Advertisement

Translational Stroke Research

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 3–11 | Cite as

Post-Stroke Walking Behaviors Consistent with Altered Ground Reaction Force Direction Control Advise New Approaches to Research and Therapy

Commentary
  • 281 Downloads

Abstract

Recovery of walking after stroke requires an understanding of how motor control deficits lead to gait impairment. Traditional therapy focuses on removing specific observable gait behaviors that deviate from unimpaired walking; however, those behaviors may be effective compensations for underlying problematic motor control deficits rather than direct effects of the stroke. Neurological deficits caused by stroke are not well understood, and thus, efficient interventions for gait rehabilitation likely remain unrealized. Our laboratory has previously characterized a post-stroke control deficit that yields a specific difference in direction of the ground reaction force (F, limb endpoint force) exerted with the hemiplegic limb of study participants pushing on both stationary and moving pedals while seated. That task was not dependent on F to retain upright posture, and thus, the task did not constrain F direction. Rather, the F direction was the product of neural preference. It is not known if this specific muscle coordination deficit causes the observed walking deviations, but if present during walking, the deficit would prevent upright posture unless counteracted by compensatory behaviors. Compensations are presented that mechanically counteract the F misdirection to allow upright posture. Those compensations are similar to behaviors observed in stroke patients. Based on that alignment between predictions of this theory and clinical observations, we theorize that post-stroke gait results from the attempt to compensate for the underlying F misdirection deficit. Limb endpoint force direction has been shown to be trainable in the paretic upper limb, making it a feasible goal in the lower limb. If this F misdirection theory is valid, these ideas have tremendous promise for advancing the field of post-stroke gait rehabilitation.

