Cognitive-motor interference after stroke

Czech version

Authors: I. Hereitová ¹; A. Krobot ²
Authors‘ workplace: Neurologická klinika, LF UP a FN Olomouc ¹; Rehabilitační oddělení, FN Olomouc ²
Published in: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2020; 83/116(5): 520-525
Category: Review Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.14735/amcsnn2020520

Overview

Aim: The basis of the paradigm of cognitive-motor interference is the belonging of executive and motor functions. The conditions of a normal day lead to the need to perform several tasks simultaneously. Optimal functional adjustment after stroke should be effective in a combination of cognitive and movement training. The basic idea of the neurorehabilitation approach is primarily seen in the potentiation of neuroplasticity. However, so far, no obvious benefit of cognitive-motor interference has been demonstrated due to the relatively small amount of available data. The aim of the systematic review was to demonstrate the effect of cognitive-motor interference on the improvement of gait and postural stability in patients after stroke.

Methods: First, we formulated a review question and specified criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of primary studies into a systematic review. We created a systematic search strategy and a three-step systematic search of published and unpublished primary studies in six databases. We searched for experimental and observational studies in the range from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2019 in the English language only.

Results: We found a total of 58 studies and removed 20 duplicates. Based on a two-phase evaluation of the relevance and critical evaluation of the methodological quality of the studies using the standardized evaluation tool Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating a Primary Research Paper, 5 meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials were included.

Conclusion: Cognitive-motor interference training brings benefits in locomotor and postural strategies in patients after stroke. However, current research has also shown a significant variability in the use of cognitive tasks.

Keywords:

stroke – cognitive-motor interference – dual-task training

Sources

1. Silsupadol P, Siu KC, Shumway-Cook A et al. Training of balance under single- and dual – task conditions in older adults with balance impairment. Phys Ther 2006; 86 (2): 269–281. doi: 10.1093/ptj/86.2.269.

2. Tombu M, Jolicoeur P. A central capacity sharing model of dual task performance. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2003; 29 (1): 3–18. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.3.

3. Plummer P, Eskes G, Wallace S et al. Cognitive motor interference during functional mobility after stroke: state of the science and implications for future research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94 (12): 2565–2574. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.08.002.

4. Abernethy B. Dual-task methodology and motor skills research: some applications and methodological constraints. J Hum Mov Stud 1988; 14 (3): 101–132.

5. Montero-Odasso M, Verghese J, Beauchet O et al. Gait and cognition: a complementary approach to understanding brain function and the risk of falling. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012; 60 (11): 2127–2136. doi: 10.1111/j.15325415.2012.04209.x.

6. Weerdesteyn V, de Niet M, van Duijnhoven HJ et al. Falls in individuals with stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev 2008, 45 (8): 1195–213. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2007.09.0145.

7. Bridenbaugh SA, Kressig RW. Motor cognitive dual tasking. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2015; 0 48 (1): 15–21. doi: 10.1007/s00391-014-0845-0.

8. Kahneman D. Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall 1973.

9. Wajda DA, Mirelman AJ, Hausdorff MJ et al. Intervention modalities for targeting cognitive-motor interference in individuals with neurodegenerative disease: a systematic review. Expert Rev Neurother 2016; 17 (3): 251–261. doi: 10.1080/14737175.2016.1227704.

10. Nijboer M, Borst J, van Rijn H, Taatgen N. Single-task fMRI overlap predicts concurrent multitasking interference. Neuroimage 2014; 100: 60–74. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.05.082.

11. Bayot M, Dujardin K, Tard C et al. The interaction between cognition and motor control: a theoretical framework for dual-task interference effects on posture, gait initiation, gait and turning. Neurophysiol Clin 2018; 48 (6): 361–375. doi: 10.1016/j.neucli.2018.10.003.

12. Plummer-D’Amato P, Brancato B, Dantowitz M et al. Effects of gait and cognitive task difﬁculty on cognitive-motor interference in aging. J Aging Res 2012; 2012: 583894. doi: 10.1155/2012/583894.

13. Chung CS, Pol lock A, Campbell T et al. Cognitive rehabilitation for executive dysfunction in adults with stroke or other adult non-progres sive acquired brain damage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 30 (4): CD008391. doi: 10.1002/14 651858.CD008391.pub2.

14. Al-Yahya E, Dawes H, Smith L et al. Cognitive motor interference while walking: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2011; 35 (3): 715–728. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.08.008.

15. Kmet LM, Cook LS, Lee RC. Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research 2004.

16. Ghai S, Driller M, Ghai I. Effects of joint stabilizers on proprioception and stability: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys Ther Sport 2017; 25: 65–75. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2016.05.006.

17. Keun-Jo K, Kyung-Hun K. Progressive treadmill cognitive dual-task gait training on the gait ability in patients with chronic stroke. J Exerc Rehabil 2018; 14 (5): 821–828. doi: 10.12965/jer.1836370.185.

18. Pang MY, Yang L, Ouyang H et al. Dual-task exercise reduces cognitive-motor interference in walking and falls after stroke. Stroke 2018; 49 (12): 2990–2998. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.022157.

19. Plummer P, Iyigun G. Effects of physical exercise interventions on dual–task gait speed following stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2018; 99 (12): 2548–2560. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2018.04.009.

20. Wang XQ, Pi YL, Chen, BL et al. Cognitive motor interference for gait and balance in stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Neurol 2015; 22 (3): 555–e37. doi: 10.1111/ene.12616.

21. Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley JK et al. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke 1995; 26 (6): 982–989. doi: 10.1161/01.str.26.6.982.

22. Plummer P, Villalobos RM, Vayda MS et al. Feasibility of dual-task gait training for community 11dwelling adults after stroke: a case series. Stroke Res Treat 2014; 2014: 538602. doi: 10.1155/2014/538602.

23. Dennis A, Dawes H, Elsworth CH et al. Fast walking under cognitive-motor interference conditions in chronic stroke. Brain Research 2009; 1287: 104–110. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.06.023.

24. Patel P, Lamar M, Bhatt T. Effect of type of cognitive task and walking speed on cognitive-motor interference during dual-task walking. Neuroscience 2014; 260: 140–148. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.12.016.

25. Goh L, Tan IO, Yang LC et al. Effects of cognitive and motor tasks on the walking speed of individuals with chronic stroke. Medicine 2017; 96 (9): e6232. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006232.

26. Holden MK, Dyar TA, Schwamm L et al. Virtual environment-based telerehabilitation in patients with stroke. Presence 2015; 14 (2): 214–233. doi: 10.1162/1054746053967058

27. Kannan L, Vora J, Bhatt T et al. Cognitive-motor exergaming for reducing fall risk in people with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil 2019; 44 (4): 493–510. doi: 10.3233/NRE-182683.

28. An HJ, Kim JI, Kim YR. The effect of various dual task training methods with gait on the balance and gait of patients with chronic stroke. J Phys Ther Sci 2014; 26 (8): 1287–1291. doi: 10.1589/jpts.26.1287.

29. Woollacott M, Shumway-Cook A. Attention and the control of posture and gait: a review of an emerging area of research. Gait Posture 2002; 16 (1): 1–14. doi: 10.1016/s0966-6362 (01) 00156-4.

30. Shu-Han Y, Cheng-Ya H. Improving posture-motor dual-task with a supraposture-focus strategy in young and elderly adults. Plos One 2017; 12 (2): e0170687. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170687.

31. Hyndman D, Ashburn LY, Stack E. Interference between balance, gait and cognitive task performance among people with stroke living in the community. Disabil Rehabil 2006; 28 (13–14): 849–856. doi: 10.1080/09638280500534994.

32. Silsupadol P, Siu KC, Shumway-Cook A et al. Training of balance under single- and dual-task conditions in older adults with balance impairment. Phys Ther 2006; 86 (2): 269–281. doi: 10.1093/ptj/86.2.269.

33. Hofheinz M, Mibs M, Elsner B. Dual task training for improving balance and gait in people with stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2016 (10): CD012403. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012403.

34. Boutin A, Panzer S, Blandin Y. Retrieval practice in motor learning. Hum Mov Sci 2013; 32 (6): 1201–1213. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2012.10.002.

35. Kal, EC, Van der Kamp J, Houdijk H et al. Stay focused! The effects of internal and external focus of attention on movement automaticity in patients with stroke. Plos One 2015; 10 (8): e0136917. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136917.

36. Amboni M, Barone P, Hausdorff JM. Cognitive contributions to gait and falls: evidence and implications. Mov Disord 2013; 28 (11): 1520–1533. doi: 10.1002/mds.25674

37. Balasubramanian CK, Clark DJ, Fox EJ. Walking adaptability after a stroke and its assessment in clinical settings. Stroke Res Treat 2014; 2014: 591013. doi: 10.1155/2014/591013.

38. Verheyden GS, Weerdesteyn V, Pickering RM et al. Interventions for preventing falls in people after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 10 (10): CD008728. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008728.

39. French B, Thomas LH, Leathley MJ et al. Repetitive task training for improving functional ability after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 11 (11): CD006073. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006073.

40. Fritz NE, Cheek FM, Nichols-Larsen DS. Motor-cognitive dual-task training in persons with neurologic disorders: a systematic review. J Neurol Phys Ther 2015; 39 (3): 142–153. doi: 10.1097/NPT.0000000000000090.

41. McIsaac TL, Lamberg EM, Muratori LM. Building a Framework for a dual task taxonomy. BioMed Res Int 2015; 2015: 591475. doi: 10.1155/2015/591475.