Cited by 25Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryMotor Control and AdaptationBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention

Implicit and Explicit Motor Learning Interventions Have Similar Effects on Walking Speed in People After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Jie, Li-Juan, Kleynen, Melanie, Meijer, Kenneth, Beurskens, Anna, Braun, Susy·2021·Physical Therapy

Published 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ptj/pzab017

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

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
Published
2021-01-22
Volume
101
Issue
5
ISSN
  • 0031-9023 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-6724
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
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