Augmenting propulsion demands during split-belt walking increases locomotor adaptation of asymmetric step lengths.
Hemiparesis
Motor learning
Stroke
Journal
Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1743-0003
Titre abrégé: J Neuroeng Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101232233
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 06 2020
03 06 2020
Historique:
received:
09
09
2019
accepted:
21
05
2020
entrez:
5
6
2020
pubmed:
5
6
2020
medline:
21
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Promising studies have shown that the gait symmetry of individuals with hemiparesis due to brain lesions, such as stroke, can improve through motor adaptation protocols forcing patients to use their affected limb more. However, little is known about how to facilitate this process. Here we asked if increasing propulsion demands during split-belt walking (i.e., legs moving at different speeds) leads to more motor adaptation and more symmetric gait in survivors of a stroke, as we previously observed in subjects without neurological disorders. We investigated the effect of propulsion forces on locomotor adaptation during and after split-belt walking in the asymmetric motor system post-stroke. To test this, 12 subjects in the chronic phase post-stroke experienced a split-belt protocol in a flat and incline session so as to contrast the effects of two different propulsion demands. Step length asymmetry and propulsion forces were used to compare the motor behavior between the two sessions because these are clinically relevant measures that are altered by split-belt walking. The incline session resulted in more symmetric step lengths during late split-belt walking and larger after-effects following split-belt walking. In both testing sessions, subjects who have had a stroke adapted to regain speed and slope-specific leg orientations similarly to young, intact adults. Importantly, leg orientations, which were set by kinetic demands, during baseline walking were predictive of those achieved during split-belt walking, which in turn predicted each individual's post-adaptation behavior. These results are relevant because they provide evidence that survivors of a stroke can generate the leg-specific forces to walk more symmetrically, but also because we provide insight into factors underlying the therapeutic effect of split-belt walking. Individuals post-stroke at a chronic stage can adapt more during split-belt walking and have greater after-effects when propulsion demands are augmented by inclining the treadmill surface. Our results are promising since they suggest that increasing propulsion demands during paradigms that force patients to use their paretic side more could correct gait asymmetries post-stroke more effectively.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Promising studies have shown that the gait symmetry of individuals with hemiparesis due to brain lesions, such as stroke, can improve through motor adaptation protocols forcing patients to use their affected limb more. However, little is known about how to facilitate this process. Here we asked if increasing propulsion demands during split-belt walking (i.e., legs moving at different speeds) leads to more motor adaptation and more symmetric gait in survivors of a stroke, as we previously observed in subjects without neurological disorders.
METHODS
We investigated the effect of propulsion forces on locomotor adaptation during and after split-belt walking in the asymmetric motor system post-stroke. To test this, 12 subjects in the chronic phase post-stroke experienced a split-belt protocol in a flat and incline session so as to contrast the effects of two different propulsion demands. Step length asymmetry and propulsion forces were used to compare the motor behavior between the two sessions because these are clinically relevant measures that are altered by split-belt walking.
RESULTS
The incline session resulted in more symmetric step lengths during late split-belt walking and larger after-effects following split-belt walking. In both testing sessions, subjects who have had a stroke adapted to regain speed and slope-specific leg orientations similarly to young, intact adults. Importantly, leg orientations, which were set by kinetic demands, during baseline walking were predictive of those achieved during split-belt walking, which in turn predicted each individual's post-adaptation behavior. These results are relevant because they provide evidence that survivors of a stroke can generate the leg-specific forces to walk more symmetrically, but also because we provide insight into factors underlying the therapeutic effect of split-belt walking.
