Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28904099›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2018

Spasticity may obscure motor learning ability after stroke.

Sandeep K Subramanian, Anatol G Feldman, Mindy F Levin

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Neurorehabilitation: bridging neurophysiology and clinical practice.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sandeep K SubramanianDépartement de Neurosciences, Université de Montréal , Montreal, Quebec , Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5972-1588
Anatol G FeldmanDépartement de Neurosciences, Université de Montréal , Montreal, Quebec , Canada.
Mindy F LevinSchool of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University , Montreal, Quebec , Canada.
Jewish Rehabilitation Hospital · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous motor learning studies based on adapting movements of the hemiparetic arm in stroke subjects have not accounted for spasticity occurring in specific joint ranges (spasticity zones), resulting in equivocal conclusions about learning capacity. We compared the ability of participants with stroke to rapidly adapt elbow extension movements to changing external load conditions outside and inside spasticity zones. Participants with stroke ( n = 12, aged 57.8 ± 9.6 yr) and healthy age-matched controls ( n = 8, 63.5 ± 9.1 yr) made rapid 40°-50° horizontal elbow extension movements from an initial (3°) to a final (6°) target. Sixteen blocks (6-10 trials/block) consisting of alternating loaded (30% maximal voluntary contraction) and nonloaded trials were made in one (controls) or two sessions (stroke; 1 wk apart). For the stroke group, the tonic stretch reflex threshold angle at which elbow flexors began to be activated during passive elbow extension was used to identify the beginning of the spasticity zone. The task was repeated in joint ranges that did or did not include the spasticity zone. Error correction strategies were identified by the angular positions before correction and compared between groups and sessions. Changes in load condition from no load to load and vice versa resulted in undershoot and overshoot errors, respectively. Stroke subjects corrected errors in 1-4 trials compared with 1-2 trials in controls. When movements did not include the spasticity zone, there was an immediate decrease in the number of trials needed to restore accuracy, suggesting that the capacity to learn may be preserved after stroke but masked by the presence of spasticity. NEW & NOTEWORTHY When arm movements were made outside, instead of inside, the range affected by spasticity, there was an immediate decrease in the number of trials needed to restore accuracy in response to a change in the external load. This suggests that motor learning processes may be preserved in patients with stroke but masked by the presence of spasticity in specific joint ranges. This has important implications for designing rehabilitation interventions predicated on motor learning principles.

Indexed as

LearningMovementAgedCase-Control StudiesElbowFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle, SkeletalMuscle SpasticityStrokegoal-directed behaviormotor controlmotor learningspasticitystroke rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID28904099
PMCPMC5866466
OpenAlexW2755731951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.