|
|
Frenkel-Toledo, S., Levin, M. F., Berman, S., Liebermann, D. G., Baniña, M. C., Solomon, J. M., et al. (2022). Shared and distinct voxel-based lesion-symptom mappings for spasticity and impaired movement in the hemiparetic upper limb. Sci Rep, 12(1).
|
|
|
|
Friedman, J., Amiaz, A., & Korman, M. (2022). The online and offline effects of changing movement timing variability during training on a finger-opposition task. Sci Rep, 12(1), 13319.
Abstract: In motor learning tasks, there is mixed evidence for whether increased task-relevant variability in early learning stages leads to improved outcomes. One problem is that there may be a connection between skill level and motor variability, such that participants who initially have more variability may also perform worse on the task, so will have more room to improve. To avoid this confound, we experimentally manipulated the amount of movement timing variability (MTV) during training to test whether it improves performance. Based on previous studies showing that most of the improvement in finger-opposition tasks comes from optimizing the relative onset time of the finger movements, we used auditory cues (beeps) to guide the onset times of sequential movements during a training session, and then assessed motor performance after the intervention. Participants were assigned to three groups that either: (a) followed a prescribed random rhythm for their finger touches (Variable MTV), (b) followed a fixed rhythm (Fixed control MTV), or (c) produced the entire sequence following a single beep (Unsupervised control MTV). While the intervention was successful in increasing MTV during training for the Variable group, it did not lead to improved outcomes post-training compared to either control group, and the use of fixed timing led to significantly worse performance compared to the Unsupervised control group. These results suggest that manipulating MTV through auditory cues does not produce greater learning than unconstrained training in motor sequence tasks.
|
|
|
|
Geller, N., Moringen, A., & Friedman, J. (2023). Learning juggling by gradually increasing difficulty vs. learning the complete skill results in different learning patterns. Front Psychol, 14, 1284053.
Abstract: Motor learning is central to sports, medicine, and other health professions as it entails learning through practice. To achieve proficiency in a complex motor task, many hours of practice are required. Therefore, finding ways to speed up the learning process is important. This study examines the impact of different training approaches on learning three-ball cascade juggling. Participants were assigned to one of two groups: practicing by gradually increasing difficulty and elements of the juggling movement (“learning in parts”) or training on the complete skill from the start (“all-at-once”). Results revealed that although the all-at-once group in the early stages of learning showed greater improvement in performance, the “learning in parts” group managed to catch up, even over a relatively short period of time. The lack of difference in performance between the groups at the end of the training session suggests that the choice of training regime (between all-at-once and learning in parts), at least in the short term, can be selected based on other factors such as the learner's preference, practical considerations, and cognitive style.
|
|
|
|
Levin, M. F., Berman, S., Weiss, N., Parmet, Y., Banina, M. C., Frenkel-Toledo, S., et al. (2023). ENHANCE proof-of-concept three-arm randomized trial: effects of reaching training of the hemiparetic upper limb restricted to the spasticity-free elbow range (Vol. 13).
Abstract: Post-stroke motor recovery processes remain unknown. Timescales and patterns of upper-limb (UL) recovery suggest a major impact of biological factors, with modest contributions from rehabilitation. We assessed a novel impairment-based training motivated by motor control theory where reaching occurs within the spasticity-free elbow range. Patients with subacute stroke (</= 6 month; n = 46) and elbow flexor spasticity were randomly allocated to a 10-day UL training protocol, either personalized by restricting reaching to the spasticity-free elbow range defined by the tonic stretch reflex threshold (TSRT) or non-personalized (non-restricted) and with/without anodal transcranial direct current stimulation. Outcomes assessed before, after, and 1 month post-intervention were elbow flexor TSRT angle and reach-to-grasp arm kinematics (primary) and stretch reflex velocity sensitivity, clinical impairment, and activity (secondary). Results were analyzed for 3 groups as well as those of the effects of impairment-based training. Clinical measures improved in both groups. Spasticity-free range training resulted in faster and smoother reaches, smaller (i.e., better) arm-plane path length, and closer-to-normal shoulder/elbow movement patterns. Non-personalized training improved clinical scores without improving arm kinematics, suggesting that clinical measures do not account for movement quality. Impairment-based training within a spasticity-free elbow range is promising since it may improve clinical scores together with arm movement quality.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique Identifier: NCT02725853; Initial registration date: 01/04/2016.
|
|
|
|
Markstrom, J. L., Liebermann, D. G., Schelin, L., & Hager, C. K. (2022). Atypical Lower Limb Mechanics During Weight Acceptance of Stair Descent at Different Time Frames After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Am J Sports Med, , 1–9.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: An anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture may result in poor sensorimotor knee control and, consequentially, adapted movement strategies to help maintain knee stability. Whether patients display atypical lower limb mechanics during weight acceptance of stair descent at different time frames after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is unknown. PURPOSE: To compare the presence of atypical lower limb mechanics during the weight acceptance phase of stair descent among athletes at early, middle, and late time frames after unilateral ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: A total of 49 athletes with ACLR were classified into 3 groups according to time after ACLR-early (<6 months; n = 17), middle (6-18 months; n = 16), and late (>18 months; n = 16)-and compared with asymptomatic athletes (control; n = 18). Sagittal plane hip, knee, and ankle angles; angular velocities; moments; and powers were compared between the ACLR groups' injured and noninjured legs and the control group as well as between legs within groups using functional data analysis methods. RESULTS: All 3 ACLR groups showed greater knee flexion angles and moments than the control group for injured and noninjured legs. For the other outcomes, the early group had, compared with the control group, less hip power absorption, more knee power absorption, lower ankle plantarflexion angle, lower ankle dorsiflexion moment, and less ankle power absorption for the injured leg and more knee power absorption and higher vertical ground reaction force for the noninjured leg. In addition, the late group showed differences from the control group for the injured leg revealing more knee power absorption and lower ankle plantarflexion angle. Only the early group took a longer time than the control group to complete weight acceptance and demonstrated asymmetry for multiple outcomes. CONCLUSION: Athletes with different time frames after ACLR revealed atypically large knee angles and moments during weight acceptance of stair descent for both the injured and the noninjured legs. These findings may express a chronically adapted strategy to increase knee control. In contrast, atypical hip and ankle mechanics seem restricted to an early time frame after ACLR. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Rehabilitation after ACLR should include early training in controlling weight acceptance. Including a control group is essential when evaluating movement patterns after ACLR because both legs may be affected.
|
|
