PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Li-Juan Jie
AU  - Melanie Kleynen
AU  - Kenneth Meijer
AU  - Anna Beurskens
AU  - Susy Braun
TI  - Implicit and explicit motor learning interventions have similar effects on walking speed in people after stroke: a randomized controlled single blind trial
AID  - 10.1101/19008797
DP  - 2019 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 19008797
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/11/02/19008797.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/11/02/19008797.full
AB  - 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.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNL6133Clinical Protocols https://www.researchprotocols.org/2018/5/e142/ Funding StatementThis work was supported by Nationaal Regieorgaan Praktijkgericht Onderzoek SIA (RAAKPRO; grant number 2014-01-49PRO).Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesAny clinical trials involved have been registered with an ICMJE-approved registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial ID is included in the manuscript.YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant Equator, ICMJE or other checklist(s) as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.