Background
Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurological condition that often results in a high risk of falls due to disordered motor control and postural instability. Research involving this population has focused on challenging impaired systems, and has demonstrated that using motor learning principles individuals with Parkinson’s disease are capable of learning motor tasks. In unimpaired populations self-controlled practice has consistently been shown to have positive effects on learning motor skills. Using this type of practice method, learners are given control over a certain aspect of the practice condition. To determine learning effects, controls are “yoked,” or matched to, self-controlled practice conditions.
Clinical Scenario
Mr. Parker is a 65 year old retired entrepreneur who presents to outpatient physical therapy with a 9 year history of Parkinson’s disease classified as Stage III on the Hoehn and Yahr scale. His past medical history is unremarkable with the exception of reporting two falls in the past month while walking in his home. Current medication includes Levadopa.
On examination, key findings were consistent with a typical Parkinsonian presentation including rounded shoulders and a forward head posture. He had diminished sensation on the plantar surface of his feet and reduced ROM and strength bilaterally. Balance and proprioception were decreased. The patient required minimal assist with bed mobility and transfers and presented with hypokinetic movement patterns. Gait assessment with close supervision and assistive device use revealed reduced stride length and speed, festination and freezing, reduced head, trunk, and arm movement, decreased hip and knee flexion during swing, and decreased ankle dorsiflexion at heel strike.
Mr. Parker’s goals include decreasing caregiver burden and difficulty with ADLs, improving strength in his lower extremities, improving balance to reduce falls and promote adherence to his HEP, and accompanying his wife of 40 years on long walks around their retirement community.
PICO Question
In patients with Parkinson’s disease (Stages II-IV Hoehn and Yahr) are self-controlled practice conditions during functional activity training an effective motor learning technique for improving balance and reducing the risk of falls?
Search Strategy & Results
Limits: English language & Humans
PubMed
(self-controlled feedback) AND motor learning
Ovid
self-controlled AND balance
CINAHL
Self-controlled feedback AND balance
Evidence Appraisal & Study Participants
Interventions
In the first study by Hartman (2007) participants were required to balance on a stabilometer, attempting to maintain it in a horizontal position. After each practice phase, participants completed a questionnaire adapted from Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2002). The self-control group was asked when and why they did or did not request the balance pole. The yoked group was asked if they received the pole after the correct trials and if not when they would have preferred to have used the pole. The self-control group chose when and whether they used a balance pole during practice trials.
Acquisition Days 1 & 2: 10 – 30 sec trials; 15 sec rest periods
Retention Day 3: 10 – 30 sec trials; 15 sec rest periods
In the second study by Wulf and Adams (2014) participants were asked to perform 3 balance tasks: Toe Touch, Head Turn, and Ball Pass using their dominant leg first. The choice group was able to choose the order of the tasks.
Acquisition Day 1: 3 exercises 5x each (R & L leg)
Retention Day 2: 3 exercises 2x each (R & L leg)
In the third study by Lewthwaite, et al. (2015) participants were once again required to balance on a stabilometer, keeping the platform as close to horizontal as possible. They were given feedback about their time in balance after each practice trial. The choice group was presented with two choices unrelated to the primary motor task to determine if it would have an impact on task learning.
Acquisition Day 1: 10 – 30 sec trials; 90 sec rest periods
Retention Day 2: 5 – 30 sec trials; 90 sec rest periods
In the fourth study by Yoon, et al. (2013) subjects had to maintain an upright position for 10 seconds on a stabilometer. The choice group chose when they wanted visual feedback from the monitor, while a third group, the control group, received none.
Acquisition Day 1: 10 trials/block x 4 blocks
Retention Day 2: 10 trials/block x 2 blocks
In the fifth study by Chiviacowsky, et al. (2012) participants with Parkinson’s disease balanced on a stabilometer while wearing a safety harness to prevent falls. At the end of practice on day 1 and after the retention test on day 2 a customized questionnaire was completed. Participants in the self-control group could request the pole on any trial during the practice session.
Acquisition Day 1: 10 – 30 sec trials; 90 sec rest periods
Retention Day 2: 5 – 30 sec trials; 90 sec rest periods
*Participants in the yoked groups for all five studies were matched to self-controlled conditions.
Results
Wulf & Adams (2014)
In comparison to the control group the choice group had fewer errors (indicating a greater time in balance) during both the practice and retention phases when given a choice as to the order of their tasks.
