Branscheidt Meret, Hadjiosif Alkis M, Anaya Manuel A, Keller Jennifer, Widmer Mario, Runnalls Keith D, Luft Andreas R, Bastian Amy J, Krakauer John W, Celnik Pablo A
Cereneo center for rehabilitation and neurology, Weggis, Switzerland.
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
bioRxiv. 2023 Jan 25:2023.01.25.525408. doi: 10.1101/2023.01.25.525408.
Neurorehabilitation approaches are frequently predicated on motor learning principles. However, much is left to be understood of how different kinds of motor learning are affected by stroke causing hemiparesis. Here we asked if two kinds of motor learning often employed in rehabilitation, (1) reinforcement learning and (2) error-based adaptation, are altered at different times after stroke.
In a cross-sectional design, we compared learning in two groups of patients with stroke, matched for their baseline motor execution deficit on the paretic side. The early group was tested within 3 months following stroke (N = 35) and the late group was tested more than 6 months after stroke (N = 30). Two types of task were studied: one based on reinforcement learning and the other on error-based learning.
We found that reinforcement learning was impaired in the early but not the late group, whereas error-based learning was unaffected compared to controls. These findings could not be attributed to differences in baseline execution, cognitive impairment, gender, age, or lesion volume and location.
The presence of a specific impairment in reinforcement learning in the first 3 months after stroke has important implications for rehabilitation. It might be necessary to either increase the amount of reinforcement feedback given early or even delay onset of certain forms of rehabilitation training, e.g., like constraint-induced movement therapy, and instead emphasize others forms of motor learning in this early time period. A deeper understanding of stroke-related changes in motor learning capacity has the potential to facilitate the development of new, more precise treatment interventions.
神经康复方法通常基于运动学习原则。然而,对于不同类型的运动学习如何受到导致偏瘫的中风影响,仍有许多有待了解之处。在此,我们探讨了康复中常用的两种运动学习方式,即(1)强化学习和(2)基于误差的适应,在中风后的不同时间是否发生改变。
在一项横断面设计中,我们比较了两组中风患者的学习情况,这两组患者患侧的基线运动执行缺陷相匹配。早期组在中风后3个月内接受测试(N = 35),晚期组在中风后6个月以上接受测试(N = 30)。研究了两种类型的任务:一种基于强化学习,另一种基于误差学习。
我们发现强化学习在早期组中受损,而晚期组未受损,而基于误差的学习与对照组相比未受影响。这些发现不能归因于基线执行、认知障碍、性别、年龄或病变体积和位置的差异。
中风后前3个月强化学习存在特定损伤这一情况对康复具有重要意义。可能有必要要么增加早期给予的强化反馈量,要么甚至延迟某些形式的康复训练的开始时间,例如限制诱导运动疗法,而是在这个早期阶段强调其他形式的运动学习。对中风相关的运动学习能力变化有更深入的了解有可能促进新的、更精确的治疗干预措施的发展。