Objective. This review evaluates the underlying training components currently used in task-oriented training and assesses the effects of these components on skilled arm—hand performance in patients after a stroke. Methods. A computerized systematic literature search in 5 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro, and Cochrane) identified randomized clinical trials, published through March 2009, evaluating the effects of task-oriented training. Relevant article references listed in publications included were also screened. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed with the Van Tulder Checklist. For each functional outcome measure used, the effect size (bias corrected Hedges’s g) was calculated. Results. The intervention results in 528 patients (16 studies) were studied. From these, 15 components were identified to characterize task-oriented training. An average of 7.8 (standard deviation = 2.1) components were used in the included trials. There was no correlation between the number of task-oriented training components used in a study and the treatment effect size. “Distributed practice” and “feedback” were associated with the largest postintervention effect sizes. “Random practice” and “use of clear functional goals” were associated with the largest follow-up effect sizes. Conclusion. The task-oriented training was operationalized with 15 components. The number of components used in an intervention aimed at improving arm—hand performance after stroke was not associated with the posttreatment effect size. Certain components, which optimize storage of learned motor performance in the long-term memory, occurred more in studies with larger treatment effects.
Broeks JG, Lankhorst GJ, Rumping K., Prevo AJThe long-term outcome of arm function after stroke: results of a follow-up study. Disabil Rehabil. 1999;21:357-364.
2.
Shelton FN, Reding MJEffect of lesion location on upper limb motor recovery after stroke . Stroke. 2001;32:107-112.
3.
Truelsen T., Piechowski-Jozwiak B., Bonita R., Mathers C., Bogousslavsky J., Boysen G.Stroke incidence and prevalence in Europe: a review of available data . Eur J Neurol. 2006; 13:581-598.
4.
Shumway-Cook A., Woollacott M.A conceptual framework for clinical practice. In: Motor Control. Translating Research Into Clinical Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins ; 2007:136-153.
5.
Timmermans AA , Seelen HA, Willmann RD, et al. Arm and hand skills: training preferences after stroke. Disabil Rehabil . 2009;31:1344-1352.
6.
Timmermans AAA , Seelen HAM, Geers RPJ, et al. Sensor-based skill training in chronic stroke patients: Results on treatment outcome, patient motivation and system usability. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. In press.
7.
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.
8.
French B., Thomas LH, Leathley MJ, et al. Repetitive task training for improving functional ability after stroke [published online ahead of print April 1, 2009]. Stroke . doi:10.1161/ STROKEAHA.108.519553.
9.
Legg LA, Drummond AE, Langhorne P.Occupational therapy for patients with problems in activities of daily living after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(4):CD003585.
10.
Cirstea CM, Ptito A., Levin MFFeedback and cognition in arm motor skill reacquisition after stroke . Stroke. 2006;37:1237-1242.
11.
Baskett JJ, Broad JB, Reekie G., Hocking C., Green G.Shared responsibility for ongoing rehabilitation: a new approach to home-based therapy after stroke. Clin Rehabil. 1999;13:23-33.
12.
Shea CH, Morgan RLContextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn. 1979;5:179-187.
13.
Magill R.Practice variability and specificity. In: Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and Applications. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill; 2007:368-389.
14.
Kwakkel G., Wagenaar RC, Koelman TW, Lankhorst GJ, Koetsier JCEffects of intensity of rehabilitation after stroke. A research synthesis . Stroke. 1997;28:1550-1556.
15.
Kwakkel G., Wagenaar RC, Twisk JW, Lankhorst GJ, Koetsier JCIntensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: a randomised trial. Lancet. 1999;354:191-196.
16.
Kwakkel G., Kollen BJ, Wagenaar RCLong term effects of intensity of upper and lower limb training after stroke: a randomised trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry . 2002; 72:473-479.
17.
Kwakkel G., van Peppen R., Wagenaar RC, et al. Effects of augmented exercise therapy time after stroke: a meta-analysis . Stroke. 2004;35:2529-2539.
18.
Dobkin BHConfounders in rehabilitation trials of task-oriented training: lessons from the designs of the EXCITE and SCILT multicenter trials. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21:3-13.
Magill R.The amount and distribution of practice. In: Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and Applications. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill; 2007:390-404.
23.
Kisner C., Colby L.Resistance exercise for impaired muscle performance. In: Resistance Exercise for Impaired Muscle Performance. Therapeutic Exercise. Foundations and Techniques. Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis; 2007:150.
24.
Beachle TR, Earle RW, Wathen D.Resistance training. In: Beachle TR , Earle RW, Wathen D, eds. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning . Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics;2008 :381-413.
25.
Timmermans AA, Seelen HA, Willmann RD, et al. Technology-assisted training of arm-hand skills in stroke: concepts on reacquisition of motor control and therapist guidelines for rehabilitation technology design. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009;6:1.
26.
Magill R.Whole and part practice. In: Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and Applications. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill ; 2007:405-420.
Whitall J., McCombe Waller S., Silver KH, Macko RFRepetitive bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing improves motor function in chronic hemiparetic stroke. Stroke. 2000;31:2390-2395.
