Motor Learning Principles for Rehabilitation: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Study in Poststroke Patients

Abstract

Background. Six months after a stroke, the hemiplegic arm often remains compromised. More innovative approaches to motor rehabilitation are needed. Objective. The authors compared a motor learning—based approach in a virtual environment with more conventional upper extremity therapy in a pilot trial. Methods . This prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial compared reinforced feedback in a virtual environment (RFVE; n = 27) with a control intervention (n = 20) of progressive therapy for the affected upper extremity. Both treatments were provided for 4 weeks, 5 days per week, with 1-hour treatment sessions daily. The primary outcomes were the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity (F-M UE) and Functional Independence Measure (FIM) scores. Kinematic outcomes included mean duration (MD), mean linear velocity (MLV), and number of submovements to measure the motor performance. Analyses of the primary outcomes were performed per protocol and by intention to treat. Results. F-M UE scores improved significantly in the RFVE group compared with the conventional therapy group (“intention to treat” = 5.10 points, P = .004; ANCOVA = 4.26 points, P < .01). Several of the kinematic parameters improved in the RFVE group (MD, P < .01; MLV, P < .01). FIM improvements did not differ. Conclusions . Both rehabilitation therapies improved arm motor performance and functional activity, but the RFVE therapy induced more robust results in patients exposed to late rehabilitation treatment.

Keywords

stroke neurorehabilitation virtual reality motor learning upper limb randomized controlled trial

References

World Health Organization. Disability, including prevention, management and rehabilitation. http://www.who.int/nmh/a5817/en/. Accessed January 29, 2010.

Flynn RWV , MacWalter RSM , Doney ASF. The cost of cerebral ischaemia. Neuropharmacology. 2008;55:250-256.

Prabhakaran S. , Zarahn E. , Riley C. , et al. Inter-individual variability in the capacity for motor recovery after ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22:64-71.

Kwakkel G. , Kollen BJ , van der Grond J. , Prevo AJ Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke. 2003;34:2181-2186.

Donaldson C. , Tallis R. , Miller S. , Sunderland A. , Lemon R. , Pomeroy V. Effects of conventional physical therapy and functional strength training on upper limb motor recovery after stroke: a randomized phase II study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:389-397.

Van Peppen RP , Kwakkel G. , Wood-Dauphinee S. , Hendriks HJ , Van der Wees PJ , Dekker J. The impact of physical therapy on functional outcomes after stroke: what’s the evidence? Clin Rehabil. 2004;18:833-862.

Krakauer JW Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation . Curr Opin Neurol. 2006;19:84-90.

Page SJ , Gater DR , Bach-Y-Rita P. Reconsidering the motor recovery plateau in stroke rehabilitation . Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:1377-1381.

Krakauer JW , Ghilardi MF , Ghez C. Independent learning of internal models for kinematic and dynamic control of reaching. Nat Neurosci . 1999;2:1026-1031.

10.

Winstein CJ Knowledge of results and motor learning implications for physical therapy . Phys Ther. 1991;71: 140-149.

11.

Todorov E. , Shadmehr R. , Bizzi E. Augmented feedback presented in a virtual environment accelerates learning of a difficult motor task. J Mot Behav. 1997 ;29:147-158.

12.

Piron L. , Tonin P. , Piccione F. , Iaia V. , Trivello E. , Dam M. Virtual environment training therapy for arm motor rehabilitation . Presence. 2005;6:732-740.

13.

Henderson A. , Korner-Bitensky N. , Levin M. Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review of its effectiveness for upper limb motor recovery. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2007; 14:52-61.

14.

Gladstone D. , Danells C. , Black S. The Fugl-Meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties . Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002;16: 232-240.

15.

Holden MK , Todorov E. Use of virtual environments in motor learning and rehabilitation. In: Stanney KM , ed. Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation, and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2002 :999-1026.

16.

Russon AE Learning by imitation: a hierarchical approach. Behav Brain Sci. 1998;21:667-684.

17.

Keiith R. , Granger C. , Hamilton B. , Sherwin G. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation . In: Eisenburg MG , Grzesiak RC , eds. Advances in Clinical Rehabilitation . New York, NY: Springer; 1987:6-18.

18.

van der Lee JH , Wagenaar RC , Lankhorst GJ , Vogelaar TW , Devillé WL , Bouter LM Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients: results from a single-blind randomized clinical trial. Stroke. 1999;30:2369-2375.

19.

The R Project for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org/. Accessed January 29, 2010.

20.

Kwakkel G. , van Peppen R. , Wagenaar RC , et al. Effects of augmented exercise therapy time after stroke a meta-analysis . Stroke. 2004;35:2529-2536.

21.

Dam M. , Tonin P. , Casson S. , et al. The effects of long-term rehabilitation therapy on poststroke hemiplegic patients. Stroke. 1993;24:1186-1191.

22.

Wolpert DM , Ghahramani Z. Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nat Neurosci . 2000;3(suppl): 1212-1217.

23.

Bizzi E. , Tresch MC , Saltiel P. , d’Avella A. New perspectives on spinal motor systems. Nat Rev Neurosci . 2000;1:101-108.

24.

Bizzi E. , Cheung VC , d’Avella A. , Saltiel P. , Tresch M. Combining modules for movement. Brain Res Rev. 2008;57:125-133.

25.

Cohn JV , DiZio P. , Lackner JR Reaching during virtual rotation: context specific compensations for expected coriolis forces. J Neurophysiol. 2000;83:3230-3240.

26.

Padoa-Schioppa C. , Li CS , Bizzi E. Neuronal correlates of kinematics-to-dynamics transformation in the supplementary motor area. Neuron. 2002;36:751-765.

27.

Cirstea CM , Ptito A. , Levin MF Feedback and cognition in arm motor skill reacquisition after stroke . Stroke. 2006;37:1237-1242.

28.

Young DE , Schmidt RA Augmented kinematic feedback for motor learning. J Mot Behav . 1992;24:261-273.

29.

Holden MK Virtual environments for motor rehabilitation: review. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2005;8:187-211.

30.

Piron L. , Tonin P. , Atzori AM , et al. The augmented-feedback rehabilitation technique facilitates the arm motor recovery in patients after a recent stroke. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2003;94:265-267.