4.6 Article

Influence of Speed on Walking Economy Poststroke

Journal

NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR
Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages 529-534

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1545968308328732

Keywords

Stroke; Walking; Energy; Speed

Funding

  1. NINR NIH HHS [R01 NR010786] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Objective. Walking speed influences energy cost in healthy adults, but its influence when walking is impaired due to stroke is not clear. This study investigated the effect of manipulating walking speed on the energy economy of walking poststroke. Methods. Sixteen persons with chronic stroke underwent a clinical examination, including several lower extremity impairment measures. consumption (Vo(2)) was measured as they walked at their self-selected speed (Free), 20% slower (Slow), their fastest possible speed (Fastest), and 2 speeds between Free and Fastest speeds. Vo(2) was normalized to body mass and speed, resulting in energy cost per meter walked (CW). Results. A main effect for speed was observed (P = .00001), with faster than self-selected speeds showing greater relative economy as a whole. However, for 5 subjects with the fastest walking speeds (> 1.2 m/s), there was a trend toward decreasing relative economy at speeds higher than self-selected speed (P = .18). There was a negative correlation between improvement in CW at the most economical speed and (a) Free speed (r = -.857; P < .0001) and (b) lower extremity Fugl-Meyer scores (r = -.653; P = .006). Conclusions. For those poststroke whose fastest walking speed after stroke is below 1.2 m/s, walking economy improves when speed is increased above the self-selected walking speed. The results suggest that for persons poststroke with very slow self-selected walking speeds, improvements in walking speed could be accompanied by improvements in walking economy if faster walking speeds can be attained through intervention.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available