Exploring New Approaches in Reaching Behavior Post Stroke

This study has been completed.
Information provided by:
University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
First received: February 13, 2009
Last updated: NA
Last verified: February 2009
History: No changes posted

After 4 weeks of training the hypothesis that the more natural training program would yield greater functional changes was proven correct.

Condition Intervention
Behavioral: stabilization training
Behavioral: auditory training group

Study Type: Interventional
Study Design: Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Double Blind (Subject, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Primary Purpose: Treatment
Official Title: Training With or Without Upper Body Restraint During Reaching in Individuals Post Stroke

Resource links provided by NLM:

Further study details as provided by University of the Sciences in Philadelphia:

Primary Outcome Measures:
  • WMFT [ Time Frame: 1 year ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Secondary Outcome Measures:
  • FM and shoulder flexion [ Time Frame: 1 year ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Enrollment: 24
Study Start Date: April 2007
Study Completion Date: September 2008
Primary Completion Date: August 2008 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Arms Assigned Interventions
Active Comparator: 1
stabilization training group
Behavioral: stabilization training
training of arm function with the trunk stabilized
Experimental: 2
auditory response training group
Behavioral: auditory training group
response to an auditory signal

Detailed Description:

Analysis indicated that both methods improved reaching without trunk use Reaching performance scale (RPS), but the trunk -stabilized group led to more significant changes. Training under less restrictive conditions associated with Task-Related Training (TRT) (auditory feedback from trunk sensor) as compared to stabilized TRT, led to improved functional and impairment measure scores (WMFT, FM and shoulder flexion). Conclusion: Fading feedback with both training methods, during extended TRT reaching/grasping practice generally led to some improvements. However, as demonstrated by impairment and functional outcome measures, using TRT with an auditory feedback signals is a more effective approach than forcing the stabilization of the trunk during rehabilitation of the upper-limb.


Genders Eligible for Study:   Both
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   Yes

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Individuals all scored between 20 and 44 on the Upper-Arm subsection of the Fugl-Meyer Scale (FM- Poole & Whitney, 1988) and demonstrated some trunk movement during the pretest reaching performance scale measures (RPS, Levin 2006)

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Individuals were referred if they had no receptive aphasia, apraxia or other cognitive deficits.
  Contacts and Locations
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00844870

Sponsors and Collaborators
University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
Principal Investigator: Gregory T Thielman, Ed.D University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
  More Information

No publications provided

Responsible Party: Gregory Thielman, University of The Sciences in Philadelphia
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00844870     History of Changes
Other Study ID Numbers: 06-007
Study First Received: February 13, 2009
Last Updated: February 13, 2009
Health Authority: United States: Institutional Review Board

Keywords provided by University of the Sciences in Philadelphia:
rehabilitation, reaching, stroke

Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Cerebral Infarction
Cerebrovascular Disorders
Brain Diseases
Central Nervous System Diseases
Nervous System Diseases
Vascular Diseases
Cardiovascular Diseases
Brain Infarction
Brain Ischemia

ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on April 17, 2014