Lewthwaite, et al. (2015) Chiviacowsky, et al. (2012)
The learning curves pictured above depict time in balance during practice and retention trials for unimpaired university students highlighted in green and individuals with Parkinson’s disease in yellow. In both studies the self-controlled group had longer times in balance compared to the yoked group. In individuals with Parkinson’s disease less time in balance is spent overall compared to healthier counterparts, as indicated by the time intervals on the y axis. However, as compared to those in the yoked group, in individuals with Parkinson’s disease time in balance immediately improved after the first trial. During the retention phase there was a small drop-off in learning during the first trial, but improvements in time in balance continued throughout the fourth trial. Although individuals with Parkinson’s disease tend to learn balance tasks more slowly, this study provides evidence that greater learning effects can occur when self-controlled practice conditions are utilized.
| For the questionnaire results, after the practice phase on day 1 self-control participants rated their motivation significantly higher than yoked participants. There were no significant group differences in questionnaire responses on day 2 when the balance pole was removed. Both groups enjoyed practicing the task, but self-control participants were significantly less nervous before beginning the trials on day 1 compared to yoked participants. Although there were no group differences in body-position related concerns on day 1, the self-control group indicated less concern on day 2. |
Hartman (2007)
The self-control group outperformed the yoked group (greater time in balance) on day 2 and during retention trials.
| Following day 1, the self-control group reported on the questionnaire that they asked for the pole mostly because they wanted to try a new strategy on the next trial (44%) or for “other” reasons (44%). Other reasons ranged from “did not want assistance” to “used the pole at the beginning to try and get a feel for the stabilometer.” Although results were more varied on day 2, the main responses were once again new strategy (22%) or “other” (44%). Overall, 88% of participants on day 1 and 67% on day 2 reported that they did not ask for the pole mainly for strategic purposes. With regard to the yoked group, the majority of participants reported that they had not received the pole after the correct trials. Following day 1, 55% reported that they would have preferred to have received the pole when attempting a new strategy, 33% after bad trials, and 1 reported wanting it after alternating trials. On day 2, 77% indicated that they did not receive the pole after the correct trial, 33% would have preferred the pole after bad trials, 16% when wanting to try a new strategy, and 50% for other reasons. Other reasons included “do as well with or without the pole the more I do it” or “did not like the pole.” |
Yoon, et al (2013)
The self-controlled group had significantly smaller left/right and anterior/posterior body sway amplitudes.
Evidence Summary
More effective learning occurs when participants have the opportunity to control some aspect of the practice condition, including the use of an assistive device or when they receive feedback.
Clinical Bottom Line
There is limited, low quality evidence that suggests that self-controlled practice conditions during functional activity training are an effective motor learning technique for improving balance and reducing the risk of falls in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Additionally, there is ample, higher quality evidence demonstrating more effective learning under self-controlled practice conditions relative to yoked conditions in unimpaired individuals.
Application of the Evidence
Although the evidence is limited, self-controlled practice conditions improved time in balance in study participants with Parkinson’s disease and should be implemented in Mr. Parker’s plan of care. Using a walking program to help improve his balance, Mr. Parker can choose when he receives kinesthetic feedback. He will be informed that he may touch the wall in the clinic as needed or when he chooses while maneuvering around and over a variety of objects and surfaces. Our goal will be to get him to eventually walk around his retirement community at least 20 minutes a day safely with an assistive device. As we work up to this goal, other forms of feedback will be provided as needed in order to ensure Mr. Parker’s safety and promote appropriate decision making processes during home and community ambulation.
References
- Hartman JM. Self-controlled use of a perceived physical assistance device during a balancing task. Percept Mot Skills. 2007;104:1005-1016. http://pms.sagepub.com/content/104/3/1005.full.pdf.
- Wulf G, Adams N. Small choices can enhance balance learning. Hum Mov Sci. 2014;38:235-240.
- Lewthwaite R, Chiviacowsky S, Drews R, Wulf G. Choose to move: the motivational impact of autonomy support on motor learning. Psychon Bull Rev. 2015;22(5):1383-1388. http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2Fs13423-015-0814-7.
- Yoon J-G, Yook D-W, Suh S-H, Lee T-H, Lee W-H. Effects of self-controlled feedback on balance during blocked training for patients with cerebrovascular accident. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2013;25:27-31. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpts/25/1/25_JPTS-2012-251/_pdf.
- Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G, Lewthwaite R, Campos T. Motor learning benefits of self-controlled practice in persons with Parkinson’s disease. Gait Posture. 2012;35(4):601-605.