Multidisciplinary Views on Applying Explicit and Implicit Motor Learning in Practice: An International Survey

Background A variety of options and techniques for causing implicit and explicit motor learning have been described in the literature. The aim of the current paper was to provide clearer guidance for practitioners on how to apply motor learning in practice by exploring experts' opinions and experiences, using the distinction between implicit and explicit motor learning as a conceptual departure point. Methods A survey was designed to collect and aggregate informed opinions and experiences from 40 international respondents who had demonstrable expertise related to motor learning in practice and/or research. The survey was administered through an online survey tool and addressed potential options and learning strategies for applying implicit and explicit motor learning. Responses were analysed in terms of consensus (>= 70%) and trends (>= 50%). A summary figure was developed to illustrate a taxonomy of the different learning strategies and options indicated by the experts in the survey. Results Answers of experts were widely distributed. No consensus was found regarding the application of implicit and explicit motor learning. Some trends were identified: Explicit motor learning can be promoted by using instructions and various types of feedback, but when promoting implicit motor learning, instructions and feedback should be restricted. Further, for implicit motor learning, an external focus of attention should be considered, as well as practicing the entire skill. Experts agreed on three factors that influence motor learning choices: the learner's abilities, the type of task, and the stage of motor learning (94.5%; n = 34/36). Most experts agreed with the summary figure (64.7%; n = 22/34). Conclusion The results provide an overview of possible ways to cause implicit or explicit motor learning, signposting examples from practice and factors that influence day-to-day motor learning decisions.published_or_final_versio

Using a Delphi technique to seek consensus regarding definitions, descriptions and classification of terms related to implicit and explicit forms of motor learning.

Published onlineJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tBACKGROUND: Motor learning is central to domains such as sports and rehabilitation; however, often terminologies are insufficiently uniform to allow effective sharing of experience or translation of knowledge. A study using a Delphi technique was conducted to ascertain level of agreement between experts from different motor learning domains (i.e., therapists, coaches, researchers) with respect to definitions and descriptions of a fundamental conceptual distinction within motor learning, namely implicit and explicit motor learning. METHODS: A Delphi technique was embedded in multiple rounds of a survey designed to collect and aggregate informed opinions of 49 international respondents with expertise related to motor learning. The survey was administered via an online survey program and accompanied by feedback after each round. Consensus was considered to be reached if ≥70% of the experts agreed on a topic. RESULTS: Consensus was reached with respect to definitions of implicit and explicit motor learning, and seven common primary intervention strategies were identified in the context of implicit and explicit motor learning. Consensus was not reached with respect to whether the strategies promote implicit or explicit forms of learning. DISCUSSION: The definitions and descriptions agreed upon may aid translation and transfer of knowledge between domains in the field of motor learning. Empirical and clinical research is required to confirm the accuracy of the definitions and to explore the feasibility of the strategies that were identified in research, everyday practice and education.Stichting Alliantie Innovatie (Innovation Alliance Foundation)RAAK-internationa

Multidisciplinary Views on Applying Explicit and Implicit Motor Learning in Practice: An International Survey.

Published onlineJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tBACKGROUND: A variety of options and techniques for causing implicit and explicit motor learning have been described in the literature. The aim of the current paper was to provide clearer guidance for practitioners on how to apply motor learning in practice by exploring experts' opinions and experiences, using the distinction between implicit and explicit motor learning as a conceptual departure point. METHODS: A survey was designed to collect and aggregate informed opinions and experiences from 40 international respondents who had demonstrable expertise related to motor learning in practice and/or research. The survey was administered through an online survey tool and addressed potential options and learning strategies for applying implicit and explicit motor learning. Responses were analysed in terms of consensus (≥ 70%) and trends (≥ 50%). A summary figure was developed to illustrate a taxonomy of the different learning strategies and options indicated by the experts in the survey. RESULTS: Answers of experts were widely distributed. No consensus was found regarding the application of implicit and explicit motor learning. Some trends were identified: Explicit motor learning can be promoted by using instructions and various types of feedback, but when promoting implicit motor learning, instructions and feedback should be restricted. Further, for implicit motor learning, an external focus of attention should be considered, as well as practicing the entire skill. Experts agreed on three factors that influence motor learning choices: the learner's abilities, the type of task, and the stage of motor learning (94.5%; n = 34/36). Most experts agreed with the summary figure (64.7%; n = 22/34). CONCLUSION: The results provide an overview of possible ways to cause implicit or explicit motor learning, signposting examples from practice and factors that influence day-to-day motor learning decisions.Stichting Innovatie Alliantie (Innovation Alliance Foundation)RAAK-internationa

Rationale and design of a multicenter randomized controlled trial on a 'minimal intervention' in Dutch army personnel with nonspecific low back pain [ISRCTN19334317]

