Cargando…

Contextual interference in children with brain lesions: a pilot study investigating blocked vs. random practice order of an upper limb robotic exergame

INTRODUCTION: Evidence about contextual interference in children with brain lesions when practising motor tasks is lacking. Our main objective was to evaluate the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing blocked with random practice order of an upper limb robotic exergame to impr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Graser, Judith V., Bastiaenen, Caroline H. G., Gut, Anja, Keller, Urs, van Hedel, Hubertus J. A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8228977/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34172085
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40814-021-00866-4
_version_ 1783712868755046400
author Graser, Judith V.
Bastiaenen, Caroline H. G.
Gut, Anja
Keller, Urs
van Hedel, Hubertus J. A.
author_facet Graser, Judith V.
Bastiaenen, Caroline H. G.
Gut, Anja
Keller, Urs
van Hedel, Hubertus J. A.
author_sort Graser, Judith V.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Evidence about contextual interference in children with brain lesions when practising motor tasks is lacking. Our main objective was to evaluate the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing blocked with random practice order of an upper limb robotic exergame to improve reaching in children with neuromotor disorders with a pilot trial. METHODS: We recruited children with brain lesions and impaired upper limb functions who underwent a 3-week schedule that consisted of baseline assessments, intervention period (participants were randomised to a blocked or random order group), and follow-up assessment. We evaluated ten feasibility criteria, including the practicability of the inclusion/exclusion criteria, recruitment rate, feasibility of randomisation, scheduling procedure, and the participants’ programme adherence. RESULTS: The inclusion/exclusion criteria were not completely feasible as patients who were not able to perform the exergames were included. Twelve participants were recruited, and six datasets were used for analysis. The scheduling and randomisation procedures were generally feasible, but the procedure was only partially feasible for the participants, as some sessions were aborted due to lack of motivation and fatigue. CONCLUSION: An RCT following this study protocol is not feasible. We formulated suggestions for future studies that aim to investigate contextual interference as in this pilot study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02443857, registered on May 14, 2015 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-021-00866-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8228977
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82289772021-06-28 Contextual interference in children with brain lesions: a pilot study investigating blocked vs. random practice order of an upper limb robotic exergame Graser, Judith V. Bastiaenen, Caroline H. G. Gut, Anja Keller, Urs van Hedel, Hubertus J. A. Pilot Feasibility Stud Research INTRODUCTION: Evidence about contextual interference in children with brain lesions when practising motor tasks is lacking. Our main objective was to evaluate the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing blocked with random practice order of an upper limb robotic exergame to improve reaching in children with neuromotor disorders with a pilot trial. METHODS: We recruited children with brain lesions and impaired upper limb functions who underwent a 3-week schedule that consisted of baseline assessments, intervention period (participants were randomised to a blocked or random order group), and follow-up assessment. We evaluated ten feasibility criteria, including the practicability of the inclusion/exclusion criteria, recruitment rate, feasibility of randomisation, scheduling procedure, and the participants’ programme adherence. RESULTS: The inclusion/exclusion criteria were not completely feasible as patients who were not able to perform the exergames were included. Twelve participants were recruited, and six datasets were used for analysis. The scheduling and randomisation procedures were generally feasible, but the procedure was only partially feasible for the participants, as some sessions were aborted due to lack of motivation and fatigue. CONCLUSION: An RCT following this study protocol is not feasible. We formulated suggestions for future studies that aim to investigate contextual interference as in this pilot study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02443857, registered on May 14, 2015 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-021-00866-4. BioMed Central 2021-06-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8228977/ /pubmed/34172085 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40814-021-00866-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Graser, Judith V.
Bastiaenen, Caroline H. G.
Gut, Anja
Keller, Urs
van Hedel, Hubertus J. A.
Contextual interference in children with brain lesions: a pilot study investigating blocked vs. random practice order of an upper limb robotic exergame
title Contextual interference in children with brain lesions: a pilot study investigating blocked vs. random practice order of an upper limb robotic exergame
title_full Contextual interference in children with brain lesions: a pilot study investigating blocked vs. random practice order of an upper limb robotic exergame
title_fullStr Contextual interference in children with brain lesions: a pilot study investigating blocked vs. random practice order of an upper limb robotic exergame
title_full_unstemmed Contextual interference in children with brain lesions: a pilot study investigating blocked vs. random practice order of an upper limb robotic exergame
title_short Contextual interference in children with brain lesions: a pilot study investigating blocked vs. random practice order of an upper limb robotic exergame
title_sort contextual interference in children with brain lesions: a pilot study investigating blocked vs. random practice order of an upper limb robotic exergame
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8228977/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34172085
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40814-021-00866-4
work_keys_str_mv AT graserjudithv contextualinterferenceinchildrenwithbrainlesionsapilotstudyinvestigatingblockedvsrandompracticeorderofanupperlimbroboticexergame
AT bastiaenencarolinehg contextualinterferenceinchildrenwithbrainlesionsapilotstudyinvestigatingblockedvsrandompracticeorderofanupperlimbroboticexergame
AT gutanja contextualinterferenceinchildrenwithbrainlesionsapilotstudyinvestigatingblockedvsrandompracticeorderofanupperlimbroboticexergame
AT kellerurs contextualinterferenceinchildrenwithbrainlesionsapilotstudyinvestigatingblockedvsrandompracticeorderofanupperlimbroboticexergame
AT vanhedelhubertusja contextualinterferenceinchildrenwithbrainlesionsapilotstudyinvestigatingblockedvsrandompracticeorderofanupperlimbroboticexergame