Keywords

Gait Rehabilitation Coordination Posture Cerebrovascular accidents 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the University of Wisconsin Graduate School and Foundation (V. H. Henry Fund). This sponsor had no role in the study or publication decisions. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Lord SE, McPherson K, McNaughton HK, Rochester L, Weatherall M. Community ambulation after stroke: how important and obtainable is it and what measures appear predictive? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:234–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bohannon RW, Andrews AW, Smith MB. Rehabilitation goals of patients with hemiplegia. Int J Rehabil Res. 1988;11:181–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bohannon RW, Horton MG, Wikholm JB. Importance of four variables of walking to patients with stroke. Int J Rehabil Res. 1991;14:246–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Desrosiers J, Malouin F, Bourbonnais D, Richards CL, Rochette A, Bravo G. Arm and leg impairments and disabilities after stroke rehabilitation: relation to handicap. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17:666–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley JK, Mulroy SJ. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke. 1995;26:982–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Loeb GE. Neural control of locomotion: how do all the data fit together? Bioscience. 1989;39:800–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Danielsson A, Willen C, Sunnerhagen KS. Physical activity, ambulation, and motor impairment late after stroke. Stroke Res Treat. 2012;2012:818513.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Behrman AL, Bowden MG, Nair PM. Neuroplasticity after spinal cord injury and training: an emerging paradigm shift in rehabilitation and walking recovery. Phys Ther. 2006;86:1406–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hollands KL, Pelton TA, Tyson SF, Hollands MA, van Vliet PM. Interventions for coordination of walking following stroke: systematic review. Gait Posture. 2011;35:349–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hsu AL, Tang PF, Jan MH. Analysis of impairments influencing gait velocity and asymmetry of hemiplegic patients after mild to moderate stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:1185–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dickstein R. Rehabilitation of gait speed after stroke: a critical review of intervention approaches. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22:649–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dobkin BH, Duncan PW. Should body weight-supported treadmill training and robotic-assistive steppers for locomotor training trot back to the starting gate? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26:308–17.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dobkin BH. Strategies for stroke rehabilitation. Lancet Neurol. 2004;3:528–36.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moseley AM, Stark A, Cameron ID, Pollock A. Treadmill training and body weight support for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;CD002840.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pollock A, Baer G, Pomeroy V, Langhorne P. Physiotherapy treatment approaches for the recovery of postural control and lower limb function following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;2.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Teasell RW, Bhogal SK, Foley NC, Speechley MR. Gait retraining post stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2003;10:34–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hornby TG, Campbell DD, Kahn JH, Demott T, Moore JL, Roth HR. Enhanced gait-related improvements after therapist- versus robotic-assisted locomotor training in subjects with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled study. Stroke. 2008;39:1786–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mehrholz J, Werner C, Kugler J, Pohl M. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;4.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Farley CT, Ferris DP. Biomechanics of walking and running: center of mass movements to muscle action. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1998;26:253–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Craik RL, Oatis CA. Gait analysis: theory and application. St Louis: Mosby; 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Full RJ, Koditschek DE. Templates and anchors: neuromechanical hypotheses of legged locomotion on land. J Exp Biol. 1999;202(Pt 23):3325–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rogers LM, Brown DA, Gruben KG. Foot force direction control during leg pushes against fixed and moving pedals in persons post-stroke. Gait Posture. 2004;19:58–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gruben KG, Rogers LM, Schmidt MW, Tan L. Direction of foot force for pushes against a fixed pedal: variation with pedal position. Mot Control. 2003;7:362–77.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gruben KG, Boehm WL. Ankle torque control that shifts the center of pressure from heel to toe contributes non-zero sagittal plane angular momentum during human walking. J Biomech 2014.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim CM, Eng JJ. Magnitude and pattern of 3D kinematic and kinetic gait profiles in persons with stroke: relationship to walking speed. Gait Posture. 2004;20:140–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim CM, Eng JJ. Symmetry in vertical ground reaction force is accompanied by symmetry in temporal but not distance variables of gait in persons with stroke. Gait Posture. 2003;18:23–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen CY, Hong PW, Chen CL, Chou SW, Wu CY, Cheng PT, et al. Ground reaction force patterns in stroke patients with various degrees of motor recovery determined by plantar dynamic analysis. Chang Gung Med J. 2007;30:62–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    De Quervain IA, Simon SR, Leurgans S, Pease WS, McAllister D. Gait pattern in the early recovery period after stroke. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:1506–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hidler JM, Carroll M, Federovich EH. Strength and coordination in the paretic leg of individuals following acute stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2007;15:526–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morris SL, Dodd KJ, Morris ME. Outcomes of progressive resistance strength training following stroke: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18:27–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mudge S, Barber PA, Stott NS. Circuit-based rehabilitation improves gait endurance but not usual walking activity in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:1989–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sullivan KJ, Brown DA, Klassen T, Mulroy S, Ge T, Azen SP, et al. Effects of task-specific locomotor and strength training in adults who were ambulatory after stroke: results of the STEPS Randomized Clinical Trial. Phys Ther. 2007;87:1580–602.