Advertisement

Exploring the relationship between visuospatial function and age-related deficits in motor skill transfer

  • Jennapher Lingo VanGilder
  • Christopher S. Walter
  • Caitlin R. Hengge
  • Sydney Y. SchaeferEmail author
Original Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Generalizing learned information from one motor task to another is critical for effective motor rehabilitation. A recent study demonstrated age-related declines in motor skill transfer, yet findings from other motor learning studies suggest that visuospatial impairments may explain such aging effects.

Aims

The purpose of this secondary analysis was to test whether age-related deficits in motor skill transfer were related to low visuospatial ability.

Methods

Forty-two participants (mean ± SD age: 72.1 ± 9.9 years) were tested on an upper extremity dexterity task before and after 3 days of training on an upper extremity reaching task. Training and control data have been published previously. Prior to training, global cognitive status and specific cognitive domains (visuospatial/executive, attention, and delayed memory) were evaluated using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.

Results

Backward-stepwise linear regression indicated that the Visuospatial/Executive subtest was related to motor skill transfer (i.e., the amount of change in performance on the untrained motor task), such that participants with higher visuospatial scores improved more on the untrained dexterity task than those with lower scores. Global cognitive status was unrelated to motor skill transfer.

Discussion

Consistent with previous studies showing a positive relationship between visuospatial function and other aspects of motor learning, this secondary analysis indicates that less motor skill transfer among older adults may indeed be due to declines in visuospatial function.

Conclusions

The present study highlights the potential utility of assessing older patients’ visuospatial ability within motor rehabilitation to provide valuable insight into the extent to which they may learn and generalize motor skills through training.

Keywords

Motor control Rehabilitation Cognitive aging 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported in part by the National Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health (K01 AG047926 to SYS and F31 AG062057 to JLV); the Achievement Rewards for College Scientists Foundation (Spetzler Scholarship to JLV), and Health Resources and Services Administration’s Geriatric Workforce Enhancement Program (U1QHP28723 to CSW).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

