Practice Structure on Motor Learning in Post-Stroke Patients

January 29, 2008 updated by: University of Sao Paulo

The Effects of Practice Structure on Motor Learning in Post-Stroke Patients

Background: The literature indicates that, in relation to motor learning, healthy subjects benefit more from random practice than from constant practice. However, this effect is not well known in post-stroke patients. Objective: The goal of this study was to investigate the effects of practice structure on motor learning in post-stroke patients. Methods: Participants included an experimental group (EG) of post-stroke patients: 17 males and females; and a control group (CG) of healthy individuals: 17 males and females. At the acquisition phase, all participants performed 30 trials of a coincident timing task. Nine individuals from each group practiced constantly (C) at a stimulus propagation speed of 3 mph, and eight from each group practiced randomly (R) at speeds of 2, 3, and 5 mph. Subsequent phases included: 1) transfer, 2) retention after 15 minutes, and 3) retention after 3 days. Each of these phases included 20 trials: 10 at a speed of 1 mph, and 10 at a speed of 4 mph. Intra- and inter-group comparisons were made employing an alpha level of 0.05 (5%).

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Utilized was Bassin's anticipation timer (Lafayette Instruments #50575), which is comprised of a control screen, one 1.52 m gutter with 32 diodes placed on it linearly, and a response button. The screen has a digital display, with commands that permit the operator to control the stimulus propagation speed and the preparatory interval speed. Once activated, the screen exhibits an alert signal, and, after the preparatory interval, it initiates the propagation of a luminous stimulus, lighting the 32 diodes successively. The task required participants to press the response button simultaneously with the illumination of the last diode. The digital display showed the error measure (em): that is, the difference between the illumination of the last diode and the response.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

34

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Brazil
    • SP
      • São Paulo, SP, Brazil, 02415000
        • Camila Torriani

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

40 years to 62 years (ADULT)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. First cerebrovascular accident
  2. Lesion covering the middle and the anterior cerebral artery territories
  3. Presence of hemiplegia or hemiparesis
  4. Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score above 24 (19)
  5. Sufficient attention and comprehension to perform the task
  6. Absence of other associated neurological diseases.

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Acute medical problems
  2. Uncorrected vision loss
  3. Previous history of psychiatric admission
  4. History of multiple strokes, transient ischemic attacks
  5. Pathology of the less affected, ipsilateral to stroke upper extremity that would affect ability to perform the task
  6. Score of 23 or less on the MMSE
  7. Difficulty in comprehension of verbal command and simple instructions
  8. Aphasia of comprehension.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: TREATMENT
  • Allocation: NA
  • Interventional Model: SINGLE_GROUP
  • Masking: NONE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
OTHER: 1, 2
Other: Structure practice
there were 2 groups which received random practice and constant practice during acquisition phase
Other Names:
  • experimental group (EG)
  • control group (CG)

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Time Frame
change in performance during the acquisition; performance exhibited during the transfer phase was maintained during retention phases 1 and 2; and differences between the groups during the transfer phase and retention phases
Time Frame: time in miliseconds
time in miliseconds

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

University of Sao Paulo

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Camila Torriani, University of Sao Paulo
  • Study Chair: Camila Torriani, University of Sao Paulo

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

August 1, 2006

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

July 1, 2007

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

July 1, 2007

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

January 17, 2008

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 29, 2008

First Posted (ESTIMATE)

January 30, 2008

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ESTIMATE)

January 30, 2008

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 29, 2008

Last Verified

January 1, 2008

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 0038.0.254.000-05

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Subscribe