11 years later and I still have no pushoff from the affected leg. And pretty useless research since testing was done with healthy young controls. Your doctor and hospital should be setting up research to test this in stroke impaired persons, but nothing like that will occur because they are waiting for SOMEONE ELSE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM!
https://jneuroengrehab.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12984-017-0252-z
- Christopher Schenck and
- Trisha M. KesarEmail author
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation201714:52
DOI: 10.1186/s12984-017-0252-z
© The Author(s). 2017
Received: 5 June 2016
Accepted: 12 May 2017
Published: 6 June 2017
Abstract
Background
In individuals with
post-stroke hemiparesis, reduced push-off force generation in the
paretic leg negatively impacts walking function. Gait training
interventions that increase paretic push-off can improve walking
function in individuals with neurologic impairment. During normal
locomotion, push-off forces are modulated with variations in gait speed
and slope. However, it is unknown whether able-bodied individuals can
selectively modulate push-off forces from one leg in response to
biofeedback. Here, in a group of young, neurologically-unimpaired
individuals, we determined the effects of a real-time visual and
auditory biofeedback gait training paradigm aimed at unilaterally
increasing anteriorly-directed ground reaction force (AGRF) in the
targeted leg.
Methods
Ground reaction force data
during were collected from 7 able-bodied individuals as they walked at a
self-selected pace on a dual-belt treadmill instrumented with force
platforms. During 11-min of gait training, study participants were
provided real-time AGRF biofeedback encouraging a 20–30% increase in
peak AGRF generated by their right (targeted) leg compared to their
baseline (pre-training) AGRF. AGRF data were collected before, during,
and after the biofeedback training period, as well as during two
retention tests performed without biofeedback and after standing breaks.
Results
Compared to AGRFs generated
during the pre-training gait trials, participants demonstrated a
significantly greater AGRF in the targeted leg during and immediately
after training, indicating that biofeedback training was successful at
inducing increased AGRF production in the targeted leg. Additionally,
participants continued to demonstrate greater AGRF production in the
targeted leg after two standing breaks, showing short-term recall of the
gait pattern learned during the biofeedback training. No significant
effects of training were observed on the AGRF in the non-targeted limb,
showing the specificity of the effects of biofeedback toward the
targeted limb.
Conclusions
These results demonstrate the
short-term effects of using unilateral AGRF biofeedback to target
propulsion in a specific leg, which may have utility as a training tool
for individuals with gait deficits such as post-stroke hemiparesis.
Future studies are needed to investigate the effects of real-time AGRF
biofeedback as a gait training tool in neurologically-impaired
individuals.
No comments:
Post a Comment