Elsevier

Physiotherapy

Volume 100, Issue 2, June 2014, Pages 108-115
Physiotherapy

Attentional focus of feedback for improving performance of reach-to-grasp after stroke: a randomised crossover study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2013.03.004Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

To investigate whether feedback inducing an external focus (EF) of attention (about movement effects) was more effective for retraining reach-to-grasp after stroke compared with feedback inducing an internal focus (IF) of attention (about body movement). It was predicted that inducing an EF of attention would be more beneficial to motor performance.

Design

Crossover trial where participants were assigned at random to two feedback order groups: IF followed by EF or EF followed by IF.

Setting

Research laboratory.

Participants

Forty-two people with upper limb impairment after stroke.

Intervention

Participants performed three reaching tasks: (A) reaching to grasp a jar; (B) placing a jar forwards on to a table; and (C) placing a jar on to a shelf. Ninety-six reaches were performed in total over one training session.

Main outcome measures

Kinematic measures were collected using motion analysis. Primary outcome measures were movement duration, peak velocity of the wrist, size of peak aperture and peak elbow extension.

Results

Feedback inducing an EF of attention produced shorter movement durations {first feedback order group: IF mean 2.53 seconds [standard deviation (SD) 1.85]; EF mean 2.12 seconds (SD 1.63), mean difference 0.41 seconds; 95% confidence interval -0.68 to 1.5; P = 0.008}, an increased percentage time to peak deceleration (P = 0.01) when performing Task B, and an increased percentage time to peak velocity (P = 0.039) when performing Task A compared with feedback inducing an IF of attention. However, an order effect was present whereby performance was improved if an EF of attention was preceded by an IF of attention.

Conclusions

Feedback inducing an EF of attention may be of some benefit for improving motor performance of reaching in people with stroke in the short term; however, these results should be interpreted with caution. Further research using a randomised design is recommended to enable effects on motor learning to be assessed.

Introduction

Feedback about motor performance, defined as ‘observable production of a motor action’ [1], calibrates a motor response to the aims of the task [2] and can increase the level or rate at which motor learning occurs. When provided verbally, it can be directed to focus attention either on the body movement [internal focus (IF); e.g. ‘next time, straighten your elbow more’] or on the effects of the movement on the environment [external focus (EF); e.g. ‘next time, move closer to the jar’] [3]. In healthy participants, information feedback which induces an EF of attention has consistently led to improved motor performance compared with information feedback which induces an IF of attention [4], [5]. Following stroke, the effect of EF feedback on motor performance vs IF feedback is not known [6], but EF instructions have resulted in shorter movement times and greater peak velocities during functional reaching tasks [7] and improvements in balance [8].

The ‘constrained action hypothesis’ [9], [10] has been suggested to explain the advantage of inducing an EF of attention. This states that directing attention to movement itself (IF) causes the person to consciously intervene in automatic control processes, thereby disrupting them. In contrast, focusing on the movement effect (EF) reduces a person's ability to actively intervene in their control processes and consequently enables faster, more efficient automatic movements.

Not all studies have supported the advantage of feedback with an EF. In healthy novice performers learning a new skill, a small number of studies have found a benefit from instructions inducing an IF [11], [12]. It is possible that stroke participants may respond differently to type of attentional focus according to level of arm impairment, where those with severe motor impairment may benefit less from feedback inducing an EF of attention.

The influence of available working memory may also influence the benefit conferred by different attentional foci. Adopting an EF has been associated with using less explicit processes and so requires less working memory capacity [13], [14]. The ‘conscious processing hypothesis’ [15] proposes that explicit knowledge about the movement impedes performance and places increased load on working memory. It has been suggested that more working memory is required when inducing an IF of attention, as information from both body and salient features in the environment need to be processed, whereas with EF, only information from the environment is used [14]. Therefore, the motor performance of participants with impaired working memory may improve with an EF of attention.

In summary, it is not clear whether the benefit of EF over IF in healthy participants extends to improving motor performance after stroke. It is also unknown whether the level of motor impairment and working memory capacity are influential factors. In this exploratory study, it was hypothesised that feedback inducing an EF would be more effective than feedback inducing an IF in improving motor performance of reach-to-grasp after stroke. The study did not aim to assess retention of changes in motor performance (motor learning). Measures indicating motor performance of reach-to-grasp (transport of the hand and opening and closing of the hand) and the amplitude of joint movements were used to describe motor performance in this study, since both of these aspects are important in the therapeutic context [16], [17]. Secondly, it was predicted that stroke participants with greater arm impairment would benefit less from receiving feedback inducing an EF compared than those with lesser arm impairment. Thirdly, it was predicted that stroke participants with impaired working memory would benefit more from receiving feedback inducing an EF compared with those with good working memory.

Section snippets

Design

A crossover trial was employed where stratified randomisation via a computer-generated randomised sequence was used to assign participants to one of two feedback order groups: IF followed by EF or EF followed by IF. All participants performed reaching movements under both feedback conditions with a rest between conditions.

Stratification was performed to balance groups on two variables: upper limb impairment (upper limb section of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment: greater arm impairment ≤44; lesser arm

Stroke participants

Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar with respect to age, time since stroke, and Fugl-Meyer and 10-hole peg test scores (Table 1).

A significantly shorter movement duration (F1,40 = 7.927, P = 0.008) and significantly increased %TPD was found for Task B (F1,35 = 7.405, P = 0.01) using EF compared with IF feedback. For Task A, a significantly increased %TPV (F1,40 = 4.539, P = 0.039) was found using EF compared with IF feedback. Movement duration in Task B was nearly 0.5 seconds faster with

Discussion

The results provide some support for the hypothesis that feedback inducing an EF of attention is more effective than feedback inducing an IF of attention in improving motor performance of reach-to-grasp movements after stroke. First, feedback inducing an EF of attention produced a shorter movement duration in Task B. An increased movement duration has been negatively associated with performing activities of daily living [30], [31]. As reach-to-grasp was over 1 second slower (between 2 and 2.5 

Conclusions

Feedback inducing an EF of attention may be of some benefit for improving motor performance of reaching in people with stroke in the short term. However, an order effect was present whereby performance was improved if EF feedback was preceded by IF feedback. Therefore, these results should be interpreted with caution. Further research using a randomised design is recommended to enable effects on motor learning to be assessed.
Ethical approval: Black Country Research Ethics Committee

References (36)

  • B. Sidaway et al.

    Effects of varying the frequency of intrinsic and extrinsic feedback on motor skill learning

    J Hum Movement Stud

    (2005)
  • K.F. Durham et al.

    Use of information feedback and attentional focus of feedback in treatment for the hemiplegic arm

    Physiother Res Int

    (2009)
  • G. Wulf et al.

    Enhancing the learning of sport skills through external-focus feedback

    J Mot Behav

    (2002)
  • P.M. vanVliet et al.

    Extrinsic feedback for motor learning after stroke: what is the evidence?

    Dis Rehabil

    (2006)
  • S.E. Fasoli et al.

    Effect of instructions on functional reach in persons with and without cerebrovascular accident

    Am J Occup Ther

    (2002)
  • N.H. McNevin et al.

    Increasing the distance of an external focus of attention enhances learning

    Psychol Res

    (2003)
  • G. Wulf et al.

    The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus

    Quart J Exp Psychol

    (2001)
  • S.L. Beilock et al.

    When paying attention becomes counterproductive: impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced performance of sensorimotor skills

    J Exp Psychol Appl

    (2002)
  • Cited by (34)

    • Principles into Practice: An Observational Study of Physiotherapists use of Motor Learning Principles in Stroke Rehabilitation

      2023, Physiotherapy (United Kingdom)
      Citation Excerpt :

      The connection between coaching language and motor skill learning is well evidenced in the field of sport [10]; numerous studies have demonstrated the impact that coaching language has on performance and learning [11,12]. Within stroke rehabilitation, a number of small studies have demonstrated performance benefits relating to specific coaching techniques, such as an external focus of attention [13–16], reduced quantity feedback [17,18], and action-observation [19–21]. Observational studies have highlighted that therapist’s may not optimally apply specific motor learning principles during stroke rehabilitation.

    • An external focus of attention compared to an internal focus of attention improves anticipatory postural adjustments among people post-stroke

      2020, Gait and Posture
      Citation Excerpt :

      We did not find significant differences in %ttPV between the two forms of FoA. Previous studies reported that there was an increase in %ttPV among people post-stroke who performed a reaching task while adopting an external FoA; suggesting greater preplanning [20]. The instructions that were utilized in the current study to promote different foci of attention are similar to previous studies [21–26].

    • Differential effects of internal versus external focus of instruction on action planning and performance in patients with right and left hemispheric stroke

      2020, Human Movement Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      Finally, the present study focused on short-term performance; hence, these findings cannot be generalized to learning and recovery. Various studies have investigated the effects of attentional focus during learning and rehabilitation with conflicting results (Durham et al., 2014; Durham, Van Vliet, Badger, & Sackley, 2009; Kal et al., 2015; Kim, Hinojosa, Rao, Batavia, & O'Dell, 2017). Our findings suggest that future studies account for the potential impacts of lesion location and cognitive and perceptual deficits on learning.

    • Relationships between muscle mass, intramuscular adipose and fibrous tissues of the quadriceps, and gait independence in chronic stroke survivors: a cross-sectional study

      2018, Physiotherapy (United Kingdom)
      Citation Excerpt :

      The development of intervention techniques for motor impairment resulting from stroke in recent years has been striking [1–5].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text