Abstract
Introduction Motor learning plays a central role in neurological and geriatric rehabilitation. The wide range of motor learning strategies and increase in evidence can make it difficult to make informed decisions about the use of motor learning strategies in practice. This review’s aim was to provide a broad overview of the current state of research regarding the effects of seven commonly used motor learning strategies to improve functional tasks within older neurological and geriatric populations.
Method A systematic mapping review of randomised controlled trials was conducted regarding the effectiveness of seven motor learning strategies – errorless learning, analogy learning, observational learning, trial-and-error learning, dual-task learning, discovery learning, and movement imagery – within the geriatric and neurological population. PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases were searched. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess bias; additionally, papers underwent screening for sample size justification.
Results Eighty-seven articles were included. Identified articles regarding the effects of the targeted motor learning strategies started around the year 2000 and mainly emerged since 2010. Eight different populations were included, e.g. Parkinson’s, and stroke. Studies were not equally balanced across the motor learning strategies or target groups and overall showed a moderate to high risk of bias. Positive trends regarding effects were observed for dual-tasking, observational learning and movement imagery.
Conclusions The findings show a skewed distribution of studies across motor learning interventions, which have been researched within a variety of populations. Methodological shortcomings make it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of motor learning strategies. Future researchers are strongly advised to follow guidelines that aid in maintaining methodological quality. Moreover, alternative designs fitting the complex practice situation should be considered.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2024-3-0056/
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Regieorgaan SIA (Dutch Organization for Scientific Research Applied Research Fund) under grant number RAAK.PUB09.001. The funding source had no involvement in the execution of the study or the analysis of the data.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
