Implicit and explicit motor learning interventions have similar effects on walking speed in people after stroke: a randomized controlled single blind trial

Background: Therapists may use (more) implicit or (more) explicit motor learning approaches to facilitate motor skill learning of stroke patients. The use of implicit motor learning approaches has shown promising results in healthy populations. Objective: To assess whether an implicit motor learning walking intervention is more effective compared to an explicit motor learning walking intervention delivered at home with regard to walking speed in people after stroke in the chronic phase of recovery. Design: Randomized controlled single blind trial. Setting: Home environment. Patients: 79 people in the chronic phase after stroke (66.4{+/-}11.0 years; 70.1{+/-}64.3 months after stroke; walking speed 0.7{+/-}0.3 m/s; Berg Balance Scale score 44.5{+/-}9.5) were randomly assigned to an implicit (n=39) or explicit (n=41) group. Intervention: 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 nine training sessions, 30 minutes each, for a period of three weeks. Measurements: The primary outcome was walking speed measured by the 10-Meter Walk Test. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline, immediate and 1-month post intervention. Results: No statistically or clinically relevant differences between groups were obtained post intervention (between-group difference estimated 0.02 m/s [95% CI -0.04 to 0.08] and at follow-up (between-group difference estimated -0.02 m/s [95% CI -0.09 to 0.05], p=0,563). Limitations: The treatment effects may have been diluted by ''noise'' accompanied with research within real life settings, complex tasks and a representative sample. Conclusions: Implicit motor learning was not superior to the explicit motor learning to improve walking speed in people after stroke in the chronic phase of recovery.


INTRODUCTION 54
One of the most practiced motor skills in stroke rehabilitation is walking 1 . In general, 55 therapists use (more) implicit or (more) explicit forms of learning to facilitate improvement of 56 gait. Explicit motor learning can be referred to as a more conscious form of learning, that is 57 characterized by the generation of verbal knowledge (i.e. facts and rules about movement 58 performance) and involvement of cognitive resources 2 . In contrast, implicit motor learning is 59 assumed to take place without much knowledge of the underlying facts and rules of motor 60 skills and has been described as 'learning that progresses with no or minimal increase in the 61 verbal knowledge of movement performance and without awareness' 2(p2) . Within current 62 clinical practice therapists tend to structure therapy in a more explicit manner or switch 63 between implicit and explicit learning approaches [3][4][5] . However, this might not always be 64 efficient. For people after stroke, who often experience cognitive impairments 6 , it can be 65 difficult to process large amounts of verbal explicit information. Implicit motor learning, on 66 the other hand, strives to minimize the involvement of cognitive resources, especially 67 working memory 7 and may therefore be more feasible for people after stroke who apart from 68 physical constraints also suffer from cognitive impairments. Studies show that people after 69 stroke are able to learn implicitly and that performance of an implicitly learned task might be 70 more stable under dual-task condition and more durable over time 8 . However, there is still a 71 lack of studies comparing the effects of implicit motor learning post-stroke to explicit motor 72 learning within clinically relevant tasks. In order to be clinically meaningful, implicit and 73 explicit motor learning approaches need to be tailored to the individual needs of the patients 74 and performed in the real-life situations. 75 76 One practical approach to induce implicit motor learning is through the use of analogies. In 77 analogy learning, the learner is provided with one single metaphor (or analogy) that strives to 78 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10.1101/19008797 doi: medRxiv preprint encompass all underlying (explicit) knowledge that is necessary to complete the motor skill. 79 For example, to facilitate step length a therapist could provide the analogy 'Walk as if you 80 follow the footprints in the sand' 9 . Although no technical (explicit) instructions are given, the 81 analogy may facilitate for example a more symmetrical gait, the foot strike from heel to toe 82 and foot-clearance. Studies in athletes have shown that analogy learning led to better and 83 more stable performance under dual-task conditions 10,11 . Within the neurological population 84 first pilot studies reveal the feasibility of analogy learning and demonstrate its potential as 85 both clinically relevant and statistically significant changes in walking performance could be 86 obtained 9,12,13 . In the current study, the effects of analogy learning were compared to detailed 87 verbal instructions when training the clinically relevant task 'walking' in a real life setting 88 (home environment). 89 90 To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial that examines the effects of 91 implicit motor learning facilitated by analogies compared to explicit motor learning on a 92 functional walking task in people after stroke. Contrary to earlier studies examining implicit 93 motor learning using the same analogy for the entire group 11 the current study also tailored the 94 interventions towards the individual needs, preferences and abilities of the patients. The 95 research question was: Is a 3-week implicit motor learning walking intervention (analogies) 96 more effective compared to a 3-week explicit motor learning walking intervention (verbal 97 detailed instructions) delivered at home with regard to walking speed in people after stroke 98 who are in the chronic phase of recovery? Walking speed was chosen due its integrated results 99 on other gait parameters e.g. step length 14 and functional outcomes 15 . It was hypothesized that 100 implicit motor learning would result in greater improvements of walking speed post 101 intervention (especially at 1-month post intervention). 102 103 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10.1101/19008797 doi: medRxiv preprint

