Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-7
Speed-Biased Training Temporarily Improves Motor Performance of the Paretic Arm Compared to Accuracy-Biased Training in Chronic Stroke Survivors: The Phase 1 FAST Randomized Clinical Trial
Despite the prevalence of upper extremity (UE) limitations after stroke, few training interventions prioritize fast movement speeds during rehabilitation.
Objectives
To compare the effects of an equivalent dose (in the number of trials) of speed versus accuracy training in chronic stroke with mild-to-moderate impairments who have no direct cerebellar damage.
Patients and Methods
In this Phase-1 randomized controlled trial, we randomized 42 participants to either a speed or an accuracy arm-movement training condition. Participants moved their paretic hands through complex tracks, with 2080 trials in 4 sessions within a week. Speed and accuracy were manipulated by displaying 5 cm-wide or 1.25 cm-wide tracks or providing feedback based on average speed and accuracy in the Speed and Accuracy groups, respectively. We measured changes in kinematics in a 3-target test, in the speed-accuracy trade-off in a modified Fitts’ test of the paretic arm during goal-directed reaching, and clinical outcomes (ie, UE Fugl-Meyer, Action Research Arm Test, and Box and Block Test) at 3 days and 1-month post-training.
Results
Speed training led to significantly faster and smoother movements with more symmetric reach velocity profiles at the 3-day post-test, consistent with better feedforward control. Speed training temporarily improved the speed-accuracy tradeoff. At 1 month, however, most gains in the 3-target test and in the modified Fitts’ test were lost.
Conclusion
Speed training led to greater gains in kinematics of goal-directed actions than accuracy training, notably in a 3-day post-test. Our results suggest that training programs with high repetitions of fast movements may improve paretic arm reaching performance. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under ID NCT05013762.
WinsteinCJWolfSLDromerickAW, et al. Effect of a task-oriented rehabilitation program on upper extremity recovery following motor stroke: the ICARE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315(6):571-581. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0276
2.
LangCEStrubeMJBlandMD, et al. Dose response of task-specific upper limb training in people at least 6 months poststroke: a phase II, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Ann Neurol. 2016;80(3):342-354. doi:10.1002/ana.24734
3.
KrakauerJWKitagoTGoldsmithJ, et al. Comparing a novel neuroanimation experience to conventional therapy for high-dose intensive upper-limb training in subacute stroke: the SMARTS2 randomized trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2021;35(5):393-405. doi:10.1177/15459683211000730
4.
RodgersHBosomworthHKrebsHI, et al. Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10192):51-62. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31055-4
5.
ElliottDHansenSGriersonLELyonsJBennettSJHayesSJ.Goal-directed aiming: two components but multiple processes. Psychol Bull. 2010;136(6):1023-1044. doi:10.1037/a0020958
6.
KawatoM.Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning. Cur Opin Neurobiol. 1999;9(6):718-727. doi:10.1016/S0959-4388(99)00028-8
7.
BeerRFDewaldJPRymerWZ.Deficits in the coordination of multijoint arm movements in patients with hemiparesis: evidence for disturbed control of limb dynamics. Exp Brain Res. 2000;131(3):305-319.
8.
LaczkoJScheidtRASimoLSPiovesanD.Inter-joint coordination deficits revealed in the decomposition of endpoint jerk during goal-directed arm movement after stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017;25(7):798-810. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2017.2652393
9.
RajSDounskaiaNClarkWWSethiA.Effect of stroke on joint control during reach-to-grasp: a preliminary study. J Motor Behav. 2020;52(3):294-310. doi:10.1080/00222895.2019.1615861
10.
TakahashiCDReinkensmeyerDJ.Hemiparetic stroke impairs anticipatory control of arm movement. Exp Brain Res. 2003;149(2):131-140. doi:10.1007/s00221-002-1340-1
11.
MottetDvan DokkumLEFrogerJGouaichALaffontI.Trajectory formation principles are the same after mild or moderate stroke. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(3):e0173674. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173674
12.
McCreaPHEngJJ.Consequences of increased neuromotor noise for reaching movements in persons with stroke. Exp Brain Res. 2005;162(1):70-77. doi:10.1007/s00221-004-2106-8
13.
MurphyMAWillénCSunnerhagenKS.Kinematic variables quantifying upper-extremity performance after stroke during reaching and drinking from a glass. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25(1):71-80. doi:10.1177/1545968310370748
14.
Roby-BramiAJacobsSBennisNLevinMF.Hand orientation for grasping and arm joint rotation patterns in healthy subjects and hemiparetic stroke patients. Brain Res. 2003;969(1):217-229. doi:10.1016/S0006-8993(03)02334-5
15.
StewartJCGordonJWinsteinCJ.Control of reach extent with the paretic and nonparetic arms after unilateral sensorimotor stroke II: planning and adjustments to control movement distance. Exp Brain Res. 2014;232(11):3431-3443. doi:10.1007/s00221-014-4025-7
16.
StewartJCGordonJWinsteinCJ.Control of reach extent with the paretic and nonparetic arms after unilateral sensorimotor stroke: kinematic differences based on side of brain damage. Exp Brain Res. 2014;232(7):2407-2419. doi:10.1007/s00221-014-3938-5
17.
KitagoTKrakauerJW.Chapter 8 - Motor learning principles for neurorehabilitation. In: BarnesMPGoodDC, eds. Handbook of Clinical Neurology. Elsevier; 2013:93-103.
18.
KantakSSZahediNMcGrathR.Complex skill training transfers to improved performance and control of simpler tasks after stroke. Phys Ther. 2017;97(7):718-728. doi:10.1093/ptj/pzx042
19.
ParkHKimSWinsteinCJGordonJSchweighoferN.Short-duration and intensive training improves long-term reaching performance in individuals with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016;30(6):551-561. doi:10.1177/15459683156069901545968315606990
20.
WoytowiczEJRietschelJCGoodmanRN, et al. Determining levels of upper extremity movement impairment by applying a cluster analysis to the Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;98(3):456-462. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2016.06.023
21.
GrischottT.The Shiny balancer: software and imbalance criteria for optimally balanced treatment allocation in small RCTs and cRCTs. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):108. doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0551-5
22.
SeeJDodakianLChouC, et al. A standardized approach to the Fugl-Meyer assessment and its implications for clinical trials. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27(8):732-741. doi:10.1177/1545968313491000
23.
RigaAGathyEGhinetM, et al. Evidence of motor skill learning in acute stroke patients without lesions to the Thalamus and internal capsule. Stroke. 2022;53(7):2361-2368. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.035494
24.
MeyerDESmithJEWrightCE.Models for the speed and accuracy of aimed movements. Psychol Rev. 1982;89(5):449-482.
25.
FittsPM.The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol. 1954;47(6):381-391.
26.
MeyerDEAbramsRAKornblumSWrightCEKeith SmithJE.Optimality in human motor performance: ideal control of rapid aimed movements. Psychol Rev. 1988;95:340-370. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.340
27.
AbramsRAPrattJ.Rapid aimed limb movements: differential effects of practice on component submovements. J Mot Behav. 1993;25(4):288-298. doi:10.1080/00222895.1993.9941650
28.
ShmuelofLKrakauerJWMazzoniP.How is a motor skill learned? Change and invariance at the levels of task success and trajectory control. J Neurophysiol. 2012;108(2):578-594. doi:10.1152/jn.00856.2011
29.
KimNHWiningerMCraeliusW.Training grip control with a Fitts’ paradigm: a pilot study in chronic stroke. J Hand Ther. 2010;23(1):63-72. doi:10.1016/j.jht.2009.10.004
30.
DeJongSLSchaeferSYLangCE.Need for speed: better movement quality during faster task performance after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26(4):362-373. doi:10.1177/1545968311425926
31.
PattonJLStoykovMEKovicMMussa-IvaldiFA.Evaluation of robotic training forces that either enhance or reduce error in chronic hemiparetic stroke survivors. Exp Brain Res. 2006;168(3):368-383. doi:10.1007/s00221-005-0097-8
32.
IsraelySCarmeliE.Error augmentation as a possible technique for improving upper extremity motor performance after a stroke: a systematic review. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2016;23(2):116-125. doi:10.1179/1945511915Y.0000000007
33.
LiuLYLiYLamontagneA.The effects of error-augmentation versus error-reduction paradigms in robotic therapy to enhance upper extremity performance and recovery post-stroke: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018;15(1):65. doi:10.1186/s12984-018-0408-5
34.
RajdaCMFeldmanAGBoudriasMH, et al. The use of enhanced intrinsic feedback for motor learning in stroke survivors: clinical trial protocol. Contemp Clin Trials. 2023;130:107236. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2023.107236
35.
PooltonJMMastersRSMaxwellJP.The relationship between initial errorless learning conditions and subsequent performance. Hum Mov Sci. 2005;24(3):362-378. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2005.06.006
36.
MaxwellJPMastersRSKerrEWeedonE.The implicit benefit of learning without errors. Q J Exp Psychol A. 2001;54(4):1049-1068. doi:10.1080/713756014
37.
TruongCRuffinoCCrognierAPaizisCCrognierLPapaxanthisC.Error-based and reinforcement learning in basketball free throw shooting. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):499. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-26568-2
38.
WinsteinCJSchmidtRA.Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Memory Cogn. 1990;16:677
39.
BallesterBRWinsteinCSchweighoferN.Virtuous and vicious cycles of arm use and function post-stroke. Front Neurol. 2022;13:804211. doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.804211
40.
HanCEArbibMASchweighoferN.Stroke rehabilitation reaches a threshold. PLOS Comput Biol. 2008;4(8):e1000133. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000133
41.
HidakaYHanCEWolfSLWinsteinCJSchweighoferN.Use it and improve it or lose it: interactions between arm function and use in humans post-stroke. PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8(2):e1002343. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002343PCOMPBIOL-D-10-00044 [pii]
42.
SchweighoferNHanCEWolfSLArbibMAWinsteinCJ.A functional threshold for long-term use of hand and arm function can be determined: predictions from a computational model and supporting data from the extremity constraint-induced therapy evaluation (EXCITE) trial. Phys Ther. 2009;89(12):1327-1336. doi:10.2522/ptj.20080402
43.
ParkHSchweighoferN.Nonlinear mixed-effects model reveals a distinction between learning and performance in intensive reach training post-stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017;14(1):21. doi:10.1186/s12984-017-0233-2
44.
McCombe WallerSWhitallJ. Fine motor control in adults with and without chronic hemiparesis: baseline comparison to nondisabled adults and effects of bilateral arm training. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(7):1076-1083. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2003.10.020
45.
CirsteaMCLevinMF.Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain. 2000;123(5):940-953. doi:10.1093/brain/123.5.940
46.
NibrasNLiuCMottetD, et al. Dissociating sensorimotor recovery and compensation during exoskeleton training following stroke. Front Hum Neurosc. 2021;15:645021.
47.
SubramanianSKFeldmanAGLevinMF.Spasticity may obscure motor learning ability after stroke. J Neurophysiol. 2018;119(1):5-20. doi:10.1152/jn.00362.2017
48.
TurpinNAFeldmanAGLevinMF.Stretch-reflex threshold modulation during active elbow movements in post-stroke survivors with spasticity. Clin Neurophysiol. 2017;128(10):1891-1897. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2017.07.411
49.
SheltonFdNAPRedingMJ.Effect of lesion location on upper limb motor recovery after stroke. Stroke. 2001;32(1):107-112. doi:10.1161/01.STR.32.1.107
50.
ZhuLLLindenbergRAlexanderMPSchlaugG.Lesion load of the corticospinal tract predicts motor impairment in chronic stroke. Stroke. 2010;41(5):910-915. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.577023
51.
KimBSchweighoferNHaldarJPLeahyRMWinsteinCJ.Corticospinal tract microstructure predicts distal arm motor improvements in chronic stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2021;45(4):273-281. doi:10.1097/NPT.0000000000000363
52.
MeyerSKarttunenAHThijsVFeysHVerheydenG.How do somatosensory deficits in the arm and hand relate to upper limb impairment, activity, and participation problems after stroke? A systematic review. Phys Ther. 2014;94(9):1220-1231. doi:10.2522/ptj.20130271
53.
VidoniEDBoydLA.Preserved motor learning after stroke is related to the degree of proprioceptive deficit. Behav Brain Funct. 2009;5(1):36. doi:10.1186/1744-9081-5-36
54.
GuderSFreyBMBackhausW, et al. The influence of cortico-cerebellar structural connectivity on cortical excitability in chronic stroke. Cereb Cortex. 2020;30(3):1330-1344. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhz169
55.
SchulzRFreyBMKochP, et al. Cortico-cerebellar structural connectivity is related to residual motor output in chronic stroke. Cereb Cortex. 2017;27(1):635-645. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhv251
56.
ParkC-HChangWHOhnSH, et al. Longitudinal changes of resting-state functional connectivity during motor recovery after stroke. Stroke. 2011;42(5):1357-1362. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.596155
57.
VárkutiBGuanCPanY, et al. Resting state changes in functional connectivity correlate with movement recovery for BCI and robot-assisted upper-extremity training after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27(1):53-62. doi:10.1177/1545968312445910
58.
WangLYuCChenH, et al. Dynamic functional reorganization of the motor execution network after stroke. Brain. 2010;133(4):1224-1238. doi:10.1093/brain/awq043
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
