The effect of knowledge of results frequency on motor learning in individuals with stroke

Document Type : Original article

Authors

1 1. Assistant Professor, Physical Therapy Department, Faculty of Rehabilitation Scienses, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science.Tehran. Iran

2 2. Assistant professor, Physical Therapy Department, School of Rehabilitation, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Science.

3 3. Msc of Physiotherapy, Physical Therapy Department, Faculty of Rehabilitation Scienses, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science.Tehran. Iran

4 4. Associate Professor, Biostatistics Department, Faculty of Rehabilitation Scienses, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science.Tehran. Iran

Abstract

Background and Aim: Reduced augmented feedback leads to motor learning. However, it is unknown whether these findings can be applied in stroke patients who may have impaired internal feedback mechanisms. The purpose of this study was to determine if stroke-related brain damage affects the use of extrinsic feedback and if these patients benefit from practice with reduced frequency of knowledge of results.
Materials and Methods: Participants were sixteen patients aged 45-65 years (mean: 57.56 ± 6.47 years) with middle cerebral artery (MCA) stroke (under 6monthes). They were randomly assigned in two groups of 8. Group one received 100% knowledge of results (KR) and group two received 25% KR about their actual force. During 6 blocks of acquisition (48 trials), participants practiced a grip force production task with upper limb ipsilateral to the lesion. Then performed retention test on the next day without receiving KR. Accuracy and consistency were assessed over acquisition and retention and compared between groups.
Results: A significant decrease in VE was found in the 25% group in acquisition (p: 0.004) and retention (p: 0.001). TE in the 25% group in acquisition phase was significant (p: 0.016) as well. There were no significant differences in these variables for the 100% group. Significant decrease of AE (p: 0.035), TE (0.039) and nearly significant decrease of VE (0.058) were found in the 100% group compared with the 25% group in acquisition. However, no significant difference between groups was found in retention.
Conclusion: Although group received 25% KR was more consistent during practice, group received 100% KR was significantly more accurate and consistent at the end of the practice in acquisition. In retention test there were no significant differences between groups of feedback condition. As a conclusion in our study, individuals with stroke related brain damage benefit from 100% KR, in acquisition phase.

Keywords

References

  1. Schmidt RA, Lee TD. Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis. 4th edn. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2005; pp 302-304.
  2. Newell KM. Motor skill acquisition. Annu Rev Psychol, 1991; 42: 213–237.
  3. Guadangoli MA, Kohl RM. The effects of augmented feedback on motor skill learning. Motor Behavior, 2001; 33: 217-240.                                                                                        
  4. Guadangoli MA, Dornier LA, Tandy RK. Optimal length for summary knowledge of results: The influence of task related experience and complexity. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1996; 67: 239-348.
  5. Schmidt RA. Frequent augmented feedback can degrade learning: Evidence and interpretations. In: Stelmach GS, Requin J. Tutorial in motor neuroscience. Dordrecht.Kluwer Academic Publishers,1991; pp 210-212.
  6. Lee TD, White MA, Carnahan H. On the role of knowledge of results in motor learning: Exploring the guidance hypothesis. J Motor Behav. 1990; 22: 191-208.
  7. Sparrow WA, Summers JJ. Performance on trials without knowledge of results(KR) in reduced relative frequency presentations of KR. J Motor Behav. 1992; 24: 197-209.
  8. Winstein CJ, Schmidt RA. Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning. J Exp Psychol: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 1990; 16: 677-691.
  9. Flinn NA, Radomski MV. Learning. In: Trombly CA, Radomksi MV, eds. Occupational therapy for physical dysfunction. 5th. edn. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2002; 283–297.
  10. Timmermans AAA, Seelen HAM, Willmann RD, Kingma H. Technology-assisted training of arm-hand skills in stroke: concepts on reacquisition of motor control and therapists guidelines for rehabilitation technology design. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009; 6(1): doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-6-1.
  11. Dijk VH, Jannink MJA, Hermens HJ. Effect of augmented feedback on motor function of the affected upper extremity in rehabilitation patients: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Rehabil med. 2005; 37: 202-211.
  12. Hewer RL, Rehabilitation after stroke.In: Illis LS. Neurological Rehabilitation. Blackwell Scientific Publication. Oxford. 1994; 1570166.    
  13. Popovic DB, Popovic MB, Sinkjar T. Neurorehabilitation of upper extremities in humans with sensory-motor impairment. Neuromodulation. 2002; 5: 54-67.        
  14. Eng  K, Siekierka E, Pyk P, Cheverier E, Hauser Y, Cameirao M. Interactive viso-motor therapy system for stroke rehabilitation. Med Bio Eng Comput. 2007;45: 901-907.
  15. Winstein CJ, Merians AS, Sullivan KJ. Motor learning after unilateral brain damage. Neuropsychologia. 1999; 37: 975-987.
  16. Rice MS, Hernandez HG. Frequency of knowledge of results and motor learning in persons with developmental delay. Occup Ther Int. 2006; 13(1): 35-48.
  17. Thomas DM, Harro CC. Effects of relative frequency of knowledge of results on brain injured and control subjects learning a linear positioning task. Neurology report. 1996; 20(2): 60-62.
  18. Saladin LS, Baghdady M, Nichols L. The effects of reduced relative frequency of feedback on motor learning in stroke patients. Phys Ther. 1994; 5:S122.
  19. Boyd LA, Quaney BM , Pohl PS, .Winstein CJ. Learning Implicitly: Effects of Task and Severity After Stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;1-11.doi:10.1177/1545968307300438
  20. Wulf G, McConnel N. Enhancing the learning of sport skills through external-focus feedback. J Motor Behav. 2002;34(2): 171 – 182.
  21. Wulf G, Shea CH. Understanding the role of augmented feedback: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In: Williams AM, Hodges NJ, editors. Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory and practice. London: Routledge; 2004. pp; 121 – 144.
  22. Wulf G, Shea CH. Principles derived from the study of simple motor skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychomet Bull Rev. 2002;9:185 – 211.

 

The Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume 3, Issue 4 - Serial Number 4
January and February 2015
Pages 34-41

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 21 February 2014
  • Revise Date: 27 April 2014
  • Accept Date: 22 July 2014
  • First Publish Date: 22 December 2014

Share

How to cite

Statistics