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    van de Port IG, Wood-Dauphinee S, Lindeman E, Kwakkel G. Effects of exercise training programs on walking competency after stroke: a systematic review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;86:935–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    van de Port IG, Wevers LE, Lindeman E, Kwakkel G. Effects of circuit training as alternative to usual physiotherapy after stroke: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2012;344:e2672.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Franz JR, Maletis M, Kram R. Real time feedback encourages old adults to increase their propulsion during walking. Clin Biomech. 2014; 29.1:68–74.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Oh K, Baek J, Park S. Gait strategy changes with acceleration to accommodate the biomechanical constraint on push-off propulsion. J Biomech. 2012;45:2920–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Awad LN, Reisman DS, Kesar TM, Binder-Macleod SA. Targeting paretic propulsion to improve poststroke walking function: a preliminary study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95:840–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Awad LN, Binder-Macleod SA, Pohlig RT, Reisman DS. Paretic propulsion and trailing limb angle are key determinants of long-distance walking function after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29:499–508.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bowden MG, Balasubramanian CK, Neptune RR, Kautz SA. Anterior-posterior ground reaction forces as a measure of paretic leg contribution in hemiparetic walking. Stroke. 2006;37:872–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bullimore SR, Burn JF. Consequences of forward translation of the point of force application for the mechanics of running. J Theor Biol. 2006;238:211–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gruben KG, Boehm WL. Force direction pattern stabilizes sagittal plane mechanics of human walking. Hum Mov Sci. 2012;31:649–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gruben KG, Boehm WL. Ankle torque control that shifts the center of pressure from heel to toe contributes non-zero sagittal plane angular momentum during human walking. J Biomech. 2014;47:1389–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sharma S, McMorland AJ, Stinear JW. Stance limb ground reaction forces in high functioning stroke and healthy subjects during gait initiation. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2015.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mulroy S, Gronley J, Weiss W, Newsam C, Perry J. Use of cluster analysis for gait pattern classification of patients in the early and late recovery phases following stroke. Gait Posture. 2003;18:114–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shiavi R, Bugle HJ, Limbird T. Electromyographic gait assessment, part 2: preliminary assessment of hemiparetic synergy patterns. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1987;24:24–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bowden MG, Behrman AL, Woodbury M, Gregory CM, Velozo CA, Kautz SA. Advancing measurement of locomotor rehabilitation outcomes to optimize interventions and differentiate between recovery versus compensation. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2012;36:38–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Goodman MJ, Menown JL, West Jr JM, Barr KM, Vander Linden DW, McMulkin ML. Secondary gait compensations in individuals without neuromuscular involvement following a unilateral imposed equinus constraint. Gait Posture. 2004;20:238–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Titianova EB, Tarkka IM. Asymmetry in walking performance and postural sway in patients with chronic unilateral cerebral infarction. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1995;32:236–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bogataj U, Gros N, Malezic M, Kelih B, Kljajic M, Acimovic R. Restoration of gait during two to three weeks of therapy with multichannel electrical stimulation. Phys Ther. 1989;69:319–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Carlsoo S, Dahllof A, Holm J. Kinetic analysis of gait in patients with hemiparesis and in patients with intermittant claudication. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1974;6:166–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Chen G, Patten C, Kothari DH, Zajac FE. Gait differences between individuals with post-stroke hemiparesis and non-disabled controls at matched speeds. Gait Posture. 2005;22:51–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dettmann MA, Linder MT, Sepic SB. Relationships among walking performance, postural stability, and functional assessments of the hemiplegic patient. Am J Phys Med Rehab. 1987;66:77–90.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Olney SJ, Richards C. Hemiparetic gait following stroke. Part I: characteristics. Gait Posture. 1996;4:136–48.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Peat M, Dubo HI, Winter DA, Quanbury AO, Steinke T, Grahame R. Electromyographic temporal analysis of gait: hemiplegic locomotion. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1976;57:421–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wall JC, Ashburn A. Assessment of gait disability in hemiplegics. Hemiplegic gait Scand J Rehabil Med. 1979;11:95–103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wall JC, Turnbull GI. Gait asymmetries in residual hemiplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1986;67:550–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Allen JL, Kautz SA, Neptune RR. Step length asymmetry is representative of compensatory mechanisms used in post-stroke hemiparetic walking. Gait Posture. 2011;33:538–43.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hof AL. The force resulting from the action of mono- and biarticular muscles in a limb. J Biomech. 2001;34:1085–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bobath B. Adult hemiplegia: evaluation and treatment. Elsevier Health Sciences, 1990.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Neckel ND, Blonien N, Nichols D, Hidler J. Abnormal joint torque patterns exhibited by chronic stroke subjects while walking with a prescribed physiological gait pattern. J Neuroeng Rehab. 2008;5:19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Barela JA, Whitall J, Black P, Clark JE. An examination of constraints affecting the intralimb coordination of hemiparetic gait. Hum Mov Sci. 2000;19:251–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Silver-Thorn B, Herrmann A, Current T, McGuire J. Effect of ankle orientation on heel loading and knee stability for post-stroke individuals wearing ankle-foot orthoses. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35:150–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    O’Sullivan SB. Stroke. In: O’Sullivan SB, Schmitz TJ, editors. Physical rehabilitation: assessment and treatment. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company; 1994. p. 78–553.