Does Task-Specific Training Improve Upper Limb Performance in Daily Life Poststroke?

Abstract

Background: A common assumption is that changes in upper limb (UL) capacity, or what an individual is capable of doing, translates to improved UL performance in daily life, or what an individual actually does. This assumption should be explicitly tested for individuals with UL paresis poststroke.

Objective: To examine changes in UL performance after an intensive, individualized, progressive, task-specific UL intervention for individuals at least 6 months poststroke.

Methods: Secondary analysis on 78 individuals with UL paresis who participated in a phase II, single-blind, randomized parallel dose-response trial. Participants were enrolled in a task-specific intervention for 8 weeks. Participants were randomized into 1 of 4 treatment groups with each group completing different amounts of UL movement practice. UL performance was assessed with bilateral, wrist-worn accelerometers once a week for 24 hours throughout the duration of the study. The 6 accelerometer variables were tested for change and the influence of potential modifiers using hierarchical linear modeling.

Results: No changes in UL performance were found on any of the 6 accelerometer variables used to quantify UL performance. Neither changes in UL capacity nor the overall amount of movement practice influenced changes in UL performance. Stroke chronicity, baseline UL capacity, concordance, and ADL status significantly increased the baseline starting points but did not influence the rate of change (slopes) for participants.

Conclusions: Improved motor capacity resulting from an intensive outpatient UL intervention does not appear to translate to increased UL performance outside the clinic.

Keywords: accelerometry; stroke; task-specific training; upper limb.

Figures

Figure 1

UL performance over time for all six accelerometer variables by dose group. Values are group means ± SE for each assessment. Week 1 corresponds to the baseline assessment, and subsequent weeks correspond to the weekly assessment out to the immediate post-intervention assessment and follow-up assessment. Participants in the individualized maximum (IM) group were allowed to continue beyond the 8-week enrollment period until specific stopping criteria were met, observed here by the presence of additional data points.

Figure 2

Density plots showing second-by-second data from three representative participants. Time points are from baseline (top), week four (middle), and post-intervention assessments (bottom). The y-axis (Bilateral magnitude) represents the intensity of movement, with higher values indicating larger, more intense movements. The x-axis (Magnitude ratio) represents the contribution of each limb to an activity, with 0 indicating equal UL contribution, negative values indicate more non-paretic UL movement and positive values indicate more paretic limb movement. The color scale shows overall frequency of UL movement, with warmer colors indicating more UL movement. The small bars on each side of the plot indicate non-paretic (negative) and paretic (positive) unilateral movement. Overall, participants had a moderate level of UL paresis at baseline (participant 1 = 38 points; participant 2 = 35 points, and participant 3 = 36 points). Participants 1 and 2 demonstrated 10-point and 18-point changes in ARAT score, respectively. Participant 3 increased 3 points on the ARAT. Regardless of UL capacity changes, there was no evidence of sustained changes in performance.