[Abstract+References] Predicting Motor Sequence Learning in Individuals With Chronic Stroke

Background. Conventionally, change in motor performance is quantified with discrete measures of behavior taken pre- and postpractice. As a high degree of movement variability exists in motor performance after stroke, pre- and posttesting of motor skill may lack sensitivity to predict potential for motor recovery.

Objective. Evaluate the use of predictive models of motor learning based on individual performance curves and clinical characteristics of motor function in individuals with stroke.

Methods. Ten healthy and fourteen individuals with chronic stroke performed a continuous joystick-based tracking task over 6 days, and at a 24-hour delayed retention test, to assess implicit motor sequence learning.

Results. Individuals with chronic stroke demonstrated significantly slower rates of improvements in implicit sequence-specific motor performance compared with a healthy control (HC) group when root mean squared error performance data were fit to an exponential function. The HC group showed a positive relationship between a faster rate of change in implicit sequence-specific motor performance during practice and superior performance at the delayed retention test. The same relationship was shown for individuals with stroke only after accounting for overall motor function by including Wolf Motor Function Test rate in our model.

Conclusion. Nonlinear information extracted from multiple time points across practice, specifically the rate of motor skill acquisition during practice, relates strongly with changes in motor behavior at the retention test following practice and could be used to predict optimal doses of practice on an individual basis.

