HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Patient's P.O.V. All Versions of this Article: ptj.20070134v1 88/1/88    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cernak, K. Articles by Shumway-Cook, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cernak, K. Articles by Shumway-Cook, A. Related Collections Adaptive/Assistive Devices Gait and Locomotion Training Neurology/Neuromuscular System: Other Pediatrics: Other Case Reports Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Locomotor Training Using Body-Weight Support on a Treadmill in Conjunction With Ongoing Physical Therapy in a Child With Severe Cerebellar Ataxia

K Cernak, PT, DPT, MPH, is Physical Therapist, Division of Physical Therapy, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA 98195 (USA)
V Stevens, PT, is Physical Therapist, Division of Physical Therapy, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center
R Price, MSME, is Research Scientist, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center
A Shumway-Cook, PT, PhD, FAPTA, is Professor, Division of Physical Therapy, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center

Address all correspondence to Dr Cernak at: Cernak{at}u.washington.edu

Submitted May 3, 2007; Accepted August 7, 2007

	Abstract

 
Background and Purpose: This case report describes the effects of locomotor training using body-weight support (BWS) on a treadmill and during overground walking on mobility in a child with severe cerebellar ataxia who was nonambulatory. To date, no studies have examined the efficacy of this intervention in people with cerebellar ataxia.

Case Description: The patient was a 13-year-old girl who had a cerebellar/brainstem infarct 16 months before the intervention. Her long-term goal was to walk independently in her home with a walker.

Intervention: Locomotor training using a BWS system both on the treadmill and during overground walking was implemented 5 days a week for 4 weeks in a clinic. Locomotor training using BWS on a treadmill was continued 5 days a week for 4 months at home.

Outcomes: Prior to training, she was able to take steps on her own with the help of another person, but did not take full weight on her feet or walk on a regular basis. At 6 months, she walked for household distances. Prior to training, her Pediatric Functional Independence Measure scores were 3 (moderate assistance) for all transfers, 2 (maximal assistance) for walking, and 1 (total assistance) for stairs. At 6 months, her scores were 6 (modified independence) for transfers, 5 (supervision) for walking, and 4 (minimal assistance) for stairs. Prior to training, she was unable to take independent steps during treadmill walking; at 6 months, all of her steps were unassisted.

Discussion and Conclusion: Locomotor training using BWS on a treadmill in conjunction with overground gait training may be an effective way to improve ambulatory function in individuals with severe cerebellar ataxia, but the intensity and duration of training required for functionally significant improvements may be prolonged.

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Case Description Intervention Outcomes Discussion Appendix. References

 
One of the most commonly stated goals in the rehabilitation of populations with neurologic problems is the recovery of walking capacity.^1–4 Although there is no consensus currently on the best way to train safe, efficient, and independent walking, evidence exists that task-specific gait training can have more beneficial effects on functional gait outcomes than nonspecific rehabilitation approaches.^5,6 Locomotor training using body-weight support on a treadmill (BWST) is an example of task-specific gait training that uses a harness to provide partial body-weight support in conjunction with a motorized treadmill. Researchers examining locomotor training have suggested that training using BWST has several advantages: (1) the body-weight support harness allows a progressive increase in the demands for postural control, (2) the treadmill allows systematic control and progression of the speed at which walking is performed, and (3) the repetitive training of a complete gait cycle enables a more appropriate pattern of sensory input associated with the different phases of gait to stimulate the locomotor pattern.^7–9 In addition, locomotor training using BWST allows the therapist to provide manual assistance to help the patient simulate a more normal walking pattern.

Previous research has presented mixed results regarding the efficacy of locomotor training using BWST in patients with a variety of diagnoses, including stroke,^1,5,10 spinal cord injury,^11,12 and cerebral palsy.¹³ A Cochrane review by Moseley et al¹⁰ investigated the results of gait training using BWST after stroke in 11 randomized controlled trials involving 458 participants and reported no statistically significant differences between gait training using a treadmill with or without body-weight support and other interventions for walking speed and dependency. Matching the type of locomotor training to specific patient characteristics, such as gait speed, may be required to optimize outcomes. For example, patients who have had a stroke and walk slower than 0.4 m/s benefited most from body-weight support and treadmill training, whereas those who walked faster than 0.4 m/s required the addition of overground training to training using BWST.¹

Guidelines regarding optimal ways to combine overground training and training using BWST in specific patient subgroups are still being developed. Helbostad¹⁴ suggested that, despite the mixed evidence for the efficacy of training using BWST for improving gait in patients who are ambulatory, it may be the only alternative for ambulation training in people who are unable or require significant assistance to walk.

Disordered or ataxic gait is a defining characteristic of cerebellar pathology. Ataxic gait has been characterized by a widened or alternatively variable base of support, inappropriate timing of foot placement and reduced step frequency, increased step width, and prolonged time in double-limb support.¹⁵ Both impaired postural stability and decomposition of multijoint leg movements appear to be factors in cerebellar gait ataxia.^16,17 This combination of impaired balance and dyscoordination in lower-limb dynamics suggests a strong rationale for the use of locomotor training using BWST in people with ataxic gait. However, BWST uses unweighting during locomotor training, and this unweighting is in contrast to previous authors¹⁸ who have recommended the use of weights on the trunk and limbs to decrease ataxic movements in patients with cerebellar pathology.

In addition to their role in the control of balance and gait, cerebellar structures also are important in practice-dependent motor adaptation and learning in many different systems, including those controlling locomotion.^16,17 Damage to the cerebellum affects the extent and rate at which individuals adapt locomotion to new contexts.¹⁶ This suggests that the training of individuals with cerebellar pathology may require a longer duration or intensity of practice to improve locomotor function regardless of the type of training.

The purpose of this case report is to describe the effect of locomotor training using BWST in conjunction with overground walking training on mobility function in a 13-year-old patient with severe cerebellar ataxia.

	Case Description

Top Abstract Introduction Case Description Intervention Outcomes Discussion Appendix. References

 
Patient Description

The patient was a 13-year-old girl who had been healthy previously and who had a spontaneous posterior fossa hemorrhage with resultant cerebellar and brainstem infarcts. She was initially unresponsive and on a ventilator. She regained consciousness after approximately 11 weeks. In addition to rendering her nonambulatory, initial sequelae from the hemorrhage included ataxia, decreased coordination, weakness, and multiple cranial nerve palsies.

This individual was selected for the case report involving locomotor training using BWST for several reasons: one of her goals for therapy was to improve her ability to walk independently, she was limited in her ability to participate in mobility training because she required maximum assistance of 2 people to walk, she had a brief exposure (less than 10% of total treatment time) to locomotor training using BWST during her inpatient rehabilitation stay and was receptive to it, and her family was very supportive and willing to transport her to the clinic for physical therapy every day. In addition, during her inpatient stay, weights were tried on both limbs and the trunk to reduce ataxic movements, with no appreciable gains in either functional limb movements or improved postural stability in sitting, standing, or walking. The patient began the intervention outlined in this case report 16 months after her injury.

Examination

A physical therapist performed the tests and measures before the beginning of clinic training, immediately after completion of clinic training, 1 month after completion of clinic training, and after the completion of 4 months of home training. At the beginning of the intervention, (16 months after the hemorrhage), our patient required a tracheotomy and feeding tube, she was dependent in all activities of daily living, and she used a wheelchair for in-home and community mobility.

Table 1 summarizes her physical impairments at the initiation of training. She exhibited significant ataxia during both upper- and lower-extremity movements, including dysmetria when reaching for objects, dysdiadochokinesia when performing rapid alternating movements, weakness (4 out of 5 on the manual muscle test),¹⁹ spasticity greater on the right side (score of 2 on the Modified Ashworth Scale),²⁰ clonus, and a tight Achilles tendon on the right lower extremity. She also demonstrated multiple cranial nerve palsies (left vocal cord paresis, facial nerve palsies, and swallowing dysfunction) and sensory and perceptual deficits primarily on the left side, including decreased vision, decreased proprioception, and impaired hearing.

Her physical therapy diagnosis was "Impaired Motor Function and Sensory Integrity Associated With Nonprogressive Disorders of the Central Nervous System—Acquired in Adolescence or Adulthood" (Preferred Physical Therapist Practice Pattern 5D).²¹

Two measures of mobility were used as outcome measures: the Pediatric Functional Independence Measure (WeeFIM), specifically the transfers and locomotion subscales,^22,23 and the Gillette Functional Walking Scale.²⁴ The WeeFIM is a modified version of the Functional Independence Measure designed to indicate severity of disability based on the concept of "burden of care," which refers to the amount of assistance required to perform a given activity. The WeeFIM has 18 items in 6 subscales; however, only the transfers and locomotion subscales were considered as outcome measures for this case report. We chose this test for its ability to monitor change over time in children with chronic disabilities. Ottenbacher et al²³ found the responsiveness of the WeeFIM to be statistically significant (P<.05) for detecting change in functional abilities in 174 children with chronic disabilities over a 1-year period. Interrater reliability is high (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=.90–.99), as is test-retest reliability (ICC=.98–.99).²² Ottenbacher et al²² also demonstrated that the ICC was the highest (.99) for the transfers and locomotion subscales that we used with our patient.

