Visuospatial Skills Explain Differences in the Ability to Use Propulsion Biofeedback Post-stroke.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-17 DOI:10.1097/NPT.0000000000000487
Sarah A Kettlety, James M Finley, Kristan A Leech
{"title":"Visuospatial Skills Explain Differences in the Ability to Use Propulsion Biofeedback Post-stroke.","authors":"Sarah A Kettlety, James M Finley, Kristan A Leech","doi":"10.1097/NPT.0000000000000487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Visuospatial/constructional skills and motor impairment best-explained propulsion error during biofeedback use (adjusted R 2  = 0.56, P = 0.0008), and attention best-explained performance variability (adjusted R 2  = 0.17, P = 0.048). Language skills best-explained recall error during immediate retention (adjusted R 2  = 0.37, P = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":49030,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11424264/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NPT.0000000000000487","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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 R 2  = 0.56, P = 0.0008), and attention best-explained performance variability (adjusted R 2  = 0.17, P = 0.048). Language skills best-explained recall error during immediate retention (adjusted R 2  = 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.

视觉空间技能可解释中风后使用推进生物反馈能力的差异
背景和目的:视觉生物反馈可用于帮助中风后患者减少生物力学步态障碍。使用视觉生物反馈需要一个明确的、认知要求高的运动学习过程。整体认知功能较好的参与者能够更好地利用视觉生物反馈来促进运动学习;然而,这种效果是由哪些特定的认知领域造成的还不得而知。我们的目的是了解在使用视觉生物反馈提高中风后患者的瘫痪推进力时,哪些认知领域与学习过程中的表现和即时保持相关:方法: 中风后的参与者完成了认知测试,测试提供了不同认知领域的分数,包括执行功能、即时记忆、视觉空间/结构技能、语言、注意力和延迟记忆。接下来,参与者完成了一次瘫痪推进生物反馈训练,我们收集了有生物反馈时 20 分钟和无生物反馈时 2 分钟的跑步机行走数据。我们分别拟合了回归模型,以确定认知领域得分、运动障碍(用下肢Fugl-Meyer测量)和步速是否能解释生物反馈使用过程中的推进误差和变异性,以及即时保留过程中的回忆误差:结果:视觉空间/结构技能和运动障碍最能解释生物反馈使用过程中的推进误差(调整后 R2 = 0.56,P = 0.0008),注意力最能解释成绩变异性(调整后 R2 = 0.17,P = 0.048)。语言技能最能解释即时保留过程中的回忆错误(调整后的 R2 = 0.37,P = 0.02):这些结果表明,特定认知领域的损伤可以解释慢性中风患者运动学习结果的差异。这些结果表明,特定的认知障碍可以解释慢性中风患者运动学习结果的变异性。这表明,通过进一步的研究,特定的认知障碍信息可能有助于预测患者对干预措施的反应,并为促进运动学习提供个性化的训练参数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy
Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
63
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy (JNPT) is an indexed resource for dissemination of research-based evidence related to neurologic physical therapy intervention. High standards of quality are maintained through a rigorous, double-blinded, peer-review process and adherence to standards recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. With an international editorial board made up of preeminent researchers and clinicians, JNPT publishes articles of global relevance for examination, evaluation, prognosis, intervention, and outcomes for individuals with movement deficits due to neurologic conditions. Through systematic reviews, research articles, case studies, and clinical perspectives, JNPT promotes the integration of evidence into theory, education, research, and practice of neurologic physical therapy, spanning the continuum from pathophysiology to societal participation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信