Advertisement

Interference During Simultaneous Performance of a Motor and Cognitive Task Involving the Upper Extremity After Stroke

  • G. B. Prange-Lasonder
  • V. Robles-García
  • S. Brown
  • J. H. Buurke
  • J. Whitall
  • J. H. Burridge
Conference paper
Part of the Biosystems & Biorobotics book series (BIOSYSROB, volume 15)

Abstract

After stroke, the ability to perform two tasks concurrently is diminished, which may contribute to less pronounced gains on activity level after rehabilitation. The current study investigated whether upper extremity dual-task performance is compromised after stroke, as a first step towards examining whether cortical stimulation can reduce dual-task interference. Twenty stroke patients performed a single motor task (tapping targets), single cognitive task (memorising digits) and dual motor-cognitive task. Although motor performance was better when performing the dual-task compared to the single tapping task, it was at the expense of cognitive performance. These findings suggest upper extremity cognitive-motor interference after stroke. In ongoing work, we are investigating the potential role of cortical stimulation to improve motor and cognitive dual-task performance.

Keywords

Cognitive Task Motor Task Digit Span Dual Task Dual Task Condition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was partly supported by the European Network on Robotics for NeuroRehabilitation, through the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action TD1006.

References

  1. 1.
    G. Kwakkel, B.J. Kollen, J. Van der Grond, A.J.H. Prevo, Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke 34, 2181–2186 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Langhorne, M. Bernhardt, G. Kwakkel, Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet 377, 1693–1702 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    G.B. Prange, M.J.A. Jannink, C.G.M. Groothuis, H.J. Hermens, M.J. Ijzerman, Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 43, 171–184 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M.E. Michielsen, M. De Niet, G.M. Ribbers, H.J. Stam, J.B. Bussmann, Evidence of a logarithmic relationship between motor capacity and actual performance in daily life of the paretic arm following stroke. J. Rehabil. Med. 41, 327–331 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S.C. Marshall, D. Grinell, B. Heisel, A. Newall, L. Hunt, Attentional deficits in stroke patients: a visual dual task experiment. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 78, 7–12 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Plummer et al., Cognitive-motor interference during functional mobility after stroke: state of the science and implications for future research. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 94, 2565–2574 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Flöel, tDCS-enhanced motor and cognitive function in neurological diseases. Neuro Image 85, 934–947 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Hummel et al., Effects of non-invasive cortical stimulation on skilled motor function in chronic stroke. Brain 128, 490–499 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.E. Wittwer, K.E. Webster, K. Hill, Rhythmic auditory cueing to improve walking in patients with neurological conditions other than Parkinson’s disease—what is the evidence? Disabil. Rehabil. 35, 164–176 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Whitall, M. Waller, K.H.C. Silver, R.F. Macko, Repetitive bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing improves motor function in chronic hemiparetic stroke. Stroke 31, 2390−2395 (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Houwink, B. Steenbergen, G.B. Prange, J.H. Buurke, A.C. Geurts, Upper-limb motor control in patients after stroke: Attentional demands and the potential beneficial effects of arm support, Hum. Mov. Sci. 32, 377−387 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. B. Prange-Lasonder
    • 1
  • V. Robles-García
    • 2
  • S. Brown
    • 3
  • J. H. Buurke
    • 1
  • J. Whitall
    • 4
  • J. H. Burridge
    • 3
  1. 1.Roessingh Research and DevelopmentUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Universidade Da CoruñaCoruñaSpain
  3. 3.University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  4. 4.University of MarylandBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations