Abstract
Objective:To investigate progress toward motor recovery in patients with chronic hemiparesis (mean time since stroke 3.2 years), comparing different types of practice schedules.
Design:To increase voluntary control of the upper extremity, active neuromuscular stimulation was administered during blocked and random practice schedules as patients performed three specific movements: wrist/finger extension, elbow joint extension, and shoulder joint abduction.
Methods:34 stroke subjects volunteered to participate and were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: blocked practice (the same movement was repetitively performed on successive trials) combined with active neuromuscular stimulation; random practice (different movements on successive trials) along with active stimulation; or no active stimulation assistance control group. Subjects completed two days of 90 minute training for each of two weeks with at least 24 hours of rest between sessions. A session was three sets of 30 successful active neuromuscular stimulation trials with the three movements executed 10 times/set.
Results:Mixed design analyses on three categories of behavioural measures indicated motor improvements for the blocked and random practice/stimulation groups in comparison with the control group during the post-test period, with a larger number of blocks moved, faster premotor and motor reaction times, and less variability in the sustained muscular contraction task.
Conclusions:Upper extremity rehabilitation intervention of active stimulation and blocked practice performed as well as stimulation/random practice. Moreover, these purposeful voluntary movement findings support and extend sensorimotor integration theory to both practice schedules.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (255.7 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Altman D. G., Schulz K. F. Statistics notes: Concealing treatment allocation in randomised trials. BMJ. 2001 Aug 25;323(7310):446–447. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7310.446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Altman D. G. Statistics in medical journals: some recent trends. Stat Med. 2000 Dec 15;19(23):3275–3289. doi: 10.1002/1097-0258(20001215)19:23<3275::aid-sim626>3.0.co;2-m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Baratta R. V., Solomonow M., Zhou B. H., Zhu M. Methods to reduce the variability of EMG power spectrum estimates. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 1998 Oct;8(5):279–285. doi: 10.1016/s1050-6411(97)00031-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Botwinick J., Thompson L. W. Premotor and motor components of reaction time. J Exp Psychol. 1966 Jan;71(1):9–15. doi: 10.1037/h0022634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cauraugh J., Light K., Kim S., Thigpen M., Behrman A. Chronic motor dysfunction after stroke: recovering wrist and finger extension by electromyography-triggered neuromuscular stimulation. Stroke. 2000 Jun;31(6):1360–1364. doi: 10.1161/01.str.31.6.1360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cauraugh James H., Kim Sangbum. Progress toward motor recovery with active neuromuscular stimulation: muscle activation pattern evidence after a stroke. J Neurol Sci. 2003 Mar 15;207(1-2):25–29. doi: 10.1016/s0022-510x(02)00355-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cauraugh James H., Kim Sangbum. Two coupled motor recovery protocols are better than one: electromyogram-triggered neuromuscular stimulation and bilateral movements. Stroke. 2002 Jun;33(6):1589–1594. doi: 10.1161/01.str.0000016926.77114.a6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chae John, Yang Guang, Park Byung Kyu, Labatia Ihab. Delay in initiation and termination of muscle contraction, motor impairment, and physical disability in upper limb hemiparesis. Muscle Nerve. 2002 Apr;25(4):568–575. doi: 10.1002/mus.10061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cramer S. C., Bastings E. P. Mapping clinically relevant plasticity after stroke. Neuropharmacology. 2000 Mar 3;39(5):842–851. doi: 10.1016/s0028-3908(99)00258-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hallett M. Plasticity of the human motor cortex and recovery from stroke. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 2001 Oct;36(2-3):169–174. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0173(01)00092-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hallett Mark. Recent advances in stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002 Jun;16(2):211–217. doi: 10.1177/0888439002016002004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Immink M. A., Wright D. L. Motor programming during practice conditions high and low in contextual interference. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Apr;27(2):423–437. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.27.2.423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Macaluso A., De Vito G., Felici F., Nimmo M. A. Electromyogram changes during sustained contraction after resistance training in women in their 3rd and 8th decades. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000 Aug;82(5-6):418–424. doi: 10.1007/s004210000212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mathiowetz V., Volland G., Kashman N., Weber K. Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther. 1985 Jun;39(6):386–391. doi: 10.5014/ajot.39.6.386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Muellbacher Wolf, Richards Coletta, Ziemann Ulf, Wittenberg George, Weltz Deborah, Boroojerdi Babak, Cohen Leonardo, Hallett Mark. Improving hand function in chronic stroke. Arch Neurol. 2002 Aug;59(8):1278–1282. doi: 10.1001/archneur.59.8.1278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- WEISS A. D. THE LOCUS OF REACTION TIME CHANGE WITH SET, MOTIVATION, AND AGE. J Gerontol. 1965 Jan;20:60–64. doi: 10.1093/geronj/20.1.60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]