Cited by 127Balance, Gait, and Falls PreventionMotor Control and AdaptationStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Motor learning benefits of self-controlled practice in persons with Parkinson's disease

Chiviacowsky, Suzete, Wulf, Gabriele, Lewthwaite, Rebecca, Campos, Tiago·2012·Gait & Posture

Abstract

The present study examined the effectiveness of a training method to enhance balance in people with PD, which could potentially reduce their risk for falls. Specifically, we investigated whether the benefits of the self-controlled use of a physical assistance device for the learning of a balance task, found previously in healthy adults, would generalize to adults with PD. Twenty-eight individuals with PD were randomly assigned to one of two groups, a self-control and a yoked (control) group. The task required participants to stand on a balance platform (stabilometer), trying to keep the platform as close to horizontal as possible during each 30-s trial. In the self-control group, participants had a choice, on each of 10 practice trials, to use or not to use a balance pole. Participants in the yoked group received the same balance pole on the schedule used by their counterparts in the self-control group, but did not have a choice. Learning was assessed one day later by a retention test. The self-control group demonstrated more effective learning of the task than the yoked group. Questionnaire results indicated that self-control participants were more motivated to learn the task, were less nervous, and less concerned about their body movements relative to yoked participants. Possible reasons for the learning benefits of self-controlled practice, including a basic psychological need for autonomy, are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.12.003

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chiviacowsky, S., Wulf, G., Lewthwaite, R., & Campos, T.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal de Pelotas (BR)
  • University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Chiviacowsky, Suzete
Venue
Gait & Posture
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-04
Volume
35
Issue
4
Pages
601-605
ISSN
0966-6362 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2134562178
Cited by
127
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
14.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Gait & Posture (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
CNPq (National Council of Scientific and Technological Development)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Keywords
Parkinson's disease, motor learning, balance training, stabilometer, fall prevention, autonomy, motivation, yoked control, retention
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Analysis of Variance, Postural Balance, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Learning, Male, Middle Aged, Motor Skills, Parkinson Disease, Prospective Studies, Reference Values, Self-Help Devices, Sensation Disorders, Walking, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Risk Assessment, Personal Autonomy, Feedback, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review