29.
van Tulder MW , Assendelft WJ, Koes BW, Bouter LMMethod guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for Spinal Disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22:2323-2330.
30.
van Tulder M. , Furlan A., Bombardier C., Bouter L.Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:1290-1299.
31.
Hedges LV, Olkin I.Nonparametric estimators of effect size in meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 1984;96:573-580.
32.
Kampenes VB , Dyba T., Hannay JE, et al. A systematic review of effect size in software engineering experiments . Inform Software Technol . 2007;49:1073-1086.
33.
Cohen J.The t-test for means. In: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum; 1988:25-26.
34.
Chan DYL , Chan CCH , Au DKSMotor relearning programme for stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial . Clin Rehabil. 2006;20:191-200.
35.
Desrosiers J., Bourbonnais D., Corriveau H., Gosselin S., Bravo G.Effectiveness of unilateral and symmetrical bilateral task training for arm during the subacute phase after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil . 2005; 19:581-593.
36.
Duncan P., Studenski S., Richards L., et al. Randomized clinical trial of therapeutic exercise in subacute stroke. Stroke. 2003; 34:2173-2180.
37.
Widén Holmqvist L., von Koch L., Kostulas V., et al. A randomized controlled trial of rehabilitation at home after stroke in southwest Stockholm . Stroke. 1998;29: 591-597.
38.
Landis JR, Koch GGThe measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
39.
Sackley C., Wade DT, Mant D., et al. Cluster randomized pilot controlled trial of an occupational therapy intervention for residents with stroke in UK care homes. Stroke. 2006; 37:2336-2341.
40.
Shea CH, Lai Q., Black C., et al. Spacing practice sessions across days benefits the learning of motor skills. Hum Mov Sci. 2000;19:737-760.
41.
van Vliet PM , Wulf G.Extrinsic feedback for motor learning after stroke: what is the evidence? Disabil Rehabil. 2006; 28:831-840.
42.
Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP, et al. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial . JAMA. 2006;296:2095-2104.
43.
Shumway-Cook A., Woollacott M.Motor learning and recovery of function. In: Motor Control. Translating Research Into Clinical Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins ; 2007:21-45.
44.
Boyd LA, Winstein CJImpact of explicit information on implicit motor-sequence learning following middle cerebral artery stroke. Phys Ther. 2003;83:976-989.
45.
Kisner C., Colby L.Strategies for Effective Exercise and Task-Specific Instruction. Therapeutic Exercise. Foundations and Techniques. Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis; 2007:29.
46.
Winstein CJ , Schmidt RAReduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn . 1990;16:677-691.
47.
Wade DTGoal setting in rehabilitation: An overview of what, why and how. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23:291-295.
48.
Wressle E., Eeg-Olofsson AM, Marcusson J., Henriksson C.Improved client participation in the rehabilitation process using a client-centred goal formulation structure. J Rehabil Med . 2002;34:5-11.
49.
Timmermans A., Seelen H., Kingma H.Task-oriented training: an essential element in technology-supported rehabilitation of skilled arm-hand performance after stroke. IEEE-EMBS Benelux Chapter Symposium . 2009:63-66.
50.
Leach E., Cornwell P., Fleming J., Haines T.Patient centered goal-setting in a subacute rehabilitation setting . Disabil Rehabil. 2009:1-14.
51.
Playford ED , Siegert R., Levack W., Freeman J.Areas of consensus and controversy about goal setting in rehabilitation: a conference report . Clin Rehabil . 2009;23:334-344.
52.
Lin KC, Wu CY, Liu JS, Chen YT, Hsu CJConstraint-induced therapy versus dose-matched control intervention to improve motor ability, basic/extended daily functions, and quality of life after stroke . Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:160-165.
53.
Lo AC, Guarino P., Krebs HI, et al. Multicenter randomized trial of robot-assisted rehabilitation for chronic stroke: methods and entry characteristics for VA ROBOTICS. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:879-885.
54.
Alon G., Levitt AF, McCarthy PAFunctional electrical stimulation (fes) may modify the poor prognosis of stroke survivors with severe motor loss of the upper extremity: A preliminary study . Am J Phys Med Rehabil2008;87:627-636.
55.
Blennerhassett J., Dite W.Additional task-related practice improves mobility and upper limb function early after stroke: A randomised controlled trial. Aust J Physiother2004;50:219-224.
56.
Higgins J., Salbach NM, Wood-Dauphinee S., et al. The effect of a task-oriented intervention on arm function in people with stroke: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil2006; 20:296-310.
57.
Liu KP, Chan CC, Lee TM, et al. Mental imagery for promoting relearning for people after stroke: A randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2004;85:1403-1408.
58.
McDonnell MN , Hillier SL, Miles TS, et al. Influence of combined afferent stimulation and task-specific training following stroke: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair2007;21:435-443.
59.
Michaelsen SM, Dannenbaum R., Levin MFTask-specific training with trunk restraint on arm recovery in stroke: Randomized control trial. Stroke2006;37:186-192.
60.
Morris JH, van Wijck F., Joice S., et al. A comparison of bilateral and unilateral upper-limb task training in early poststroke rehabilitation: A randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2008;89:1237-1245.