The Gillette Functional Walking Scale (the walking-scale portion of the Gillette Functional Assessment) is a 10-level scale that includes the entire range of walking abilities from nonambulatory to completely independent ambulation in all community settings and terrains. This scale was chosen for its ability to help document current functional status and for its ability to evaluate change as a result of interventions, specifically to track an individual's progress in establishing more independent gait. It is a reliable tool both between and within raters for a range of community ambulation over a time frame of 1 to 6 months.²⁴ Good test-retest (ICC=.92), intrarater (ICC=.92), and interrater (ICC=.81) reliability have been demonstrated, and content and concurrent validity (assessed using Pearson correlations) also are significant at the .01 level.²⁴

Mobility function also was measured during overground walking and during treadmill walking. Distance and level of assistance required were used to evaluate overground mobility function. In addition, the number of independent steps the patient was able to take while walking on the treadmill was measured weekly during the clinic training and then again at 1 and 5 months after completion of the clinic training.

	Intervention

Top Abstract Introduction Case Description Intervention Outcomes Discussion Appendix. References

 
The patient received locomotor training using BWST on a LiteGait system (model LGI 500)^25,* (Fig. 1) in conjunction with practice in overground walking, 5 times a week for 4 weeks in the clinic. This was followed by 4 months of training using BWST in the home. At the conclusion of the 4-week intervention in the clinic, the patient had no locomotor training using BWST for 1 month because of a delay in locating a suitable in-home treadmill system. Factors that affected the selection of a home unit included limited space that required a treadmill that could be folded up and a treadmill that could be used at a speed of <0.2 m/s.

View larger version (84K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Body-weight–supported treadmill training system used in the clinic.

View larger version (99K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Body-weight–supported treadmill training system used in the home.

Training Parameters and Progression

The parameters of training that were progressed with treatment are described below and summarized in Table 2.

Body-weight support.
The level of body-weight support (determined by using a scale to measure body weight while standing on the treadmill in the harness) was adjusted across sessions to maximize upright posture and independent stepping. Initially, the harness provided approximately 30% of body-weight support for walking on the treadmill and during overground walking practice. This was progressively decreased to 10% of body-weight support by the second month of training.

Manual assistance.
Amount and type of manual assistance was decreased across training sessions. Initially, 3 physical therapists were required to provide manual assistance to the patient while walking on the treadmill in the support harness. One physical therapist assisted with each lower leg by placing one hand at the top of each foot to facilitate toe clearance at swing phase and heel-strike at initial stance and the other hand behind the knees to prevent knee hyperextension. As shown in Figure 1, the therapists providing manual assistance to control lower-limb placement either squatted or sat on the edge of the treadmill apparatus or on a low stool. A third assistant stabilized the patient at the hips and manually assisted with pelvic rotation. The patient was initially instructed to hold lightly onto handrails to provide additional support and upright posture on the treadmill as needed. Upper-extremity support was discontinued 2 months after the start of training, when the patient was able to maintain a vertical trunk position without the assistance of her arms; however, she still required manual assistance from the therapist at the hips. This assistance at the hips was maintained for almost 4 months because of her severe ataxia of the trunk.

Training speed.
Based on research with a stroke population that showed the efficacy of increased training speed on locomotor outcomes,²⁶ our goal was to train gait at the fastest speed manageable by the patient. However, Hidler²⁷ suggested that training speeds need to be set according to each person's ability to retain adequate motor control of his or her legs. At the beginning of training, our patient required 3 people to help her walk at a treadmill speed of 0.18 m/s with approximately 30% of body-weight support. We tried to increase her training speed, but found that if we attempted to increase treadmill speed faster than 0.31 m/s, our patient was not able to retain adequate motor control and stepping ability. We were not able to increase speed after the second week in the clinic, and the patient consistently trained at approximately 0.3 m/s.