BACKGROUND: Researchers from the Royal Netherlands Army are studying the potential of isolated lumbar extensor training in low back pain in their working population. Currently, a randomized controlled trial is carried out in five military health centers in The Netherlands and Germany, in which a 10-week program of not more than 2 training sessions (10–15 minutes) per week is studied in soldiers with nonspecific low back pain for more than 4 weeks. The purpose of the study is to investigate the efficacy of this 'minimal intervention program', compared to usual care. Moreover, attempts are made to identify subgroups of different responders to the intervention. METHODS: Besides a baseline measurement, follow-up data are gathered at two short-term intervals (5 and 10 weeks after randomization) and two long-term intervals (6 months and one year after the end of the intervention), respectively. At every test moment, participants fill out a compound questionnaire on a stand-alone PC, and they undergo an isometric back strength measurement on a lower back machine. Primary outcome measures in this study are: self-assessed degree of complaints and degree of handicap in daily activities due to back pain. In addition, our secondary measurements focus on: fear of movement/(re-) injury, mental and social health perception, individual back extension strength, and satisfaction of the patient with the treatment perceived. Finally, we assess a number of potential prognostic factors: demographic and job characteristics, overall health, the degree of physical activity, and the attitudes and beliefs of the physiotherapist towards chronic low back pain. DISCUSSION: Although a substantial number of trials have been conducted that included lumbar extension training in low back pain patients, hardly any study has emphasized a minimal intervention approach comparable to ours. For reasons of time efficiency and patient preferences, this minimal sports medicine approach of low back pain management is interesting for the population under study, and possibly for comparable working populations with physical demanding job activities

Effectiveness of behavioural graded activity compared with physiotherapy treatment in chronic neck pain: design of a randomised clinical trial [ISRCTN88733332]

BACKGROUND: Chronic neck pain is a common complaint in the Netherlands with a point prevalence of 14.3%. Patients with chronic neck pain are often referred to a physiotherapist and, although many treatments are available, it remains unclear which type of treatment is to be preferred. The objective of this article is to present the design of a randomised clinical trial, Ephysion, which examines the clinical and cost effectiveness of behavioural graded activity compared with a physiotherapy treatment for patients with chronic non-specific neck pain. METHODS: Eligible patients with non-specific neck pain persisting longer than 3 months will be randomly allocated to either the behavioural graded activity programme or to the physiotherapy treatment. The graded activity programme is based on an operant approach, which uses a time-contingent method to increase the patient's activity level. This treatment is compared with physiotherapy treatment using a pain-contingent method. Primary treatment outcome is the patient's global perceived effect concerning recovery from the complaint. Global perceived effect on daily functioning is also explored as primary outcome to establish the impact of treatment on daily activity. Direct and indirect costs will also be assessed. Secondary outcomes include the patient's main complaints, pain intensity, medical consumption, functional status, quality of life, and psychological variables. Recruitment of patients will take place up to the end of the year 2004 and follow-up measurement will continue until end 2005

Modelling the impact of toxic and disturbance stress on white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) populations

Several studies have related breeding success and survival of sea eagles to toxic or non-toxic stress separately. In the present investigation, we analysed single and combined impacts of both toxic and disturbance stress on populations of white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla), using an analytical single-species model. Chemical and eco(toxico)logical data reported from laboratory and field studies were used to parameterise and validate the model. The model was applied to assess the impact of ∑PCB, DDE and disturbance stress on the white-tailed eagle population in The Netherlands. Disturbance stress was incorporated through a 1.6% reduction in survival and a 10–50% reduction in reproduction. ∑PCB contamination from 1950 up to 1987 was found to be too high to allow the return of white-tailed eagle as a breeding species in that period. ∑PCB and population trends simulated for 2006–2050 suggest that future population growth is still reduced. Disturbance stress resulted in a reduced population development. The combination of both toxic and disturbance stress varied from a slower population development to a catastrophical reduction in population size, where the main cause was attributed to the reduction in reproduction of 50%. Application of the model was restricted by the current lack of quantitative dose–response relationships between non-toxic stress and survival and reproduction. Nevertheless, the model provides a first step towards integrating and quantifying the impacts of multiple stressors on white-tailed eagle populations

General and Specific Self-efficacy Reports of Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: Are They Related to Performances in a Functional Capacity Evaluation?

Introduction The objective of this study was to analyze the relationship of general and specific self-efficacy (SE) beliefs with functional capacity evaluation (FCE) performances in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (CLBP), while controlling for influence of gender, age, and self-reported pain intensity, self-esteem, disability, psychosocial distress and health status. Methods Included were 92 patients with CLBP referred to an outpatient university based multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation program in The Netherlands. All patients underwent an FCE. General SE was measured with the ALCOS questionnaire prior to the FCE, specific SE was measured with a self-constructed standardized question during the FCE. Paired samples t-tests were used to tests differences between predicted and actual performances. Pearson and Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to express the strength of the relationships between SE and performances. Multivariate analyses were used to test the influence of control variables on the relationships between SE (general or specific) and performances. Results Performances were consistently higher than patients’ self-predictions. Differences between predictions and performances were significant in male lifting low, male carrying, and female carrying. With exception of the association between specific SE and lifting in males (r = 0.55, P < 0.05), all other correlations between general and specific SE and FCE performances were non-significant. Multivariable regression analyses showed that the relative contribution of SE measures over gender was little or none. Conclusions The contribution of specific SE to the prediction of FCE performances is moderate in one instance, and insignificant in most instances (both specific and general SE). Because of the consistency of the differences between prediction (specific SE) and performances, and depending on the level of accuracy needed, future research may deliberate the use of predicted material handling capacities at group level and correct for a systematic underprediction