Study design and participants 105
The study adopts a randomized, controlled, single-blinded study design and was approved by 106 the local ethics committee METC-Z in Heerlen, the Netherlands (approval number 17-T-06, 107 Netherlands Trial Register: NL6133). Full details of the study protocol have been published 108 elsewhere 16 . Recruitment of participants took place via community practices, rehabilitation 109 institutes in the region and through a local health-related newspaper. Participants were 110 included if they were > 6 month after stroke, had a self-selected walking speed lower than 1.0 111 m/s, were able to communicate in Dutch and to complete a three-stage command. Participants 112 were excluded if they were unable to walk a minimum distance of 10 meter, could not 113 ambulate on level surfaces without manual contact of another person (Functional Ambulation 114 Scale (FAC) < 3), had additional impairments not related to stroke that significantly 115 influenced their gait pattern (e.g. Parkinson's disease). All participants signed a written 116 informed consent. 117 118

Randomization and masking 119
A randomization list was generated using a web-based randomization program and was only 120 available to an independent researcher, not involved in the delivery of the interventions or 121 measurements. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the implicit or explicit motor 122 learning condition (block size of four). The assessors were blind to the treatment allocation. 123 The therapists were aware of the treatment condition they provided. Patients were not told 124 which condition they received and were asked to not reveal details about the treatment to the 125 blinded assessors. 126

127
Interventions 128 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org /10.1101/19008797 doi: medRxiv preprint In total nine training sessions were provided over a three-week long intervention period. Each 129 session lasted 30 minutes. Within a case-study this duration and frequency of sessions were 130 sufficient to result in clinically meaningful changes 13 . An intervention guideline outlining 131 how the implicit and explicit motor learning intervention should be delivered was developed 132 for therapists in the trial. The guideline was developed with physiotherapists and client 133 representatives and was based on the previous pilot studies and experiences 9,13,16 . Prior to the 134 trial, five standardization training sessions with the therapists took place to discus and 135 explicate the intervention guideline with example cases. In both interventions, therapist 136 examined the participants walking pattern and defined the underlying gait parameters which 137 could potentially influence walking speed. More details about the interventions and main 138 characteristics with regard to instructions and feedback are described in figure 1 16 . 139

140
The implicit intervention 141 The main focus for the implicit intervention was creating a learning situation in which the 142 learner was not (or minimally) aware of the underlying rules of the practiced motor skill. The 143 concept of analogy learning formed the basis to guide the implicit intervention because 1) it 144 has shown to adopt characteristics of implicit learning 10 and 2) it offers therapists a practical 145 and feasible tool to apply therapy 12,13 . The participants were provided with an analogy which 146 aimed to improve the walking performance and was meaningful to them. 147

148
The explicit intervention 149 The main focus for the explicit intervention was creating a learning situation in which the 150 learner is very aware of the learning process, e.g. in which he/she can precisely explicate the 151 underlying facts and rules that are necessary to perform the motor skill. Therefore, the 152 participant was provided with detailed explicit instructions on their gait performance. 153 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10.1101/19008797 doi: medRxiv preprint

Outcomes 159
Demographic information 160 The following demographic information and clinical characteristics were collected: age, 161 gender, time post stroke, affected side, use of walking aids, educational level, cognitive level 162 (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA) 17 , static balance and fall risk (Berg Balance 163 Scale) 18 , mobility disability (Rivermead Mobility Index) 19 , and ability to make movements 164 outside the synergetic patterns (Fugl-Meyer assessment of the lower limb) 20  relative to single task. Therefore, the dual task error scores were subtracted from the single 181 task error scores. Both the motor and cognitive task performances were expressed in 182 percentages. Negative percentages indicate that performance deteriorated relative to single 183 task, whereas positive scores indicate relative improvements of the dual task performance. 184 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10.1101/19008797 doi: medRxiv preprint 185 Verbal Protocol 186 To assess the amount of explicit knowledge, a verbal protocol questionnaire was be 187 administered after the three-week intervention 8 . Explicit knowledge is assessed by examining 188 the number of explicit rules that the participant used during walking. More information of the 189 definition of 'explicit rule' is described elsewhere 16  Statistical analyses of the primary outcome was also described in relation to clinically relevant 208 differences between groups (MCID: 0.16 m/s) 31 . In the per-protocol analyses data of subjects 209 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10.1101/19008797 doi: medRxiv preprint were excluded if they did not receive the intervention as intended i.e. when protocol 210 deviations occurred in two or more (of the nine) sessions. Possible protocol deviations were 211 self-reported (subjective) in therapists logs and randomly 10 gait training sessions were audio-212 recorded (objective) and evaluated to detect protocol deviations. Furthermore, people who did 213 not meet the inclusion criteria or people who dropped out were excluded in the per-protocol 214 analysis. Descriptive sub-group analysis was performed on cognition to explore whether 215 cognitive abilities (MoCA ≤ 21) might influence the effect of the interventions. The verbal 216 protocol was only assessed once and an independent t-test was used to compare results 217 between the groups. 218 219 220 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10.1101/19008797 doi: medRxiv preprint

Flow of participants through the trial 222
The flowchart of the trial is presented in figure 2. Between 19 May 2017 and 19 September  223 2018, a total 81 people were assessed for eligibility and randomized. Two participants (3%) 224 did not start with the study. One participant withdrew due to diagnoses with additional 225 impairments that severely influenced his gait. The other participant decided to stop due to 226 personal reasons. All participants (n=79) that started the intervention were included in the 227 primary intention-to-treat analysis. Demographics and baseline characteristics are presented in 228  was unavailable for the follow-up assessment (n=1) 237 238

Compliance with the trial 239
Two participants (3%) deviated from the protocol with regard to the provided instructions (>2 240 explicit instructions within the implicit intervention). Analysis revealed that in retrospect ten 241 participants (13%) did not meet the inclusion criteria of walking slower than 1 m/s at baseline. 242 In addition, three participants (4%) wanted to improve overall fitness but had no specific 243 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10.1101/19008797 doi: medRxiv preprint goals related to gait and therefore discontinued with the intervention. Two participants (3%) 244 stopped due to other complaints not related to gait. Furthermore, the medical diagnoses of one 245 participant (initially stroke; 1%) was changed during the intervention. Due to pregnancy 246 another participant dropped out of the intervention. All available data of these 19 participants 247 (24%) were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis but were excluded in the per-248 protocol analysis. 249 250 Table 2  CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

Results of the intention-to-treat analysis 251
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10.1101/19008797 doi: medRxiv preprint