1. Muratori LM, Lamberg EM, Quinn L, Duff SV. Applying principles of motor learning and control to upper extremity rehabilitation. J Hand Ther. 2013;26:94102. Google Scholar Medline
2. Lohse KR, Lang CE, Boyd LA. Is more better? Using metadata to explore dose-response relationships in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2014;45:20532058. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
3. Schmidt RA, Lee TD. Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis. 4th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2005. Google Scholar
4. Boyd L, Winstein C. Explicit information interferes with implicit motor learning of both continuous and discrete movement tasks after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2006;30:4657. Google Scholar Medline
5. Boyd LA, Edwards JD, Siengsukon CS, Vidoni ED, Wessel BD, Linsdell MA. Motor sequence chunking is impaired by basal ganglia stroke. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2009;92:3544. Google Scholar Medline
6. Boyd LA, Winstein CJ. Implicit motor-sequence learning in humans following unilateral stroke: the impact of practice and explicit knowledge. Neurosci Lett. 2001;298:6569. Google Scholar Medline
7. Boyd LA, Winstein CJ. Providing explicit information disrupts implicit motor learning after basal ganglia stroke. Learn Mem. 2004;11:388396. Google Scholar Medline
8. Vidoni ED, Boyd LA. Motor sequence learning occurs despite disrupted visual and proprioceptive feedback. Behav Brain Funct. 2008;4:32. Google Scholar Medline
9. Whitall J. Stroke rehabilitation research: time to answer more specific questions? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2004;18:38. Google Scholar Link
10. Doyon J, Bellec P, Amsel R, . Contributions of the basal ganglia and functionally related brain structures to motor learning. Behav Brain Res. 2009;199:6175. Google Scholar Medline
11. Deuschl G, Toro C, Zeffiro T, Massaquoi S, Hallett M. Adaptation motor learning of arm movements in patients with cerebellar disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1996;60:515519. Google Scholar Medline
12. Ioffe ME, Ustinova KI, Chernikova LA, Kulikov MA. Supervised learning of postural tasks in patients with poststroke hemiparesis, Parkinson’s disease or cerebellar ataxia. Exp Brain Res. 2006;168:384394. Google Scholar Medline
13. Lang CE, Bastian AJ. Cerebellar subjects show impaired adaptation of anticipatory EMG during catching. J Neurophysiol. 1999;82:21082119. Google Scholar Medline
14. Lang CE, Bastian AJ. Additional somatosensory information does not improve cerebellar adaptation during catching. Clin Neurophysiol. 2001;112:895907. Google Scholar Medline
15. Cousineau D, Hélie S, Lefebvre C. Testing curvatures of learning functions on individual trial and block average data. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003;35:493503. Google Scholar Medline
16. Dite W, Langford ZN, Cumming TB, Churilov L, Blennerhassett JM, Bernhardt J. A phase 1 exercise dose escalation study for stroke survivors with impaired walking. Int J Stroke. 2015;10:10511056. Google Scholar Abstract
17. Karni A, Meyer G, Rey-Hipolito C, . The acquisition of skilled motor performance: fast and slow experience-driven changes in primary motor cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95:861868. Google Scholar Medline
18. Feldman LS, Cao J, Andalib A, Fraser S, Fried GM. A method to characterize the learning curve for performance of a fundamental laparoscopic simulator task: defining “learning plateau” and “learning rate”. Surgery. 2009;146:381386. Google Scholar Medline
19. Cousineau D, Lacroix GL. Getting parameters from learning data. Tutorials Quant Methods Psychology. 2006;2:7783. Google Scholar
20. Ritter FE, Schooler LJ. The learning curve. In: Smelser NJ, Baltes PB, eds. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Pergamon; 2002:86028605.
21. Newell KM. Motor skill acquisition. Annu Rev Psychol. 1991;42:213237. Google Scholar Medline
22. Sampaio-Baptista C, Filippini N, Stagg CJ, Near J, Scholz J, Johansen-Berg H. Changes in functional connectivity and GABA levels with long-term motor learning. Neuroimage. 2015;106:1520. Google Scholar Medline
23. Sampaio-Baptista C, Khrapitchev AA, Foxley S, . Motor skill learning induces changes in white matter microstructure and myelination. J Neurosci. 2013;33:1949919503. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
24. Sampaio-Baptista C, Scholz J, Jenkinson M, . Gray matter volume is associated with rate of subsequent skill learning after a long term training intervention. Neuroimage. 2014;96:158166. Google Scholar Medline
25. Ward NS. Does neuroimaging help to deliver better recovery of movement after stroke? Curr Opin Neurol. 2015;28:323329. Google Scholar Medline
26. Neva JL, Henriques DY. Visuomotor adaptation and generalization with repeated and varied training. Exp Brain Res. 2013;226:363372. Google Scholar Medline
27. Heathcote A, Brown S, Mewhort DJ. The power law repealed: the case for an exponential law of practice. Psychon Bull Rev. 2000;7:185207. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
28. Meehan SK, Randhawa B, Wessel B, Boyd LA. Implicit sequence-specific motor learning after subcortical stroke is associated with increased prefrontal brain activations: an fMRI study. Hum Brain Mapp. 2011;32:290303. Google Scholar Medline
29. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7:1331. Google Scholar Medline
30. Hodics TM, Nakatsuka K, Upreti B, Alex A, Smith PS, Pezzullo JC. Wolf Motor Function Test for characterizing moderate to severe hemiparesis in stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:19631967. Google Scholar Medline
31. Wadden K, Brown K, Maletsky R, Boyd LA. Correlations between brain activity and components of motor learning in middle-aged adults: an fMRI study. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:169. Google Scholar Medline
32. Brown S, Heathcote A. Averaging learning curves across and within participants. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003;35:1121. Google Scholar Medline
33. Krakauer JW, Pine ZM, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C. Learning of visuomotor transformations for vectorial planning of reaching trajectories. J Neurosci. 2000;20:89168924. Google Scholar Medline
34. Modabber M, Neva J, Gill M, Budge I, Henriques D. Learning and retaining visuomotor adaptation across time. J Vision. 2008;8:610610. Google Scholar
35. Haibach P, Reid G, Collier D. Motor Learning and Development. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2011.Google Scholar
36. Field A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009. Google Scholar
37. Nesselroade JR, Salthouse TA. Methodological and theoretical implications of intraindividual variability in perceptual-motor performance. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2004;59:P49P55. Google Scholar Medline
38. Lee TD, Simon DA. Contextual interference. In: Williams AM, Hodges NJ, eds. Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory and Practice. London, England: Routledge; 2004:2944.
39. Guadagnoli MA, Lee TD. Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. J Mot Behav. 2004;36:212224. Google Scholar Medline
40. Wright D, Verwey W, Buchanen J, Chen J, Rhee J, Immink M. Consolidating behavioral and neurophysiologic findings to explain the influence of contextual interference during motor sequence learning. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016;23:121. Google Scholar Medline
41. Haith AM, Krakauer JW. Motor learning: the great rate debate. Curr Biol. 2014;24:R386R388. Google Scholar Medline
42. Eversbusch A, Grantcharov T. Learning curves and impact of psychomotor training on performance in simulated colonoscopy: a randomized trial using a virtual reality endoscopy trainer. Surg Endosc. 2004;18:15141518. Google Scholar Medline
43. Flamme C, Stukenborg-Colsman C, Wirth C. Evaluation of the learning curves associated with uncemented primary total hip arthroplasty depending on the experience of the surgeon. Hip Int. 2005;16:191197. Google Scholar
44. Hernandez J, Bann S, Munz Y, . Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the learning curve of a simulated surgical task on the da Vinci system. Surg Endosc. 2004;18:372378. Google Scholar Medline
45. Lundy-Ekman L. Neuroscience: Fundamentals for Rehabilitation. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1998.Google Scholar
46. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189198. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
47. Wulf G, Schmidt RA. Variability of practice and implicit motor learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1997;23:9871006. Google Scholar
48. Wadden KP, Woodward TS, Metzak PD, . Compensatory motor network connectivity is associated with motor sequence learning after subcortical stroke. Behav Brain Res. 2015;286:136145. Google ScholarMedline

Source: Predicting Motor Sequence Learning in Individuals With Chronic Stroke – Aug 10, 2016


, , , ,

  1. Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: