The independence of impairments in proprioception and visuomotor adaptation after stroke

Abstract

Abstract Background Proprioceptive impairments are common after stroke and are associated with worse motor recovery and poor rehabilitation outcomes. Motor learning may also be an important factor in motor recovery, and some evidence in healthy adults suggests that reduced proprioceptive function is associated with reductions in motor learning. It is unclear how impairments in proprioception and motor learning relate after stroke. Here we used robotics and a traditional clinical assessment to examine the link between impairments in proprioception after stroke and a type of motor learning known as visuomotor adaptation. Methods We recruited participants with first-time unilateral stroke and controls matched for overall age and sex. Proprioceptive impairments in the more affected arm were assessed using robotic arm position- (APM) and movement-matching (AMM) tasks. We also assessed proprioceptive impairments using a clinical scale (Thumb Localization Test; TLT). Visuomotor adaptation was assessed using a task that systematically rotated hand cursor feedback during reaching movements (VMR). We quantified how much participants adapted to the disturbance and how many trials they took to adapt to the same levels as controls. Spearman’s rho was used to examine the relationship between proprioception, assessed using robotics and the TLT, and visuomotor adaptation. Data from healthy adults were used to identify participants with stroke who were impaired in proprioception and visuomotor adaptation. The independence of impairments in proprioception and adaptation were examined using Fisher’s exact tests. Results Impairments in proprioception (58.3%) and adaptation (52.1%) were common in participants with stroke (n = 48; 2.10% acute, 70.8% subacute, 27.1% chronic stroke). Performance on the APM task, AMM task, and TLT scores correlated weakly with measures of visuomotor adaptation. Fisher’s exact tests demonstrated that impairments in proprioception, assessed using robotics and the TLT, were independent from impairments in visuomotor adaptation in our sample. Conclusion Our results suggest impairments in proprioception may be independent from impairments in visuomotor adaptation after stroke. Further studies are needed to understand factors that influence the relationship between motor learning, proprioception and other rehabilitation outcomes throughout stroke recovery.