Pragmatic application of a clinical prediction rule in primary care to identify patients with low back pain with a good prognosis following a brief spinal manipulation intervention

BACKGROUND: Patients with low back pain are frequently encountered in primary care. Although a specific diagnosis cannot be made for most patients, it is likely that sub-groups exist within the larger entity of nonspecific low back pain. One sub-group that has been identified is patients who respond rapidly to spinal manipulation. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between two factors (duration and distribution of symptoms) and prognosis following a spinal manipulation intervention. METHODS: Data were taken from two previously published studies. Patients with low back pain underwent a standardized examination, including assessment of duration of the current symptoms in days, and the distal-most distribution of symptoms. Based on prior research, patients with symptoms of <16 days duration and no symptoms distal to the knee were considered to have a good prognosis following manipulation. All patients underwent up to two sessions of spinal manipulation treatment and a range of motion exercise. Oswestry disability scores were recorded before and after treatment. If ≥ 50% improvement on the Oswestry was achieved, the intervention was considered a success. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio were calculated for the association of the two criteria with the outcome of the treatment. RESULTS: 141 patients (49% female, mean age = 35.5 (± 11.1) years) participated. Mean pre- and post-treatment Oswestry scores were 41.9 (± 10.9) and 24.1 (± 14.2) respectively. Sixty-three subjects (45%) had successful treatment outcomes. The sensitivity of the two criteria was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.43, 0.67), specificity was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.96), and the positive likelihood ratio was 7.2 (95% CI: 3.2, 16.1). CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate that two factors; symptom duration of less than 16 days, and no symptoms extending distal to the knee, were associated with a good outcome with spinal manipulation

Active rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: Cognitive-behavioral, physical, or both? First direct post-treatment results from a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN22714229]

BACKGROUND: The treatment of non-specific chronic low back pain is often based on three different models regarding the development and maintenance of pain and especially functional limitations: the deconditioning model, the cognitive behavioral model and the biopsychosocial model. There is evidence that rehabilitation of patients with chronic low back pain is more effective than no treatment, but information is lacking about the differential effectiveness of different kinds of rehabilitation. A direct comparison of a physical, a cognitive-behavioral treatment and a combination of both has never been carried out so far. METHODS: The effectiveness of active physical, cognitive-behavioral and combined treatment for chronic non-specific low back pain compared with a waiting list control group was determined by performing a randomized controlled trial in three rehabilitation centers. Two hundred and twenty three patients were randomized, using concealed block randomization to one of the following treatments, which they attended three times a week for 10 weeks: Active Physical Treatment (APT), Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment (CBT), Combined Treatment of APT and CBT (CT), or Waiting List (WL). The outcome variables were self-reported functional limitations, patient's main complaints, pain, mood, self-rated treatment effectiveness, treatment satisfaction and physical performance including walking, standing up, reaching forward, stair climbing and lifting. Assessments were carried out by blinded research assistants at baseline and immediately post-treatment. The data were analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: For 212 patients, data were available for analysis. After treatment, significant reductions were observed in functional limitations, patient's main complaints and pain intensity for all three active treatments compared to the WL. Also, the self-rated treatment effectiveness and satisfaction appeared to be higher in the three active treatments. Several physical performance tasks improved in APT and CT but not in CBT. No clinically relevant differences were found between the CT and APT, or between CT and CBT. CONCLUSION: All three active treatments were effective in comparison to no treatment, but no clinically relevant differences between the combined and the single component treatments were found

Cost-effectiveness of an intensive group training protocol compared to physiotherapy guideline care for sub-acute and chronic low back pain: design of a randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation. [ISRCTN45641649]

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common disorder in western industrialised countries and the type of treatments for low back pain vary considerably. METHODS: In a randomised controlled trial the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of an intensive group training protocol versus physiotherapy guideline care for sub-acute and chronic low back pain patients is evaluated. Patients with back pain for longer than 6 weeks who are referred to physiotherapy care by their general practitioner or medical specialist are included in the study. The intensive group training protocol combines exercise therapy with principles of behavioural therapy ("graded activity") and back school. This training protocol is compared to physiotherapy care according to the recently published Low Back Pain Guidelines of the Royal Dutch College for Physiotherapy. Primary outcome measures are general improvement, pain intensity, functional status, work absenteeism and quality of life. The direct and indirect costs will be assessed using cost diaries. Patients will complete questionnaires at baseline and 6, 13, 26 and 52 weeks after randomisation. DISCUSSION: No trials are yet available that have evaluated the effect of an intensive group training protocol including behavioural principles and back school in a primary physiotherapy care setting and no data on cost-effectiveness and cost-utility are available