AzTrials
AzTrials

Cerebral StrokeNCT02017574

Facilitating Implicit Learning to Improve Neurorehabilitation in Stroke

A study testing Reaching Task in people with Cerebral Stroke, run by VA Office of Research and Development at 1 site in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Stroke is one of the leading causes of chronic disability in Veterans. Stroke is associated with significant loss of mobility, increased risk of falling, cardiovascular disease, depression and neuro-cognitive impairment. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 45 to 80 years
Conditions the study is for
Cerebral Stroke
What is being tested?
Reaching Task
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
24 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
Oct 2013to Sep 2016
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 45 to 80 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Ischemic stroke greater than 3 months prior.
  • Between 45 and 80 years of age.
  • Residual hemiparetic upper extremity deficits.
  • Adequate language and neurocognitive function to participate in training (MMSE, CESD, aphasia screening).
  • Right hand dominant.
  • Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer score of 25 or greater.

Who cannot join

  • History of cortical stroke.
  • No mobility of less affected arm.
  • Failure to meet the RRDC assessment clinic criteria for medical eligibility.
  • MMSE score less than 27.
  • CES-D score greater than 16.
  • Unable to pass a hearing test (i.e. must be able to hear sounds of 45 dB or less).

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site
  • Baltimore VA Medical Center VA Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, MD

    Baltimore, Maryland, 21201

Other trials in United States

About this study

Stroke is one of the leading causes of chronic disability in Veterans. Stroke is associated with significant loss of mobility, increased risk of falling, cardiovascular disease, depression and neuro-cognitive impairment. These deficits negatively impact the independent completion of the Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Task-oriented training has emerged as the dominant therapeutic intervention in the rehabilitation of chronic stroke victims. The effectiveness of these interventions may be enhanced through facilitation of implicit knowledge rather than explicit knowledge. Specifically, implicit learning increases retention and improves transfer of the improved motor function outside of the lab environment. Moreover, implicit motor control reduces the burden imposed on cognitive resources as the skill is performed automatically (i.e. do not have to 'think' about it). The amount and type of feedback individuals receive while learning a new task (or relearning in the case of rehabilitation) has been shown to influence the type of learning (i.e. implicit or explicit). Thus the purpose of the current study is to determine the effect of different types of feedback during motor learning on the learning type and the resultant impact on functional outcomes (i.e. motor performance, retention, and cognitive workload) in chronic stroke patients.

Read the detailed description

Someone has a stroke in the US every 45 seconds, resulting in over 700,000 new strokes every year and stroke is the leading cause of disability in Veterans (American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Sub-Committee). The vast majority of these cases result in motor impairments, which frequently cause individuals to become dependent on others for daily functioning (modified Rankin Scale 3-5, see Lees et al., 2006). Specifically, upper extremity hemiparesis is the leading cause of functional disability after stroke and upper arm function explains about 50% of the variability in reported quality of life (Wyller et al, 1997). As such optimizing upper arm neurorehabilitation is a critical problem to address in the aging Veteran population.

"Rehabilitation, for patients, is fundamentally a process of relearning how to move to carry out their needs successfully" (Carr \& Shepherd, 1987). This statement posits that at its core neurorehabilitation is motor learning, but despite this principle, research in motor learning has had little impact on stroke rehabilitation (Krakauer, 2006). Recently there has been an interest in developing and testing new methods to optimize upper extremity rehabilitation. Investigators at the Baltimore VAMC have pioneered task oriented training paradigms to improve mobility (Macko et al., 2005) in those with chronic stroke. As part of this programmatic approach novel upper extremity robotics training programs have been developed to improve reaching, and limb coordination. However, the majority of these interventions rely on error-based learning strategies during rehabilitation, which foster task-related explicit knowledge. However, a corpus of motor learning research indicates that this may not be the best strategy to optimize motor learning, and thus neurorehabilitation.

Error-based learning involves receiving continual feedback of movement with the intent that the learner will make corrections to the movement in real time. Thus learning occurs through a series of repetitions in which the learner continually reduces the discrepancy between the ideal behavior and the observation of their own behavior. In other words, error-based learning fosters an adaptation to achieve the desired behavior. In contrast, operant conditioning learning strategies consists of the learner only receiving feedback about the quality of their movement at the end of the behavior. Thus, learning occurs through a series of reinforcement of the desired behavior in its entirety, which is more model-free than the adaptation incurred during error-based learning. A primary distinction between these two learning strategies is that error-based learning fosters explicit knowledge of the task, whereas operant conditioning fosters implicit knowledge (Krakauer \& Mazzoni, 2011). These two types of knowledge have drastic implications for functional outcomes (i.e. motor performance, cognitive workload, and retention).

Prior to stroke, upper arm functions such as reaching and grasping were largely done without the use of explicit knowledge. In other words, healthy individuals devote little conscious effort about how they are controlling their limbs, they just 'do it'. Although, using explicit strategies during learning can facilitate the rate of learning, if given enough time, individuals who have limited explicit knowledge will perform equally well (Maxwell et al, 1999). Despite a slower rate of learning, the payoff of reducing explicit knowledge of the task can be very advantageous during motor performance. Notably, retention of the learned behavior is greater in individuals who learned under conditions that inhibit explicit knowledge. For example Malone and Bastian (2010) had individuals learn a novel walking task (split belt treadmill where the belts move at different rates) and in those in which explicit knowledge was limited exhibited learning that persisted longer than those who relied on explicit knowledge during learning. In addition, limiting explicit knowledge during motor learning may result in reduced cognitive workload and maintained performance under conditions of challenge (Zhu et al., 2011). In conclusion, promoting explicit knowledge during rehabilitation rather than unconscious control (limiting explicit knowledge) reduces sustainability of the newly acquired motor skill, and consumes cognitive resources, which need to be available for other demands. As such, automatic control of these behaviors is critical to perform daily activities, suggesting operant conditioning (which limits explicit knowledge) as superior to error-based learning.

Those with stroke are able to learn tasks implicitly, although the rate of learning may be delayed as compared to healthy controls (Pohl et al., 2001) and delayed further as a function of stroke severity (Boyd et al., 2007). Further, simply providing explicit information about an implicit task has been shown to reduce the learning rate and retention in those with basal ganglia stroke (Boyd et al., 2004; Boyd et al., 2006) and damage to sensorimotor areas (Boyd et al., 2003; Boyd et al., 2006; Winstein et al., 2003). While these studies highlight the importance limiting explicit knowledge during learning they were done in the context of learning implicit sequences rather than the development of skill, which while related, rely on different aspects of motor learning (Krakauer \& Mazonni, 2011, Yarrow et al., 2009). In the context of functional skill learning, the timing/ type of feedback have been robustly shown to affect the learning rate as well as retention and have been implicated to affect knowledge type (Levin et al., 2010). Specifically, providing feedback about task performance less frequently and after performance rather than during (i.e. delayed) have been shown to increase learning retention and likely facilitate implicit learning (Cirstea et al., 2006; Winstein et al., 1996). Additionally, feedback about the results (knowledge of results) rather than the performance (knowledge of performance) has shown to increase retention and limit explicit knowledge (Cirstea el al., 2006; Sidaway et al., 2008; Winstein, 1991). Accordingly, the current proposal will attempt to foster implicit knowledge during the development of motor skill by manipulating when feedback is given and type of feedback.

The aim of the current study is to determine the effect of error-based learning versus operant conditioning learning on critical outcomes of neurorehabilitation (i.e. performance after learning, generalizability, cognitive workload imposed by the task, and retention).

Conditions
Cerebral Stroke
Being tested
Reaching Task
Keywords
Stroke, Cerebral Infarction
Medical subject headings
Stroke, Cerebral Infarction

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Reaching TaskBehavioural

    Learn a reaching task that requires coordination of the arm segments

Study groups in NCT02017574
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Implicit GroupExperimentalReceives little feedback about task performance during learning
Receives: Behavioral: Reaching Task
ControlActive comparatorReceives detailed feedback about task performance during learning
Receives: Behavioral: Reaching Task

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Quality of Motor Performance

    Quality of motor behavior was indexed by the percentage of samples in which the participants were within the trained (i.e. optimal) trajectory. The trained trajectory was a 2cm wide channel in the shape of a half circle between two targets which were 25cm apart from each other. Therefore, the scale measure is a percentage which can range between 0 and 100%.

    Measured: 2 Years

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. EEG Derived High Alpha Power

    Brain electrophysiology measure of attentional processes as indexed by high alpha power (10-13 Hz). The unit of measurement is a percentage as the amount of power (microvolts squared) in the high alpha band was divided by the total power in the spectrum (i.e. 1-50 Hz). This method is commonly employed to normalize the power of a particular frequency if the statistical design includes a between subjects factor.

    Measured: 2 Years

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted20 Dec 2013 (estimated)
  2. Study startOct 2013
  3. Primary completionSep 2015
  4. Study completionSep 2016

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Basic science
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
24 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02017574
Sponsor's protocol ID
N0970-M
Status last verified
Feb 2017
First submitted
16 Dec 2013
Last updated
28 Mar 2017
Data monitoring committee
No
Individual data sharing
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Reaching Task in people with Cerebral Stroke, run by VA Office of Research and Development at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 28 Mar 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 10 Feb 2017). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Quality of Motor Performance (time frame: 2 Years). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 28 Mar 2017.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in