CONCLUSIONS
Individuals post-stroke at a chronic stage can adapt more during split-belt walking and have greater after-effects when propulsion demands are augmented by inclining the treadmill surface. Our results are promising since they suggest that increasing propulsion demands during paradigms that force patients to use their paretic side more could correct gait asymmetries post-stroke more effectively.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32493440
doi: 10.1186/s12984-020-00698-y
pii: 10.1186/s12984-020-00698-y
pmc: PMC7268294
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
69Subventions
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : P30 AG024827
Pays : United States
Références
Front Aging Neurosci. 2017 Mar 06;9:40
pubmed: 28321188
Cereb Cortex. 2020 Jan 10;30(1):101-112
pubmed: 31041988
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Jan;88(1):43-9
pubmed: 17207674
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Apr 18;12:40
pubmed: 25898145
Exp Brain Res. 2006 Aug;173(1):185-92
pubmed: 16821052
J Biomech. 2006;39(13):2491-502
pubmed: 16169000
Gait Posture. 2016 Feb;44:259-64
pubmed: 27004668
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 25;13(4):e0194875
pubmed: 29694404
Stroke. 2006 Mar;37(3):872-6
pubmed: 16456121
J Neurophysiol. 2013 Apr;109(8):2216-27
pubmed: 23365187
J Rehabil Med. 2016 Jul 18;48(7):576-82
pubmed: 27345026
Brain. 2011 Mar;134(Pt 3):721-31
pubmed: 21303854
J Neurophysiol. 2014 Jun 15;111(12):2414-22
pubmed: 24647433
Lancet Neurol. 2015 Feb;14(2):224-34
pubmed: 25772900
Curr Opin Neurol. 2008 Dec;21(6):628-33
pubmed: 18989103
Brain. 2007 Jul;130(Pt 7):1861-72
pubmed: 17405765
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995 Jan;76(1):27-32
pubmed: 7811170
J Neurosci. 2010 Dec 15;30(50):17015-22
pubmed: 21159971
J Neurophysiol. 2018 Oct 1;120(4):2130-2137
pubmed: 30183471
Ann Clin Res. 1971 Dec;3(6):404-32
pubmed: 4945367
Clin Rehabil. 2018 Feb;32(2):161-172
pubmed: 28750549
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2015 Nov;30(9):946-52
pubmed: 26209904
Sci Rep. 2018 Jan 8;8(1):94
pubmed: 29311681
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 Sep;25(7):588-96
pubmed: 21515871
J Biomech. 2012 Nov 15;45(16):2817-21
pubmed: 22985473
Bone. 2000 Nov;27(5):701-7
pubmed: 11062359
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 26;12(10):e0186963
pubmed: 29073208
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2005 Sep;19(3):250-8
pubmed: 16093416
Physiother Theory Pract. 2018 Feb;34(2):81-90
pubmed: 28901824
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2018 Aug 1;125(2):642-653
pubmed: 29698109
Physiother Theory Pract. 2018 Oct 25;:1-11
pubmed: 30358510
Cerebellum. 2018 Apr;17(2):111-121
pubmed: 28840476
Appl Ergon. 2002 Sep;33(5):485-91
pubmed: 12236658
Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Jan;117(1):4-15
pubmed: 16337186
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016 Jan 15;13:2
pubmed: 26767921
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2020 Jan;44(1):42-48
pubmed: 31834220
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Sep;23(7):735-44
pubmed: 19307434
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 May;95(5):840-8
pubmed: 24378803
Curr Biol. 2015 Sep 21;25(18):2452-6
pubmed: 26365256
J Neurosci. 2006 Sep 6;26(36):9107-16
pubmed: 16957067
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2017 Feb;32:93-100
pubmed: 28086163
J Biomech. 2016 Dec 8;49(16):4107-4112
pubmed: 27756571
J Neurophysiol. 2015 Jun 1;113(10):3905-14
pubmed: 25867742
eNeuro. 2019 May 1;6(2):
pubmed: 31043463
Front Physiol. 2019 Feb 08;10:60
pubmed: 30800072
J Neurophysiol. 2014 Feb;111(4):722-32
pubmed: 24225544
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014 Mar-Apr;28(3):230-40
pubmed: 24243917
Brain. 2009 Mar;132(Pt 3):722-33
pubmed: 19074191
J Biomech. 2007;40(6):1276-85
pubmed: 16872616
Gait Posture. 2011 Feb;33(2):309-13
pubmed: 21183351
J Rehabil Med. 2014 Oct;46(9):849-57
pubmed: 25074249
J Exp Biol. 2018 Jul 6;221(Pt 13):
pubmed: 29773683
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Feb;89(2):304-10
pubmed: 18226655
J Neurophysiol. 2018 Jun 1;119(6):2100-2113
pubmed: 29537915
J Neurophysiol. 2012 Jan;107(1):346-56
pubmed: 21957223
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013 Jun;27(5):460-8
pubmed: 23392918
Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2016 Feb;128:1-6
pubmed: 26589520
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015 Sep;29(8):786-95
pubmed: 25589580
Gait Posture. 2002 Feb;15(1):64-74
pubmed: 11809582
J Neurophysiol. 2014 Jul 15;112(2):480-9
pubmed: 24790172
J Physiol. 2013 Feb 15;591(4):1081-95
pubmed: 23247109
Exp Brain Res. 1994;102(2):339-49
pubmed: 7705511
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1988;515:18-32
pubmed: 3364884
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2000;14(1):65-71
pubmed: 11228951
J Neurophysiol. 2016 May 1;115(5):2341-8
pubmed: 26912598
J Physiol. 2019 Aug;597(15):4053-4068
pubmed: 31192458
Gait Posture. 2019 Feb;68:6-14
pubmed: 30408710
Clin Rehabil. 2013 Oct;27(10):932-8
pubmed: 23798746
J Biomech. 2006;39(9):1621-8
pubmed: 15990102
J Neurophysiol. 2014 Mar;111(5):969-76
pubmed: 24335220
J Neurophysiol. 2005 Oct;94(4):2403-15
pubmed: 15958603
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Mar 04;11:25
pubmed: 24594267
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2010 Dec;143(4):601-11
pubmed: 20623603