Attentional focus of feedback for improving performance of reach-to-grasp after stroke: A randomised crossover study

Physiotherapy (United Kingdom)

Volumn 100, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 108-115

  Durham, K F ^a   Sackley, C M ^a,c   Wright, C C ^a   Wing, A M ^a   Edwards, M G ^a   Van Vliet, P ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Feedback; Rehabilitation; Stroke; Upper extremity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARM MOVEMENT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; EXTERNAL FOCUS OF ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERNAL FOCUS OF ATTENTION; KINEMATICS; MALE; MOTOR DYSFUNCTION; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; MOVEMENT DURATION; MUSCLE TRAINING; MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PEAK ELBOW EXTENSION; PEAK VELOCITY OF THE WRIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REACH TO GRASP MOVEMENT; SIZE OF PEAK APERTURE; UPPER LIMB IMPAIRMENT; AGED; ARM; BIOMECHANICS; CONVALESCENCE; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HAND STRENGTH; MIDDLE AGED; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); PHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOTHERAPY; STROKE;

AGED; BIOMECHANICAL PHENOMENA; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; HAND STRENGTH; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOVEMENT; PHYSICAL THERAPY MODALITIES; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; STROKE; UPPER EXTREMITY;

EID: 84899993126     PISSN: 00319406     EISSN: 18731465     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2013.03.004     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Schmidt R.A., Lee D.T. Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis 2011, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL. 4th ed.
2. Sidaway B., August R., York R., Mitchell A. Effects of varying the frequency of intrinsic and extrinsic feedback on motor skill learning. J Hum Movement Stud 2005, 48:195-210.
3. Durham K.F., van Vliet P., Sackley C.M., Badger F. Use of information feedback and attentional focus of feedback in treatment for the hemiplegic arm. Physiother Res Int 2009, 14:77-90.
4. Shea C.H., Wulf G. Enhancing motor learning through external-focus instructions and feedback. Hum Movement Sci 1999, 18:553-571.
5. Wulf G., McConnel N. Enhancing the learning of sport skills through external-focus feedback. J Mot Behav 2002, 34:171-182.
6. vanVliet P.M., Wulf G. Extrinsic feedback for motor learning after stroke: what is the evidence?. Dis Rehabil 2006, 28:831-840.
7. Fasoli S.E., Trombly C.A., Ticle-Degned L., Verfaellie M.H. Effect of instructions on functional reach in persons with and without cerebrovascular accident. Am J Occup Ther 2002, 56:380-390.
8. Landers M., Wulf G., Wallmann H., Guadagnoli M. An external focus of attention attenuates balance impairment in patients with Parkinson's disease who have a fall history. Physiotherapy 2005, 91:152-158.
9. McNevin N.H., Shea C.H., Wulf G. Increasing the distance of an external focus of attention enhances learning. Psychol Res 2003, 67:22-29.
10. Wulf G., McNevin N.H., Shea C.H. The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus. Quart J Exp Psychol 2001, 54:1143-1154.
11. Beilock S.L., Carr T.H., MacMahon C., Starkes J.L. When paying attention becomes counterproductive: impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced performance of sensorimotor skills. J Exp Psychol Appl 2002, 8:6-16.
12. Gray R. Attending to the execution of a complex sensorimotor skill: expertise differences, choking, and slumps. J Exp Psychol Appl 2004, 10:42-54.
13. Poolton J.M., Maxwell J.P., Masters R.S.W., Raab M. Benefits of an external focus of attention: common coding or conscious processing?. J Sports Sci 2006, 24:89-99.
14. Maxwell J.P., Masters R.S.W. External versus internal focus instructions: is the learner paying attention?. Int J Appl Sports Sci 2002, 14:70-88.
15. Masters R. Knowledge, knerves and know-how: the role of explicit versus implicit knowledge in the breakdown of a complex motor skill under pressure. Br J Psychol 1992, 83:343-358.
16. Wagner J., Lang C., Sahrmann S.E.D., Dromerick A. Sensorimotor impairments and reaching performance in subjects with poststroke hemiparesis during the first few months of recovery. Phys Ther 2007, 87:751-765.
17. Mirbagheri M., Rymer W.Z. Time-course of changes in arm impairment after stroke: variables predicting motor recovery over 12 months. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008, 89:1507-1513.
18. Cirstea M.C., Levin M.F. Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain 2000, 123:940-953.
19. Michaelsen S.M., Dannenbaum R., Levin M.F. Task-specific training with trunk restraint on arm recovery in stroke. Randomized control trial. Stroke 2006, 37:186-192.
20. Fugl-Meyer A.R., 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, 7:13-31.
21. Stolk-Hornsveld F., Crow J.L., Hendriks E.P., van der Baan R., Harmeling van der Wel B.C. The Erasmus MC modifications to the (revised) Nottingham Sensory Assessment: a reliable somatosensory assessment measure for patients with intracranial disorders. Clin Rehabil 2006, 20:160-172.
22. Syder D., Body R., Parker M., Body M. Sheffield screening test for acquired language disorders 1993, NFER Nelson, Windsor.
23. van Vliet P., Kerwin D.G., Sheridan M.R., Fentem P.H. The influence of functional goals on the kinematics of reaching following stroke. Neurol Rep 1995, 19:11-16.
24. vanVliet P.M., Sheridan M.R. Coordination between reaching and grasping in patients with hemiparesis and normal subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007, 88:1325-1331.
25. Mark L.S., Nemeth K., Gardner D., Dainoff M.J., Paasche J., Duffy M., et al. Postural dynamics and the preferred critical boundary for visually guided reaching. J Exp Psychol 1997, 23:1365-1379.
26. Haggard P., Wing A.M. Assessing and reporting the accuracy of position measurements made with optical tracking systems. J Mot Behav 1990, 22:315-321.
27. Wu G., van der Helm F.C.T., Veeger H.E.J., Makhsous M., Roy P.V., Anglin C., et al. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion - Part II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J Biomech 2005, 38:981-992.
28. van Andel C.J., Wolterbeek N., Doorenbosch C.A.M., Veeger D., Harlaar J. Complete 3D kinematics of upper extremity functional tasks. Gait Posture 2008, 27:120-127.
29. Nowak D.A. The impact of stroke on the performance of grasping: usefulness of kinetic and kinematic motion analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2008, 32:1439-1450.
30. Archambault P., Pigeon P., Feldman A.G., Levin M.F. Recruitment and sequencing of different degrees of freedom during pointing movements involving the trunk in healthy and hemiparetic subjects. Exp Brain Res 1999, 126:55-67.
31. Kamper D.G., McKenna-Cole A.N., Kahn L.E., Reinkensmeyer D.J. Alterations in reaching after stroke and their relation to movement direction and impairment severity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002, 83:702-707.
32. Wu C., Lin K., Chen H., Chen I.H., Hong W.H. Effects of modified constraint-induced movement therapy on movement kinematics and daily function in patients with stroke: a kinematic study of motor control mechanisms. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007, 21:460-466.
33. Boyd L., Winstein C.J. Implicit motor-sequence learning in unilateral stroke: impact of practice and explicit knowledge. Neurosci Lett 2001, 298:65-69.
34. Perkins-Ceccato N., Passmore S.R., Lee T.D. Effects of focus of attention depend on golfer's skill. J Sports Sci 2003, 21:593-600.
35. Castaneda B., Gray R. Effects of focus of attention on baseball batting performance in players of differing skill levels. J Sports Exerc Psychol 2007, 29:60-77.
36. Ford P., Hodges N., Williams A. Online attentional-focus manipulations in a soccer-dribbling task: implications for proceduralization of motor skills. J Mot Behav 2005, 37:386-394.