Visual cues for foot placement.
Because of impaired lower-extremity proprioception, the patient used visual cues to guide foot placement during walking; however, this led to a forward head and trunk posture that decreased her postural stability. We alternated practicing stepping with visual guidance (eg, looking at her feet while walking) with looking straight ahead (increased use of proprioceptive and kinesthetic cues for foot placement). The amount of time spent in visually guided foot placement was gradually decreased, allowing the patient to gradually increase the number of steps she was able to take independently without visual guidance for foot placement.

Progression of training parameters involved first reducing the amount of manual assistance of the legs provided by therapists to improve stepping ability, then reducing body-weight support while maintaining independent stepping ability, and finally increasing speed of training while maintaining both postural stability and independent stepping ability. Concomitant to the progression of treadmill training parameters, we increased the time and duration of overground walking training, progressively decreased body-weight support in the harness, and increased gait speed during overground walking. The decision to prioritize independent stepping ability (decreased manual assistance) over postural stability (decreased body weight in the harness) was twofold: first and foremost, the patient herself was strongly committed to moving her limbs independently, and, second, manually advancing the limbs was physically taxing and fatiguing to the therapists. As the patient began to master independent stepping, body-weight support was reduced. Each session she attempted to ambulate by loading the maximum weight she was able to support and still maintain adequate stepping ability. Training time on the treadmill was consistently set at 15 minutes, but time spent on walking overground was increased as the patient developed stepping ability and tolerance for physical activity.

Vital signs were monitored daily in her home by a registered nurse and were stable, so they were not taken in the clinic. Oxygen saturation levels were taken when the patient showed any signs of respiratory distress, and they did not go below 90%.

Our patient also received in-home physical therapy twice a week for 90-minute sessions from the time of her discharge home from the rehabilitation center 6 months prior to the clinic intervention, during the 4-week session of training using BWST in the clinic, and for at least a year afterward. The goals of her in-home physical therapy program were to increase strength and coordination, to improve her ability to maintain balance in sitting and standing, and to increase independence in transfers. Specific interventions are summarized in the Appendix.

	Outcomes

Top Abstract Introduction Case Description Intervention Outcomes Discussion Appendix. References

 
Table 3 compares scores on the 3 primary outcome measures over the course of the intervention. Prior to training, her score on the Gillette Functional Walking Scale was 2 (can do some stepping on her own with the help of another person, but does not take full weight on her feet or walk on a regular basis) and remained at 2 at the 4-week mark (ie, when the clinic training was completed) and at retention test 1 month after completion of the clinic training. Six months after initiation of the intervention, her score improved to 6 (walks for household distances).

The number of independent steps taken during treadmill walking was 0 prior to training, and improved weekly to 128 steps at 4 weeks and to 200 steps at the1-month follow-up after completion of the clinic training. Six months after initiation of the intervention, all steps on the treadmill were unassisted.

As noted in Table 2, there was a steady improvement in all training parameters for the training using BWST, including: an increase in gait speed from 0.18 to 0.31 m/s on the treadmill, increased endurance as shown by fewer rest breaks during the 15-minute treadmill sessions, decreased body-weight support from approximately 30% to 15%, and decreased level of assistance required for walking on the treadmill from 3 people to 1 person.

The body-weight support harness was used during overground walking training during the first 4 weeks of training. In the home setting, however, the harness was anchored to the ceiling and, therefore, was not available for overground walking training. At 2 weeks, the assistive gait device was changed from a rear support walker, which she was never able to successfully control, to a front 4-wheeled walker. A U-Step walker was introduced at home 2 months into her home training. As shown in Table 2, there was steady improvement in overground walking, as indicated by a gradual increase in the distance walked from 50 m at 1 week to 152 m at the completion of training, and a reduction in the personal assistance required from maximum assistance from 3 people to supervision by 1 person.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Case Description Intervention Outcomes Discussion Appendix. References

 
This case report examined the effect of locomotor training using BWST in conjunction with home physical therapy on mobility function in a 13-year-old girl with severe cerebellar ataxia. After 5 months of this training, our patient progressed from being nonambulatory at the start of training to being able to walk 152 m with supervision using a U-Step walker. Other functional improvements included improved independence in transfers. She continued to use her wheelchair for long distances in the community and for independent mobility in the home. Her increased independence in stepping on the treadmill after 4 weeks of training with BWST in the clinic encouraged the family to purchase a BWST system for the home so that training could be continued 5 days a week for 4 months. She continued to make slow, but steady, gains throughout her 5 months of training, despite the fact that training was begun 16 months after her injury.

Previous research^28,29 suggests that, following a neurologic injury such as stroke, physical improvements plateau after 6 months. However, recent studies examining the effect of constraint-induced therapy in people with stroke have suggested that gains can be made with intensive therapy several years after the injury.³⁰ Consistent with this research, our patient, whose injury occurred 16 months previously, made significant functional gains with intensive physical therapy (5 days per week for 5 months) that included locomotor training using BWST in conjunction with overground walking.

Our results are similar to those of the case report by Day et al¹³ on a 9-year-old boy with cerebral palsy who was nonambulatory but was able to complete up to 60 independent steps on the treadmill with body-weight support after 44 sessions of training and demonstrated carryover to overground walking by walking short distances with a rolling walker with minimal assistance 4 months after training. In our patient, functional independence in walking was achieved only after 5 months (approximately 99 training sessions using BWST). This suggests that, in addition to intensity, duration is a critical factor in determining outcomes. Although walking on the treadmill improved steadily over the first month, significant improvements in overground walking were not seen until after 5 months of training.

We believe that a number of factors contributed to the outcomes, including the motivation of the patient and the support and dedication of her family. This family was able to afford a home BWST system and was willing to work with her 5 days per week. In addition, she received in-home physical therapy and occupational therapy several times a week as well as benefiting from additional time from a trained rehabilitation aide. The relative contribution of locomotor training using BWST to the outcomes in light of the fact that she received additional interventions cannot be determined. It is noteworthy, however, that she was nonambulatory after 1 year of in-home therapy, but achieved independent ambulation with the addition of 5 months of intensive locomotor training using BWST.

Results from this case report suggest that locomotor training using BWST is a promising intervention for improving gait in patients with severe cerebellar ataxia who are nonambulatory. Functional gains in walking, however, may require months of consistent practice and training. Findings from this case report provide possible support for research demonstrating the importance of cerebellar structures in locomotor adaptation and in practice-dependent motor learning.^16,17 It also supports findings that the rate of locomotor adaptation and thus motor recovery may be slower in the presence of cerebellar pathology compared with other brain regions.^16,17 The intensity and duration of locomotor training using BWST required to achieve functional gains in patients with lesser severity of injury is not known. In addition, it is not clear how much additional therapy is needed to achieve these outcomes. Studies are needed to determine the optimal intensity and duration of locomotor training to optimize functional walking outcomes following cerebellar pathology.

	Appendix.

Top Abstract Introduction Case Description Intervention Outcomes Discussion Appendix. References

 

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Appendix. Summary of Home Physical Therapy Interventions aIn-Step Mobility Products Corp, 8027 N Monticello Ave, Skokie, IL 60076. bNuStep Inc, 5111 Venture Dr, Ste 1, Ann Arbor, MI 48108.

	Footnotes

 
Dr Shumway-Cook provided concept/idea/research design. Dr Cernak, Ms Stevens, and Dr Shumway-Cook provided writing, data analysis, and project management. All authors provided data collection. Ms Stevens provided the subject. Mr Price provided facilities/equipment. Mr Price, Ms Stevens, Dr Shumway-Cook, Valerie Kelly, and Stacia Lee, PT, provided consultation (including review of manuscript before submission).

^* Mobility Research, PO Box 3141, Tempe, AZ 85280.

Vision Fitness, 500 South CP Ave, PO Box 280, Lake Mills, WI 53551-0280.

Pneumex Inc, 2605 N Boyer Ave, Sandpoint, ID 83864.

In-Step Mobility Products Corp, 8027 N Monticello Ave, Skokie, IL 60076.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Case Description Intervention Outcomes Discussion Appendix. References

 

