Implicit and Explicit Motor Learning Interventions Have Similar Effects on Walking Speed in People After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Objective: Clinicians may use implicit or explicit motor learning approaches to facilitate motor learning of patients with stroke. Implicit motor learning approaches have shown promising results in healthy populations. The purpose of this study was to assess whether an implicit motor learning walking intervention is more effective compared with an explicit motor learning walking intervention delivered at home regarding walking speed in people after stroke in the chronic phase of recovery. Methods: This randomized, controlled, single-blind trial was conducted in the home environment. The 79 participants, who were in the chronic phase after stroke (age = 66.4 [SD = 11.0] years; time poststroke = 70.1 [SD = 64.3] months; walking speed = 0.7 [SD = 0.3] m/s; Berg Balance Scale score = 44.5 [SD = 9.5]), were randomly assigned to an implicit (n = 38) or explicit (n = 41) group. Analogy learning was used as the implicit motor learning walking intervention, whereas the explicit motor learning walking intervention consisted of detailed verbal instructions. Both groups received 9 training sessions (30 minutes each), for a period of 3 weeks, targeted at improving quality of walking. The primary outcome was walking speed measured by the 10-Meter Walk Test at a comfortable walking pace. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, immediately after intervention, and 1 month postintervention. Results: No statistically or clinically relevant differences between groups were obtained postintervention (between-group difference was estimated at 0.02 m/s [95% CI = −0.04 to 0.08] and at follow-up (between-group difference estimated at −0.02 m/s [95% CI = −0.09 to 0.05]). Conclusion: Implicit motor learning was not superior to explicit motor learning to improve walking speed in people after stroke in the chronic phase of recovery. Impact: To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the effects of implicit compared with explicit motor learning on a functional task in people after stroke. Results indicate that physical therapists can use (tailored) implicit and explicit motor learning strategies to improve walking speed in people after stroke who are in the chronic phase of recovery.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010) · Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics · doi:10.4103/0976-500x.72352 · Cited by 2,165 · see citing works
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
the CONSORT Group, Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-11-32 · Cited by 1,871 · see citing works
Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance
Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. (2013) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.09.010 · Cited by 1,658 · see citing works
Johnson, L., Burridge, J. H., & Demain, S. H. (2013) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20120300 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Jie, L.-J., Kleynen, M., Meijer, K., Beurskens, A., & Braun, S.
- Affiliations
- Zuyd University of Applied Sciences (NL)
- Maastricht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Jie, Li-Juan
- Venue
- Physical Therapy
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2021-01-22
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 5
- ISSN
- 0031-9023 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-6724
- PMC
- PMC8101354
- OpenAlex
- W3123296624
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 2.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Physical Therapy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Nationaal Regieorgaan Praktijkgericht Onderzoek SIA (2014-01-49PRO, RAAKPRO; grant number 2014-01-49PRO)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
- Keywords
- stroke, implicit motor learning, explicit motor learning, walking speed, gait training, home-based intervention, verbal instructions, analogy learning, 10-meter walk test
- MeSH terms
- Walk Test, Stroke Rehabilitation, Walking Speed, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Single-Blind Method, Recovery of Function, Gait Disorders, Neurologic
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