Results of the Per-Protocol
The per-protocol analyses led to slightly larger changes between groups but again did not lead to statistically significant after (difference estimate -0.06 m/s [95% CI -0.13 to 0.02], . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.  (table 3).
No statistical sub-group analysis on cognition was performed based on small group sizes.
To our knowledge this was the first and largest trial in the field of stroke rehabilitation to examine the effectiveness of implicit motor learning to improve the functional 'walking' task within a clinically relevant context (home environment of the patient) 32 . The results of this study did not replicate the more promising findings on implicit motor learning in stroke from earlier studies, generally performed in more standardized, laboratory settings and/or with nonfunctional tasks e.g. [33][34][35] . A variety of factors related to the selection of participants (selection bias), use of the 10MWT as primary outcome measure (information bias) and operationalization of the intervention (contrasts) may have influenced the results and led to these neutral findings.
First, a selection bias may have occurred. To increase generalizability of the results and to . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10.1101/19008797 doi: medRxiv preprint gain a better insight into the potential effects in clinical practice, we chose to include a sample of stroke patients, which reflects the heterogeneity of the stroke population as seen in rehabilitation. The researched target population group therefore showed a large variability in terms of demographics as well as physical and cognitive abilities. This heterogeneity may reflect reality in practice but might also have diminished the results. Further, the erroneous inclusion of ten participants whose baseline walking speed exceeded the inclusion criterion may have led to a ceiling effect. This ceiling effect might explain the larger, but not significant, trend towards implicit motor learning (see figure 3 lower graph) in the perprotocol analysis. In addition, the study was probably underpowered due to this deviation.
Second, the use of the 10MWT as primary outcome measure may have implications for both the findings themselves and the interpretation in terms of clinical meaningfulness. The 10MWT was chosen as the primary outcome measure due to its validity, reliability and feasibility within clinical practice 36 but also to allow comparison with other studies 37 . The advantage of using walking speed as a primary outcome is the integrated result on multiple gait parameters such as step length and frequency 14 , 15 and the direct relation to changes in functional scales 38 . However, it could be argued that the 10MWT might not have been sensitive enough to detect changes due to implicit learning if those underlying changes are small or not obviously related to walking speed (e.g. improvement of confidence during walking).
Another explanation for the neutral results could originate from the way the interventions were operationalised. Contrary to earlier studies in more controlled settings and with nonfunctional tasks such as serial reaction time tasks 32 , it seems difficult to keep the contrast between interventions equally large when including a functional task within a clinically . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10.1101/19008797 doi: medRxiv preprint relevant environment. In contrast to other studies 10,11 the exact number of rules were not predefined but tailored to the participants. For example, Lam et al used a fixed number of 'eight' verbal rules compared to 'one' analogy 11 . The provided number of explicit rules (explicit intervention) may have been limited because of ethical reasons, potentially resulting in a diminished contrast between groups.
Within this study we assessed the implicit nature of the intervention by asking participants to report the number of explicit rules the learned (verbal protocol), assessing durability of performance over a longer time period and dual task interference 10,11 . None of these measures revealed a clear picture on the nature of the learning process. For instance, fewer rules were accumulated in the implicit compared to the explicit group, but it remains unclear whether these rules have been acquired through treatments before enrolment of this study. In addition, for some participants the tone-counting task may have been too easy not leading to dual task interference, whereas for other people the task was too difficult. Due to this large variation in performance on the cognitive (tone counting) dual task it was not possible to further legitimately interpret these results.
Finally, on average both groups slightly improved their walking speed after the intervention (+0.08 m/s in the implicit group and +0.06 m/s in the explicit group) exceeding the threshold for clinical relevant change of > 0.06 m/s for within group differences as established by Perera et al 39 . It might be that using implicit or explicit motor learning does not make a (clinically relevant) difference for the results of walking rehabilitation within the included target group and setting of this trial. It is remarkable that the detected improvement (in both groups) remained relatively stable at the follow-up test. This finding might be seen as a form of retention and indicates that motor learning occurred rather than just a temporal improvement in motor performance.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10.1101/19008797 doi: medRxiv preprint

Future research
The design of this RCT was carefully prepared by research into underlying theories 40 , feasibility and piloting testing 12,13 of implicit motor learning 41 . Applying the RCT in its cleanest form in clinical settings 42 and with complex interventions was challenging as we needed to balance between external validity (generalizability of the results for daily practice) and internal validity (standardization and reliability of the results). Other designs may be considered to evaluate effectiveness of long-term, highly individualized, and complex interventions 41 , as needed in the field of motor learning. Two recent studies suggest that tailoring motor learning interventions towards patient characteristics and preferences might be important, promoting more pragmatic trials 9,43 . The interventions may also be applicable for people with more severe cognitive impairments (MoCA <21) as equal trends in performance were found within this sub-group. A logical next step would be to assess which patient characteristics influence motor learning interventions and how these factors influence the learning process. Therefore, cohort studies in which all potential influencing factors (e.g. activity dependent plasticity, cognition, or individual preferences) are measured over time and therapist document the used motor learning approach in detail might be an interesting alternative to consider.
To gain more insight in the gait mechanisms and functional effects when applying implicit motor learning, future studies may consider combining upcoming instruments for quantitative gait analysis which can be performed outside laboratory settings (e.g. use of wearable sensors 44,45 ) with patient specific outcome measures which can detect functional relevant changes within individualized goals (e.g., Patient Specific Functional Scale) 46,47 .
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10.1101/19008797 doi: medRxiv preprint

Conclusion and clinical message
In this study, no overall benefits of implicit motor learning over explicit motor learning for improving walking performance in people after stroke in the chronic phase of recovery were found. The treatment effects in this study may have been diluted by "noise" accompanied with research within real life settings, complex tasks and a representative sample of the target population. For tailored motor learning approaches more insight is needed on the patient characteristics and preferences that influence the process of motor learning. While awaiting further results, therapists may consider both motor learning approaches to facilitate walking speed within the stroke population. Furthermore, we thank the client participants Nathalie Sieben, Else de Bont, and Anja Minheere for their perspectives and thoughts on the trial during the set-up of the study. We thank Peter Konsten for his support on the assessment forms and Bjorn Winkens for his advice in the data analyses. Finally, we thank all participants that took part in the study.

Conflicts of interest: non declared.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10.1101/19008797 doi: medRxiv preprint