Background: A growing body of evidence suggests the benefit of motor imagery in motor learning. While some studies tried to look at the effect of isolated mental practice, others evaluated the combined effect of motor imagery and physical practice in clinical rehabilitation. This study aimed to investigate the effects of task complexity or rates of motor imagery on motor learning in health young adults.Methods: Eighty-eight healthy individuals participated in this study. Participants were randomly allocated to either Group A (50% complex, N = 22), Group B (75% complex, N = 22), Group C (50% simple, N = 22), or Group D (75% simple, N = 22).Participants in the complex groups performed their task with nondominant hand and those in simple groups with a dominant hand. All participants performed a task that involved reach, grasp, and release tasks. The performance of the four groups was examined in the acquisition and retention phase. The main outcome measure was the movement time.Results: There were significant differences between immediate (i.e., acquisition) and late (i.e., retention) movement times at all three stages of task (i.e., MT 1 [reaching time], MT 2 [target transport time], and TMT [reaching time plus object transport time]) when individuals performed complex task with 75% imagery rate (p < .05).Similarly, there were significant differences between immediate and late movement times at all stages of task except the MT 2 when individuals performed simple task with 75% imagery rate (p < .05). There were significant effects of task complexity (simple vs. complex tasks) on immediate movement time at the first stage of task (i.e., MT 1 ) and late movement times of all three stages of task (p < .05). There were significant effects of the rate of imagery (50% vs. 75%) on late movement times at all three stages of tasks (p > .05). Additionally, there were no interaction effects of either task complexity or rate of imagery on both immediate and late movement times at all three stages of tasks (p > .05).
Conclusion:This study supports the use of higher rates (75%) of motor imagery to improve motor learning.
Background
“Sit to stand” being a prerequisite for walking, the inability of patients to perform it can result in institutionalization, impaired functioning and mobility in activities of daily living. There was a need to find out whether “sit to stand” ability correlates with gait speed, dynamic balance, and quality of life in stroke patients. It is a pilot study in which sixteen sub-acute and chronic stroke (˃ 6 months) patients aged 45 to 65 years with the ability to walk at least 10 m, Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score ˃ 27 were included. Patients with musculoskeletal impairments of lower extremity which would affect walking were excluded from the study. Each patient performed five times sit to stand (5TSTS) from a standard chair and time taken was recorded. Timed up and go (TUG) test and 10-m walk test (10MWT) were used to measure the dynamic balance and gait speed respectively. Stroke Adapted Sickness Impact Profile-30 (SASIP-30) scale was used to determine the quality of life of the patients.
Results
Correlation between the outcomes of the variables was analyzed using Pearson correlation co-efficient. The 5TSTS scores showed strong positive correlation to TUG (r = 0.823, P < .000) and SASIP-30 (r = 0.841, P < .000). However, moderately strong negative relationship was found between 5TSTS and gait speed (r = −0.639, P < .008).
Conclusion
The study concludes that change in the 5TSTS performance can affect motor functions like dynamic balance and gait as well as quality of life. Exercise training focusing on sit-to-stand ability may also influence activities of daily living (ADLs) after stroke.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.