Cargando…

Is Implicit Motor Learning Preserved after Stroke? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Many stroke patients experience difficulty with performing dual-tasks. A promising intervention to target this issue is implicit motor learning, as it should enhance patients’ automaticity of movement. Yet, although it is often thought that implicit motor learning is preserved post-stroke, evidence...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kal, E., Winters, M., van der Kamp, J., Houdijk, H., Groet, E., van Bennekom, C., Scherder, E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5161313/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27992442
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166376
_version_ 1782482058781655040
author Kal, E.
Winters, M.
van der Kamp, J.
Houdijk, H.
Groet, E.
van Bennekom, C.
Scherder, E.
author_facet Kal, E.
Winters, M.
van der Kamp, J.
Houdijk, H.
Groet, E.
van Bennekom, C.
Scherder, E.
author_sort Kal, E.
collection PubMed
description Many stroke patients experience difficulty with performing dual-tasks. A promising intervention to target this issue is implicit motor learning, as it should enhance patients’ automaticity of movement. Yet, although it is often thought that implicit motor learning is preserved post-stroke, evidence for this claim has not been systematically analysed yet. Therefore, we systematically reviewed whether implicit motor learning is preserved post-stroke, and whether patients benefit more from implicit than from explicit motor learning. We comprehensively searched conventional (MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, PEDro, PsycINFO) and grey literature databases (BIOSIS, Web of Science, OpenGrey, British Library, trial registries) for relevant reports. Two independent reviewers screened reports, extracted data, and performed a risk of bias assessment. Overall, we included 20 out of the 2177 identified reports that allow for a succinct evaluation of implicit motor learning. Of these, only 1 study investigated learning on a relatively complex, whole-body (balance board) task. All 19 other studies concerned variants of the serial-reaction time paradigm, with most of these focusing on learning with the unaffected hand (N = 13) rather than the affected hand or both hands (both: N = 4). Four of the 20 studies compared explicit and implicit motor learning post-stroke. Meta-analyses suggest that patients with stroke can learn implicitly with their unaffected side (mean difference (MD) = 69 ms, 95% CI[45.1, 92.9], p < .00001), but not with their affected side (standardized MD = -.11, 95% CI[-.45, .25], p = .56). Finally, implicit motor learning seemed equally effective as explicit motor learning post-stroke (SMD = -.54, 95% CI[-1.37, .29], p = .20). However, overall, the high risk of bias, small samples, and limited clinical relevance of most studies make it impossible to draw reliable conclusions regarding the effect of implicit motor learning strategies post-stroke. High quality studies with larger samples are warranted to test implicit motor learning in clinically relevant contexts.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5161313
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51613132017-01-04 Is Implicit Motor Learning Preserved after Stroke? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis Kal, E. Winters, M. van der Kamp, J. Houdijk, H. Groet, E. van Bennekom, C. Scherder, E. PLoS One Research Article Many stroke patients experience difficulty with performing dual-tasks. A promising intervention to target this issue is implicit motor learning, as it should enhance patients’ automaticity of movement. Yet, although it is often thought that implicit motor learning is preserved post-stroke, evidence for this claim has not been systematically analysed yet. Therefore, we systematically reviewed whether implicit motor learning is preserved post-stroke, and whether patients benefit more from implicit than from explicit motor learning. We comprehensively searched conventional (MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, PEDro, PsycINFO) and grey literature databases (BIOSIS, Web of Science, OpenGrey, British Library, trial registries) for relevant reports. Two independent reviewers screened reports, extracted data, and performed a risk of bias assessment. Overall, we included 20 out of the 2177 identified reports that allow for a succinct evaluation of implicit motor learning. Of these, only 1 study investigated learning on a relatively complex, whole-body (balance board) task. All 19 other studies concerned variants of the serial-reaction time paradigm, with most of these focusing on learning with the unaffected hand (N = 13) rather than the affected hand or both hands (both: N = 4). Four of the 20 studies compared explicit and implicit motor learning post-stroke. Meta-analyses suggest that patients with stroke can learn implicitly with their unaffected side (mean difference (MD) = 69 ms, 95% CI[45.1, 92.9], p < .00001), but not with their affected side (standardized MD = -.11, 95% CI[-.45, .25], p = .56). Finally, implicit motor learning seemed equally effective as explicit motor learning post-stroke (SMD = -.54, 95% CI[-1.37, .29], p = .20). However, overall, the high risk of bias, small samples, and limited clinical relevance of most studies make it impossible to draw reliable conclusions regarding the effect of implicit motor learning strategies post-stroke. High quality studies with larger samples are warranted to test implicit motor learning in clinically relevant contexts. Public Library of Science 2016-12-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5161313/ /pubmed/27992442 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166376 Text en © 2016 Kal et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Kal, E.
Winters, M.
van der Kamp, J.
Houdijk, H.
Groet, E.
van Bennekom, C.
Scherder, E.
Is Implicit Motor Learning Preserved after Stroke? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
title Is Implicit Motor Learning Preserved after Stroke? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
title_full Is Implicit Motor Learning Preserved after Stroke? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Is Implicit Motor Learning Preserved after Stroke? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Is Implicit Motor Learning Preserved after Stroke? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
title_short Is Implicit Motor Learning Preserved after Stroke? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
title_sort is implicit motor learning preserved after stroke? a systematic review with meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5161313/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27992442
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166376
work_keys_str_mv AT kale isimplicitmotorlearningpreservedafterstrokeasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis
AT wintersm isimplicitmotorlearningpreservedafterstrokeasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis
AT vanderkampj isimplicitmotorlearningpreservedafterstrokeasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis
AT houdijkh isimplicitmotorlearningpreservedafterstrokeasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis
AT groete isimplicitmotorlearningpreservedafterstrokeasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis
AT vanbennekomc isimplicitmotorlearningpreservedafterstrokeasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis
AT scherdere isimplicitmotorlearningpreservedafterstrokeasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis