the SRT and LRT compared with the PRE values. Furthermore, no significant correlation was found between motor function and performance on each test, whereas significant moderate negative correlations were found between copy and recall scores and performance on LRT (ρ = -0.51 and − 0.53, respectively). Conclusion Our findings indicate that visual terminal FB improved hand dexterity in patients with subacute stroke who had mild upper-limb motor impairment. Visual ability was an important factor associated with motor learning. Future studies should use visual terminal FB and consider the establishment of training programs for visuospatial ability in stroke rehabilitation.
Hand dexterity impairments in patients with stroke reduce activities of daily living (ADL) and quality of life. Visuospatial ability is associated with motor learning, but this has not previously been reported in patients with subacute stroke. We aimed to investigate whether visual terminal feedback (FB) affected motor learning of hand dexterity and the relationship among visuospatial ability. Overall, 17 subacute stroke patients (age: 66.1 ± 13.8 years) with mild upper limb motor impairment were included. The experimental task was the grasping force control task. The visuospatial task was the Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCFT). The experimental protocol was conducted in 2 consecutive days: day 1 consisted of a pre-test (PRE), practice, and short-term retention test (SRT), and day 2 consisted of a long-term retention test (LRT) and the ROCFT. Grasping errors were significantly decreased in the SRT and LRT than in the PRE. Furthermore, ROCFT scores (copy and recall) and LRT grasping errors were moderately negatively correlated (ρ = -0.51 and − 0.53). In conclusion, visuospatial ability is an important factor associated with motor learning in subacute stroke patients. Future studies should use visual terminal FB, and training programs for visuospatial ability should be considered in stroke rehabilitation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.