1. Barbeau H, Visintin M. Optimal outcomes obtained with body-weight support combined with treadmill training in stroke subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:1458–1465.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
2. Latham NK, Jette DU, Slavin M, et al. Physical therapy during stroke rehabilitation for people with different walking abilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(12 suppl 2):S41–S50.[Web of Science][Medline]
3. Lord SE, McPherson K, McNaughton HK, et al. Community ambulation after stroke: how important and obtainable is it and what measures appear predictive? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:234–239.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
4. Schenkman M, Cutson TM, Zhu CW, Whetten-Goldstein K. A longitudinal evaluation of patients' perceptions of Parkinson's disease. Gerontologist. 2002;42:790–798.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Hesse S, Bertelt C, Jahnke MT, et al. Treadmill training with partial body weight support compared with physiotherapy in nonambulatory hemiparetic patients. Stroke. 1995;16:976–981.
6. Laufer Y, Dickstein R, Chefez Y, Marcovitz E. The effect of treadmill training on the ambulation of stroke survivors in the early stages of rehabilitation: a randomized study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2001;38:69–78.[Web of Science][Medline]
7. Barbeau H. Locomotor training in neurorehabilitation: emerging rehabilitation concepts. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2003;17:3–11.[Free Full Text]
8. Behrman AL, Lawless-Dixon AR, Davis SB, et al. Locomotor training progression and outcomes after incomplete spinal cord injury. Phys Ther. 2005;85:1356–1371.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Behrman AL, Bowden MG, Nair PM. Neuroplasticity after spinal cord injury and training: an emerging paradigm shift in rehabilitation and walking recovery. Phys Ther. 2006;86:1406–1425.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Moseley AM, Stark A, Cameron ID, Pollock A. Treadmill training and body weight support for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(4):CD002840.[Medline]
11. Wernig A, Muller S, Nanassy A, Cagol E. Laufband therapy based on "rules of spinal locomotion" is effective in spinal cord injured persons. Eur J Neurosci. 1995;7:1429.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
12. Dietz V, Harkema S. Locomotor activity in spinal cord-injured persons. J Appl Physiol. 2004;96:1954–1960.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Day JA, Fox EJ, Lowe J, et al. Locomotor training with partial body weight support on a treadmill in a nonambulatory child with spastic tetraplegic cerebral palsy: a case report. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2004;16:106–113.[CrossRef][Medline]
14. Helbostad JL. Treadmill training and/or body weight support may not improve walking ability following stroke. Aust J Physiother. 2003;49:278.[Medline]
15. Stolze H, Klebe S, Petersen G, et al. Typical features of cerebellar ataxic gait. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;73:310–312.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Morton SM, Bastian AJ. Cerebellar control of balance and locomotion. Neuroscientist. 2004;10:247–259.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Morton SM, Bastian AJ. Mechanisms of cerebellar ataxia. Cerebellum. 2007;6:79–86.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
18. Morgan MH. Ataxia and weights. Physiotherapy. 1975;61:332–334.[Medline]
19. Kendall FP, McCreary EK. Muscles: Testing and Function. 3rd ed. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins; 1983.
20. Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987;67:206–207.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21. Guide to Physical Therapist Practice. Rev 2nd ed. Alexandria, Va: American Physical Therapy Association; 2003.
22. Ottenbacher KJ, Taylor ET, Msall ME, et al. The stability and equivalence reliability of the Functional Independence Measure for Children (WeeFIM). Dev Med Child Neurol. 1996;38:907–916.[Web of Science][Medline]
23. Ottenbacher KJ, Msall ME, Lyon N, et al. The WeeFIM instrument: its utility in detecting change in children with developmental disabilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:823–829.
24. Novacheck TF, Stout JL, Tervo R. Reliability and validity of the Gillette Functional Assessment Questionnaire as an outcome measure in children with walking disabilities. J Pediatr Orthop. 2000;20:75–81.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
25. Partial Weight Bearing Gait Training Protocol using LiteGait. Available at: http://www.litegait.com/protocols.htm. Accessed September 22, 2005.
26. Sullivan KJ, Knowlton BJ, Dobkin DH. Step training with body weight support: effect of treadmill speed and practice paradigms on poststroke locomotor recovery. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:683–691.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
27. Hidler JM. What is next for locomotor-based studies? [Guest editorial.] J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42:xi–xiv.[CrossRef]
28. Duncan PW, Goldstein LB, Matchar D, et al. Measurement of motor recovery after stroke: outcome assessment and sample size requirements. Stroke. 1992;23:1084–1089.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Duncan PW, Lai SM, Keighley J. Defining post-stroke recovery: implications for design and interpretation of drug trials. Neuropharmacology. 2000;39:835–841.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
30. Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP, et al; EXCITE Investigators. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2006;296:2095–2104.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. Ilg, M. Synofzik, D. Brotz, S. Burkard, M. A. Giese, and L. Schols Intensive coordinative training improves motor performance in degenerative cerebellar disease Neurology, December 1, 2009; 73(22): 1823 - 1830. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Patient's P.O.V. All Versions of this Article: ptj.20070134v1 88/1/88    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cernak, K. Articles by Shumway-Cook, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cernak, K. Articles by Shumway-Cook, A. Related Collections Adaptive/Assistive Devices Gait and Locomotion Training Neurology/Neuromuscular System: Other Pediatrics: Other Case Reports Social Bookmarking                      What's this?