Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2023 Oct;37(10):744-757. doi: 10.1177/15459683231207354. Epub 2023 Oct 21.
We aimed to identify key aspects of the learning dynamics of proprioception training including: 1) specificity to the training type, 2) acquisition of proprioceptive skills, 3) retention of learning effects, and 4) transfer to different proprioceptive skills.
We performed a systematic literature search using the database (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PEDro). The inclusion criteria required adult participants who underwent any training program that could enhance proprioceptive function, and at least 1 quantitative assessment of proprioception before and after the intervention. We analyzed within-group changes to quantify the effectiveness of an intervention.
In total, 106 studies with 343 participant-outcome groups were included. Proprioception-specific training resulted in large effect sizes with a mean improvement of 23.4 to 42.6%, nonspecific training resulted in medium effect sizes with 12.3 to 22% improvement, and no training resulted in small effect sizes with 5.0 to 8.9% improvement. Single-session training exhibited significant proprioceptive improvement immediately (10 studies). For training interventions with a midway evaluation (4 studies), trained groups improved by approximately 70% of their final value at the midway point. Proprioceptive improvements were largely maintained at a delayed follow-up of at least 1 week (12 studies). Finally, improvements in 1 assessment were significantly correlated with improvements in another assessment (10 studies).
Proprioceptive learning appears to exhibit several features similar to motor learning, including specificity to the training type, 2 time constant learning curves, good retention, and improvements that are correlated between different assessments, suggesting a possible, common mechanism for the transfer of training.
我们旨在确定本体感受训练学习动态的关键方面，包括：1）对训练类型的特异性，2）本体感受技能的获得，3）学习效果的保持，以及 4）向不同本体感受技能的转移。
我们使用数据库（MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane 图书馆和 PEDro）进行了系统的文献检索。纳入标准要求参与者为成年人，接受任何可以增强本体感受功能的训练计划，并且干预前后至少有 1 项本体感受的定量评估。我们分析了组内变化，以量化干预的效果。
共有 106 项研究，涉及 343 个参与者-结果组，纳入本研究。本体感受特异性训练的效果较大，平均改善幅度为 23.4%至 42.6%；非特异性训练的效果中等，改善幅度为 12.3%至 22%；无训练的效果较小，改善幅度为 5.0%至 8.9%。单次训练即可立即显著改善本体感受（10 项研究）。对于有中途评估的训练干预（4 项研究），训练组在中途点时已经提高了其最终值的约 70%。本体感受的改善在至少 1 周的延迟随访中基本保持（12 项研究）。最后，1 项评估的改善与另一项评估的改善显著相关（10 项研究）。
本体感受学习似乎表现出一些与运动学习相似的特征，包括对训练类型的特异性、2 个时间常数的学习曲线、良好的保持性以及不同评估之间的改善具有相关性，这表明训练转移可能存在共同的机制。