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lehmann JF, Condon SM, Price R, DeLateur BJ. Gait abnormalities in hemiplegia - their correction by ankle-foot orthoses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1987;68:763–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Turani N, Kemiksizoglu A, Karatas M, Ozker R. Assessment of hemiplegic gait using the Wisconsin Gait Scale. Scand J Caring Sci. 2004;18:103–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bogardh E, Richards CL. Gait analysis and relearning of gait control in hemiplegic patients. Physiother Can. 1981;33:223–30.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Siegel KL, Kepple TM, Stanhope SJ. Using induced accelerations to understand knee stability during gait of individuals with muscle weakness. Gait Posture. 2005;23:435–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Higginson JS, Zajac FE, Neptune RR, Kautz SA, Burgar CG, Delp SL. Effect of equinus foot placement and intrinsic muscle response on knee extension during stance. Gait Posture. 2006;23:32–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Matjacic Z, Olensek A, Bajd T. Biomechanical characterization and clinical implications of artificially induced toe-walking: differences between pure soleus, pure gastrocnemius and combination of soleus and gastrocnemius contractures. J Biomech. 2006;39:255–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kepple TM, Siegel KL, Stanhope SJ. Relative contributions of the lower extremity joint moments to forward progression and support during gait. Gait Posture. 1997;6:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Winter DA. Overall principle of lower limb support during stance phase of gait. J Biomech. 1980;13:923–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Knutsson E, Richards C. Different types of disturbed motor control in gait of hemiparetic patients. Brain. 1979;102:405–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Kerrigan DC, Frates EP, Rogan S, Riley PO. Spastic paretic stiff-legged gait—biomechanics of the unaffected limb. Am J Phys Med Rehab. 1999;78:354–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Lamontagne A, Richards CL, Malouin F. Coactivation during gait as an adaptive behavior after stroke. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2000;10:407–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Riley PO, Kerrigan D. Kinetics of stiff-legged gait: induced acceleration analysis. IEEE Trans Rehab Eng. 1999;7:420–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kerrigan DC, Gronley J, Perry J. Stiff-legged gait in spastic paresis. a study of quadriceps and hamstrings muscle activity. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1991;70:294–300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Kinsella S, Moran K. Gait pattern categorization of stroke participants with equinus deformity of the foot. Gait Posture. 2008;27:144–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Gruben KG, Boehm WL. Mechanical interaction of center of pressure and force direction in the upright human. J Biomech. 2012;45:1661–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Perry J. Gait analysis: normal and pathological function. Thorofare: Slack Incorporated; 1992.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Takebe K, Basmajian JV. Gait analysis in stroke patients to assess treatments of foot-drop. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1976;57:305–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Blaya JA, Herr H. Adaptive control of a variable-impedance ankle-foot orthosis to assist drop-foot gait. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehab Eng. 2004;12:24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Kerrigan DC, Frates EP, Rogan S, Riley PO. Hip hiking and circumduction: quantitative definitions. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;79:247–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Deserres SJ, Milner TE. Wrist muscle activation patterns and stiffness associated with stable and unstable mechanical loads. Exp Brain Res. 1991;86:451–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bourbonnais D, Vanden Noven S, Pelletier R. Incoordination in patients with hemiparesis. Can J Public Health. 1992;83 Suppl 2:S58–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Milner TE. Adaptation to destabilizing dynamics by means of muscle cocontraction. Exp Brain Res. 2002;143:406–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Patton JL, Kovic M, Mussa-Ivaldi FA. Custom-designed haptic training for restoring reaching ability to individuals with poststroke hemiparesis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43:643–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Patton JL, Mussa-Ivaldi FA. Robot-assisted adaptive training: custom force fields for teaching movement patterns. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2004;51:636–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Patton JL, Stoykov ME, Kovic M, Mussa-Ivaldi FA. Evaluation of robotic training forces that either enhance or reduce error in chronic hemiparetic stroke survivors. Exp Brain Res. 2006;168:368–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Bourbonnais D, Bilodeau S, Lepage Y, Beaudoin N, Gravel D, Forget R. Effect of force-feedback treatments in patients with chronic motor deficits after a stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehab. 2002;81:890–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Pang MY, Yang JF. The initiation of the swing phase in human infant stepping: importance of hip position and leg loading. J Physiol. 2000;528(2):389–404.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Hassid E, Rose D, Dobkin B. Improved gait symmetry in hemiparetic stroke patients during body weight-supported treadmill stepping. J Neurol Rehab. 1997;11:21–6.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Visintin M, Barbeau H. The effects of body weight support on the locomotor pattern of spastic paretic patients. Can J Neurol Sci. 1989;16:315–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Hesse S, Konrad M, Uhlenbrock D. Treadmill walking with partial body weight support versus floor walking in hemiparetic subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:421–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Burgess JK, Weibel GC, Brown DA. Overground walking speed changes when subjected to body weight support conditions for nonimpaired and post stroke individuals. J Neuroeng Rehab. 2010;7:6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Duncan PW, Sullivan KJ, Behrman AL, Azen SP, Wu SS, Nadeau SE, et al. Body-weight-supported treadmill rehabilitation after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2026–36.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Suputtitada A, Yooktanan P, Rarerng-Ying T. Effect of partial body weight support treadmill training in chronic stroke patients. J Med Assoc Thai. 2004;87 Suppl 2:S107–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Helbostad JL. Treadmill training and/or body weight support may not improve walking ability following stroke. Aust J Physiother. 2003;49:278.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Kinesiology and Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations