3.8 Article

The relationship between motor recovery and gait velocity during dual tasks in patients with chronic stroke

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL THERAPY SCIENCE
Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 1173-1176

Publisher

SOC PHYSICAL THERAPY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1589/jpts.27.1173

Keywords

Chronic stroke; Dual task walking; Gait automaticity

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

[Purpose] The aims of this study were to identify the relationship between motor recovery and gait velocity during dual tasks in patients with chronic stroke and determine automatic gait ability following stroke. [Subjects and Methods] Thirty-three outpatients and twelve healthy subjects participated in a cross-sectional assessment. Community ambulation was assessed using a self-administered questionnaire. Outcome measures included the Motricity index, Berg Balance Scale, and gait speed under three conditions ( self-paced ambulation for 10 m, ambulation while performing dual cognitive tasks, and ambulation while performing dual manual tasks). Gait automaticity was calculated. [Results] No significant differences were observed for muscle strength or balance between the limited community ambulation and the community ambulation groups. However, a significant difference in gait velocity was observed between the groups under the three conditions. In particular, a significant difference was detected only in the limited community ambulation group depending on the level of motor function recovery during cognitive and manual dual task ambulation. Additionally, we revealed that the community ambulation group had a lower level of gait automaticity compared with that in the normal group. [Conclusion] Our results show the influence of motor recovery on the change in gait velocity depending on the task if a patient is limitedly ambulatory. We revealed that community ambulators did not have a sufficient level of gait automaticity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available