40520_2019_1345_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (72 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 72 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Masiero S, Celia A, Armani M et al (2006) Robot-aided intensive training in post-stroke recovery. Aging Clin Exp Res 18:261–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mohabbati-Kalejahi N, Yazdi MAA, Megahed FM et al (2017) Streamlining science with structured data archives: insights from stroke rehabilitation. Scientometrics 113:969–983.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2482-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McLafferty FS, Barmparas G, Ortega A et al (2016) Predictors of improved functional outcome following inpatient rehabilitation for patients with traumatic brain injury. NeuroRehabilitation 39:423–430.  https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-161373 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frankel JE, Marwitz JH, Cifu DX et al (2006) A follow-up study of older adults with traumatic brain injury: taking into account decreasing length of stay. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87:57–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2005.07.309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mosenthal AC, Livingston DH, Lavery RF et al (2004) The effect of age on functional outcome in mild traumatic brain injury: 6-month report of a prospective multicenter trial. J Trauma 56:1042–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rodrigue KM, Kennedy KM, Raz N (2005) Aging and longitudinal change in perceptual-motor skill acquisition in healthy adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 60:P174–P181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shea C, Jin-Hoon P (2006) Age-related effects in sequential motor learning. Phys Ther 86:478–488Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmidt R, Lee T (2005) Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis, 4th edn. Human Kinetics, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schaefer SY, Dibble LE, Duff K (2015) Efficacy and feasibility of functional upper extremity task-specific training for older adults with and without cognitive impairment. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 29:636–644.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968314558604 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Walter CS, Hengge CR, Lindauer BE et al (2019) Declines in motor transfer following upper extremity task-specific training in older adults. Exp Gerontol 116:14–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2018.12.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krishna R, Moustafa AA, Eby LA et al (2012) Learning and generalization in healthy aging: implication for frontostriatal and hippocampal function. Cogn Behav Neurol 25:7–15.  https://doi.org/10.1097/WNN.0b013e318248ff1b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schaefer SY, Duff K (2017) Within-session and one-week practice effects on a motor task in amnestic mild cognitive impairment. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 39:473–484.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2016.1236905 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lingo VanGilder J, Hengge CR, Duff K et al (2018) Visuospatial function predicts 1-week motor skill retention in cognitively intact older adults. Neurosci Lett 664:139–143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2017.11.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bo J, Seidler RD (2009) Visuospatial working memory capacity predicts the organization of acquired explicit motor sequences. J Neurophysiol 101:3116.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00006.2009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bendayan R, Piccinin AM, Hofer SM et al (2017) Decline in memory, visuospatial ability, and crystalized cognitive abilities in older adults: normative aging or terminal decline? J Aging Res.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6210105 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muniz-Terrera G, Massa F, Benaglia T et al (2018) Visuospatial reasoning trajectories and death in a study of the oldest old: a formal evaluation of their association. J Aging Health 31:743–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264317753878 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cumming TB, Churilov L, Linden T et al (2013) Montreal cognitive assessment and mini-mental state examination are both valid cognitive tools in stroke. Acta Neurol Scand 128:122–129.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.12084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walmsley N (2017) The invisible effects of stroke. London stroke nurse competency day. University College London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Katz S, Downs TD, Cash HR et al (1970) Progress in development of the index of ADL1. Gerontologist 10:20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hopman-Rock M, van Hirtum H, de Vreede P et al (2019) Activities of daily living in older community-dwelling persons: a systematic review of psychometric properties of instruments. Aging Clin Exp Res 31:917–925.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-018-1034-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V et al (2005) The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 53:695–699.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schaefer SY (2015) Preserved motor asymmetry in late adulthood: is measuring chronological age enough? Neuroscience 294:51–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.03.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schaefer SY, Patterson CB, Lang CE (2013) Transfer of training between distinct motor tasks after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 27:602–612.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968313481279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Waddell KJ, Birkenmeier RL, Moore JL et al (2014) Feasibility of high-repetition, task-specific training for individuals with upper-extremity paresis. Am J Occup Ther 68:444–453.  https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2014.011619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Page SJ, Sisto S, Levine P et al (2004) Efficacy of modified constraint-induced movement therapy in chronic stroke: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 85:14–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Toglia JP (1991) Generalization of treatment: a multicontext approach to cognitive perceptual impairment in adults with brain injury. Am J Occup Ther 45:505–516.  https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.6.505 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schaefer SY, Lang CE (2012) Using dual tasks to test immediate transfer of training between naturalistic movements: a proof-of-principle study. J Mot Behav 44:313–327.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2012.708367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wittenberg GF, Lovelace CT, Foster DJ et al (2014) Functional neuroimaging of dressing-related skills. Brain Imaging Behav 8:335–345.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-012-9204-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Horvat M, Croce R, Tomporowski P et al (2013) The influence of dual-task conditions on movement in young adults with and without Down syndrome. Res Dev Disabil 34:3517–3525.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.06.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Godfrey SB, Zhao KD, Theuer A et al (2018) The SoftHand Pro: functional evaluation of a novel, flexible, and robust myoelectric prosthesis. PLoS One 13:e0205653.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205653 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cheong Y-S, Kim AR, Park E et al (2018) Validity of the Buttoning test in hand disability evaluation of patients with stroke. Ann Rehabil Med 42:18–25.  https://doi.org/10.5535/arm.2018.42.1.18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Soliveri P, Brown RG, Jahanshahi M et al (1992) Effect of practice on performance of a skilled motor task in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 55:454–460.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.55.6.454 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schaefer SY, Hengge CR (2016) Testing the concurrent validity of a naturalistic upper extremity reaching task. Exp Brain Res 234:229–240.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4454-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Toglia J, Fitzgerald KA, O’Dell MW et al (2011) The Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment in persons with mild subacute stroke: relationship to functional outcome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 92:792–798.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010.12.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Seidler RD (2010) Neural correlates of motor learning, transfer of learning, and learning to learn. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 38:3–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/JES.0b013e3181c5cce7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Talwar NA, Churchill NW, Hird MA et al (2019) The neural correlates of the Clock–Drawing test in healthy aging. Front Hum Neurosci 13:25.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Steele CJ, Scholz J, Douaud G et al (2012) Structural correlates of skilled performance on a motor sequence task. Front Hum Neurosci 6:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00289 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hoeft F, Barnea-Goraly N, Haas BW et al (2007) More is not always better: increased fractional anisotropy of superior longitudinal fasciculus associated with poor visuospatial abilities in Williams syndrome. J Neurosci 27:11960–11965.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3591-07.2007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vogel SJ, Banks SJ, Cummings JL et al (2015) Concordance of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment with standard neuropsychological measures. Alzheimer’s Dement (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 1:289–294.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dadm.2015.05.002 Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Moafmashhadi P, Koski L (2013) Limitations for interpreting failure on individual subtests of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 26:19–28.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891988712473802 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Burton L, Tyson SF (2015) Screening for cognitive impairment after stroke: a systematic review of psychometric properties and clinical utility. J Rehabil Med 47:193–203.  https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-1930 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ridley N, Batchelor J, Draper B et al (2018) Cognitive screening in substance users: diagnostic accuracies of the Mini-Mental State Examination, Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-Revised, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 40:107–122.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2017.1316970 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bosco A, Spano G, Caffo AO et al (2017) Italians do it worse. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) optimal cut-off scores for people with probable Alzheimer’s disease and with probable cognitive impairment. Aging Clin Exp Res 29:1113–1120.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-017-0727-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Malek-Ahmadi M, Kora K, O’Connor K et al (2016) Longer self-reported sleep duration is associated with decreased performance on the Montreal cognitive assessment in older adults. Aging Clin Exp Res 28:333–337.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-015-0388-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Malek-Ahmadi M, O’Connor K, Schofield S et al (2018) Trajectory and variability characterization of the Montreal cognitive assessment in older adults. Aging Clin Exp Res 30:993–998.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-017-0865-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fleishman EA, Rich S (1963) Role of kinesthetic and spatial–visual abilities in perceptual-motor learning. J Exp Psychol 66:6–11.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046677 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological and Health Systems EngineeringArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Physical TherapyUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesLittle RockUSA
  3. 3.University of Utah HospitalSalt Lake CityUSA
  4. 4.Department of Physical Therapy and Athletic TrainingUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations