Try our beta test site
IMPORTANT: Listing of a study on this site does not reflect endorsement by the National Institutes of Health. Talk with a trusted healthcare professional before volunteering for a study. Read more...

Practice Structure on Motor Learning in Post-Stroke Patients

This study has been completed.
Information provided by:
University of Sao Paulo Identifier:
First received: January 17, 2008
Last updated: January 29, 2008
Last verified: January 2008
Background: The literature indicates that, in relation to motor learning, healthy subjects benefit more from random practice than from constant practice. However, this effect is not well known in post-stroke patients. Objective: The goal of this study was to investigate the effects of practice structure on motor learning in post-stroke patients. Methods: Participants included an experimental group (EG) of post-stroke patients: 17 males and females; and a control group (CG) of healthy individuals: 17 males and females. At the acquisition phase, all participants performed 30 trials of a coincident timing task. Nine individuals from each group practiced constantly (C) at a stimulus propagation speed of 3 mph, and eight from each group practiced randomly (R) at speeds of 2, 3, and 5 mph. Subsequent phases included: 1) transfer, 2) retention after 15 minutes, and 3) retention after 3 days. Each of these phases included 20 trials: 10 at a speed of 1 mph, and 10 at a speed of 4 mph. Intra- and inter-group comparisons were made employing an alpha level of 0.05 (5%).

Condition Intervention
Other: Structure practice

Study Type: Interventional
Study Design: Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
Masking: Open Label
Primary Purpose: Treatment
Official Title: The Effects of Practice Structure on Motor Learning in Post-Stroke Patients

Resource links provided by NLM:

Further study details as provided by University of Sao Paulo:

Primary Outcome Measures:
  • change in performance during the acquisition; performance exhibited during the transfer phase was maintained during retention phases 1 and 2; and differences between the groups during the transfer phase and retention phases [ Time Frame: time in miliseconds ]

Enrollment: 34
Study Start Date: August 2006
Study Completion Date: July 2007
Primary Completion Date: July 2007 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Arms Assigned Interventions
1, 2 Other: Structure practice
there were 2 groups which received random practice and constant practice during acquisition phase
Other Names:
  • experimental group (EG)
  • control group (CG)

Detailed Description:
Utilized was Bassin's anticipation timer (Lafayette Instruments #50575), which is comprised of a control screen, one 1.52 m gutter with 32 diodes placed on it linearly, and a response button. The screen has a digital display, with commands that permit the operator to control the stimulus propagation speed and the preparatory interval speed. Once activated, the screen exhibits an alert signal, and, after the preparatory interval, it initiates the propagation of a luminous stimulus, lighting the 32 diodes successively. The task required participants to press the response button simultaneously with the illumination of the last diode. The digital display showed the error measure (em): that is, the difference between the illumination of the last diode and the response.

Ages Eligible for Study:   40 Years to 62 Years   (Adult)
Sexes Eligible for Study:   All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   Yes

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. First cerebrovascular accident
  2. Lesion covering the middle and the anterior cerebral artery territories
  3. Presence of hemiplegia or hemiparesis
  4. Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score above 24 (19)
  5. Sufficient attention and comprehension to perform the task
  6. Absence of other associated neurological diseases.

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Acute medical problems
  2. Uncorrected vision loss
  3. Previous history of psychiatric admission
  4. History of multiple strokes, transient ischemic attacks
  5. Pathology of the less affected, ipsilateral to stroke upper extremity that would affect ability to perform the task
  6. Score of 23 or less on the MMSE
  7. Difficulty in comprehension of verbal command and simple instructions
  8. Aphasia of comprehension.
  Contacts and Locations
Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the Contacts provided below. For general information, see Learn About Clinical Studies.

Please refer to this study by its identifier: NCT00604747

Camila Torriani
São Paulo, SP, Brazil, 02415000
Sponsors and Collaborators
University of Sao Paulo
Principal Investigator: Camila Torriani University of São Paulo
Study Chair: Camila Torriani University of São Paulo
  More Information

Responsible Party: Camila Torriani, University of São Paulo Identifier: NCT00604747     History of Changes
Other Study ID Numbers: 0038.0.254.000-05
Study First Received: January 17, 2008
Last Updated: January 29, 2008

Keywords provided by University of Sao Paulo:
motor learning

Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Cerebrovascular Disorders
Brain Diseases
Central Nervous System Diseases
Nervous System Diseases
Vascular Diseases
Cardiovascular Diseases processed this record on April 28, 2017