4.6 Article

Stepping to the Beat: Feasibility and Potential Efficacy of a Home-Based Auditory-Cued Step Training Program in Chronic Stroke

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2017.00412

关键词

locomotor training; hemiparesis; gait asymmetry; gait rehabilitation; stroke; auditory cueing

资金

  1. Stroke Association, UK [TSA2009/06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hemiparesis after stroke typically results in a reduced walking speed, an asymmetrical gait pattern and a reduced ability to make gait adjustments. The purpose of this pilot study was to investigate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of home-based training involving auditory cueing of stepping in place. Methods: Twelve community-dwelling participants with chronic hemiparesis completed two 3-week blocks of home-based stepping to music overlaid with an auditory metronome. Tempo of the metronome was increased 5% each week. One 3-week block used a regular metronome, whereas the other 3-week block had phase shift perturbations randomly inserted to cue stepping adjustments. Results: All participants reported that they enjoyed training, with 75% completing all training blocks. No adverse events were reported. Walking speed, Timed Up and Go (TUG) time and Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) scores (median [inter-quartile range]) significantly improved between baseline (speed = 0.61 [0.32, 0.85] m.s(-1); TUG = 20.0 [16.0, 39.9] s; DGI = 14.5 [11.3, 15.8]) and post stepping training (speed = 0.76 [0.39, 1.03] m.s(-1); TUG = 16.3 [13.3, 35.1] s; DGI = 16.0 [14.0, 19.0]) and was maintained at follow-up (speed = 0.75 [0.41, 1.03] m.s(-1); TUG = 16.5 [12.9, 34.1] s; DGI = 16.5 [13.5, 19.8]). Conclusion: This pilot study suggests that auditory-cued stepping conducted at home was feasible and well-tolerated by participants post-stroke, with improvements in walking and functional mobility. No differences were detected between regular and phase-shift training with the metronome at each assessment point.

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

4.6
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