Many patients are in pain when they receive gait training during rehabilitation. Based on animal studies, it has been proposed that central sensitization associated to nociception (maladaptive plasticity) and plasticity related to the sensorimotor learning (adaptive plasticity) share similar neural mechanisms and compete with each other. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether experimental tonic pain influences motor learning (acquisition and next-day retention) of a new locomotor task. Thirty healthy human subjects performed a locomotor adaptation task (perturbing force field applied to the ankle during swing using a robotized orthosis) on 2 consecutive days. Learning was assessed using kinematic measures (peak and mean absolute plantarflexion errors) and electromyographic (EMG) activity. Half of the participants performed the locomotor adaptation task with pain on Day 1 (capsaicin cream around the ankle), while the task was performed pain-free for all subjects on Day 2 to assess retention. Pain had no significant effect on baseline gait parameters nor on performance during the locomotor adaptation task (for either kinematic or EMG measures) on Day 1. Despite this apparently normal motor acquisition, pain-free Day 2 performance was markedly and significantly impaired in the Pain group, indicating that pain during training had an impact on the retention of motor memories (interfering with consolidation and/or retrieval). These results suggest that the same motor rehabilitation intervention could be less effective if administered in the presence of pain.

Most patients receiving intensive rehabilitation to improve their upper limb function experience pain. Despite this, the impact of pain on the ability to learn a specific motor task is still unknown. The aim of this study was to determine whether the presence of experimental tonic pain interferes with the acquisition and retention stages of motor learning associated with training in a reaching task. Twenty-nine healthy subjects were randomized to either a Control or Pain Group (receiving topical capsaicin cream on the upper arm during training on Day 1). On two consecutive days, subjects made ballistic movements towards two targets (NEAR/FAR) using a robotized exoskeleton. On Day 1, the task was performed without (baseline) and with a force field (adaptation). The adaptation task was repeated on Day 2. Task performance was assessed using index distance from the target at the end of the reaching movement. Motor planning was assessed using initial angle of deviation of index trajectory from a straight line to the target. Results show that tonic pain did not affect baseline reaching. Both groups improved task performance across time (p<0.001), but the Pain group showed a larger final error (under-compensation) than the Control group for the FAR target (p = 0.030) during both acquisition and retention. Moreover, a Group x Time interaction (p = 0.028) was observed on initial angle of deviation, suggesting that subjects with Pain made larger adjustments in the feedforward component of the movement over time. Interestingly, behaviour of the Pain group was very stable from the end of Day 1 (with pain) to the beginning of Day 2 (pain-free), indicating that the differences observed could not solely be explained by the impact of pain on immediate performance. This suggests that if people learn to move differently in the presence of pain, they might maintain this altered strategy over time.

Cutaneous pain experienced during locomotor training was previously reported to interfere with retention assessed in pain-free conditions. To determine whether this interference reflects consolidation deficits or a difficulty to transfer motor skills acquired in the presence of pain to a pain-free context, this study evaluated the effect of pain induced during both the acquisition and retention phases of locomotor learning. Healthy participants performed a locomotor adaptation task (robotized orthosis perturbing ankle movements during swing) on two consecutive days. Capsaicin cream was applied around participants' ankle on both days for the Pain group, while the Control group was always pain-free. Changes in movement errors caused by the perturbation were measured to assess global motor performance; temporal distribution of errors and electromyographic activity were used to characterize motor strategies. Pain did not interfere with global performance during the acquisition or the retention phases but was associated with a shift in movement error center of gravity to later in the swing phase, suggesting a reduction in anticipatory strategy. Therefore, previously reported retention deficits could be explained by contextual changes between acquisition and retention tests. This difficulty in transferring skills from one context to another could be due to pain-related changes in motor strategy.

As individuals with musculoskeletal disorders often experience motor impairments, contemporary rehabilitation relies heavily on the use of motor learning principles. However, motor impairments are often associated with pain. Although there is substantial evidence that muscle pain interferes with motor control, much less is known on its impact on motor learning. The objective of the present study was to assess the effects of muscle pain on locomotor learning. Two groups (Pain and Control) of healthy participants performed a locomotor adaptation task (robotized ankle-foot orthosis perturbing ankle movements during swing) on two consecutive days. On day 1 (acquisition), hypertonic saline was injected in the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle of the Pain group participants, while Control group participants were pain free. All participants were pain free on day 2 (retention). Changes in movement errors caused by the perturbation were assessed as an indicator of motor performance. Detailed analysis of kinematic and electromyographic data provided information about motor strategies. No between-group differences were observed on motor performance measured during the acquisition and retention phases. However, Pain group participants had a residual movement error later in the swing phase and smaller early TA activation than Control group participants, thereby suggesting a reduction in the use of anticipatory motor strategies to overcome the perturbation. Muscle pain did not interfere with global motor performance during locomotor adaptation. The different motor strategies used in the presence of muscle pain may reflect a diminished ability to anticipate the consequences of a perturbation. NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study shows that experimental muscle pain does not influence global motor performance during the acquisition or next-day retention phases of locomotor learning. This contrasts with previous results obtained with cutaneous pain, emphasizing the risk of directly extrapolating from one pain modality to another. Muscle pain affected motor strategies used when performing the task, however: it reduced the ability to use increased feedforward control to overcome the force field.

BackgroundMuscle fatigue induced by repetitive movements contributes to the development of musculoskeletal disorders. Men and women respond differently to muscle fatigue during isometric single-joint efforts, but sex differences during dynamic multi-joint tasks have not been clearly identified. Moreover, most studies comparing men and women during fatigue development assessed endurance time. However, none evaluated sex differences in kinematic adaptations to fatigue during multi-joint dynamic tasks. The objective of the study was to compare how men and women adapt their upper body kinematics during a fatiguing repetitive pointing task.MethodsForty men and 41 women performed repetitive pointing movements (one per second) between two targets while maintaining their elbow elevated at shoulder height. The task ended when participants rated a perceived level of fatigue of 8/10. Trunk, humerothoracic, and elbow angles were compared between the first and last 30 s of the experiment and between men and women. Linear positions of the index finger (distance from the target) and the elbow (arm elevation) as well as movement timing were documented as task performance measures.ResultsMen (7.4 ± 3.2 min) and women (8.3 ± 4.5 min) performed the repetitive pointing task for a similar duration. For both sex groups, trunk range of motion increased with fatigue while shoulder’s and elbow’s decreased. Moreover, participants modified their trunk posture to compensate for the decreased humerothoracic elevation. Movements at all joints also became more variable with fatigue. However, of the 24 joint angle variables assessed, only two Sex × Fatigue interactions were observed. Although average humerothoracic elevation angle decreased in both subgroups, this decrease was greater in men (standardized response mean [SRM] − 1.63) than in women (SRM − 1.44). Moreover, the movement-to-movement variability of humerothoracic elevation angle increased only in women (SRM 0.42).ConclusionDespite many similarities between men’s and women’s response to fatigue induced by repetitive pointing movements, some sex differences were observed. Those subtle differences may indicate that men’s shoulder muscles were more fatigued than women’s despite a similar level of perceived exertion. They may also indicate that men and women do not adapt the exact same way to a similar fatigue.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13293-018-0175-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

There is evidence of interaction between phantom limb sensation (PLS) and upper limb prosthesis use, but the nature of this interaction remains unclear. The objective of this study is to investigate the view of prosthesis users and health professionals working with upper limb amputees regarding interaction between PLS, prosthesis use, and rehabilitation services.Twelve upper limb prosthesis users and four health professionals participated in a semistructured one-on-one interview, assessing the perceived interaction between phantom limb phenomena, prosthesis use, and rehabilitation. Prosthesis users participating in this study perceived no long-term changes in their PLS and phantom limb pain (PLP) as they have been wearing their prosthesis. However, many of them reported transient changes in PLP while wearing and using their prosthesis. All myoelectric prosthesis users reported that PLS influences the control of their prosthesis, either positively or negatively. None of the body-powered prosthesis users reported this type of interaction. Even if prosthesis users and health professionals agreed to say that although PLS and PLP are documented and sometimes targeted during rehabilitation (mainly for pain control), interaction between PLS and the prosthesis is rarely considered. Prosthesis users and health professionals have the perception that PLSs interact with prosthesis use, especially in the case of a myoelectric prosthesis. Further research is needed to characterize the nature of this interaction. Moreover, health professionals need to take this type of interaction into account more systematically in their rehabilitation program. (J Prosthet Orthot. 2012; 24:25-33.) KEY INDEXING TERMS: phantom limb pain, upper limb amputation, myoelectric prosthesis, body powered prosthesis, occupational therapist, prosthetist, rehabilitation are affiliated with the Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire en réadaptation et intégration sociale (CIRRIS) and

MFA and SMFA are reliable and responsive tools for monitoring the function of patients with various musculoskeletal disorders. Still, research is needed to justify their usage in a clinical setting.