rss
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003;74:1562-1566 doi:10.1136/jnnp.74.11.1562
  • Paper

Stroke motor recovery: active neuromuscular stimulation and repetitive practice schedules

  1. J H Cauraugh,
  2. S B Kim
  1. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
  1. Correspondence to:
 Dr James Cauraugh, Motor Behavior Laboratory, PO Box 118206, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA; 
 jcaurahhp.ufl.edu
  • Received 12 February 2003
  • Accepted 10 May 2003
  • Revised 9 April 2003

Abstract

Objective:To investigate progress toward motor recovery in patients with chronic hemiparesis (mean time since stroke 3.2 years), comparing different types of practice schedules.

Design:To increase voluntary control of the upper extremity, active neuromuscular stimulation was administered during blocked and random practice schedules as patients performed three specific movements: wrist/finger extension, elbow joint extension, and shoulder joint abduction.

Methods:34 stroke subjects volunteered to participate and were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: blocked practice (the same movement was repetitively performed on successive trials) combined with active neuromuscular stimulation; random practice (different movements on successive trials) along with active stimulation; or no active stimulation assistance control group. Subjects completed two days of 90 minute training for each of two weeks with at least 24 hours of rest between sessions. A session was three sets of 30 successful active neuromuscular stimulation trials with the three movements executed 10 times/set.

Results:Mixed design analyses on three categories of behavioural measures indicated motor improvements for the blocked and random practice/stimulation groups in comparison with the control group during the post-test period, with a larger number of blocks moved, faster premotor and motor reaction times, and less variability in the sustained muscular contraction task.

Conclusions:Upper extremity rehabilitation intervention of active stimulation and blocked practice performed as well as stimulation/random practice. Moreover, these purposeful voluntary movement findings support and extend sensorimotor integration theory to both practice schedules.

Footnotes

  • * A reviewer mentioned that premovement time may be preferred to premotor reaction time and that movement time is preferred to motor reaction time. For consistency across studies, the classic usage of premotor and motor reaction times was maintained.

  • Competing interests: none declared

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

BMJ Careers - Latest neurology and neurosurgery jobs