4.2 Article

Depressive symptoms influence use of feedback for motor learning and recovery in chronic stroke

期刊

RESTORATIVE NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 727-740

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/RNN-150508

关键词

Rehabilitation; kinematics; upper limb; mood; knowledge of performance; knowledge of results; cerebrovascular accident

资金

  1. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (HSFC)
  2. Physiotherapy Foundation of Canada
  3. Focus on Stroke Doctoral Research award (CIHR, HSFC, Canadian Stroke Network)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Sensorimotor impairments and depressive symptoms (PSD) influence arm motor recovery post-stroke. Feedback provision improves upper limb motor learning in patients with chronic stroke but factors including PSD may affect ability to use feedback. We evaluated the influence of PSD on the ability to use auditory feedback for upper limb recovery and motor learning in patients with chronic stroke. Methods: Participants (n = 24) practiced 72 pointing movements/session (6 targets, 12 sessions, randomized) with auditory feedback on movement speed and trunk displacement. The presence of PSD (Beck's Depression Inventory; BDI-II) was assessed at pre-intervention (PRE). Arm motor impairment (Fugl-Meyer Assessment, shoulder horizontal adduction, shoulder flexion, elbow extension ranges, trunk displacement) and arm use (Motor Activity Log) were assessed at PRE, immediately after (POST) and retention (3mos; RET). Participants were divided into two groups based on BDI-II scores: >= 14/63 (DEP group; n = 8; score: 20.5+/-7.5) and <= 13/63 (no PSD (ND) group; n = 16; score: 5.0+/-3.8). Changes in impairment and arm use levels were assessed (mixed-model ANOVAs). Results: All participants improved arm use. DEP had lower Fugl-Meyer scores, used more compensatory trunk displacement and had lower shoulder horizontal adduction range compared to ND. Conclusion: The presence of PSD diminished the ability to use auditory feedback for arm motor recovery and motor learning.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据