MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220869425 · doi:10.1186/s12891-022-05237-5

Does musculoskeletal pain interfere with motor learning in a gait adaptation task? A proof-of-concept study

2022· article· en· W4220869425 on OpenAlexafffund
Frédérique Dupuis, Benoît Pairot de Fontenay, Jason Bouffard, Marc Bouchard, Laurent J. Bouyer, Catherine Mercier, Jean‐Sébastien Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanJewish Rehabilitation HospitalCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnkleMedicinePhysical therapyGaitSports medicineMotor learningPsychologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Experimental pain during gait has been shown to interfere with learning a new locomotor task. However, very few studies have investigated the impact of clinical pain on motor learning due to the challenges associated with clinical populations. OBJECTIVE: The first objective of this proof-of-concept study was to determine the feasibility to obtain two groups of participants with chronic ankle pathology with or without residual pain while walking. The second objective was to evaluate the impact of clinical musculoskeletal pain on motor learning during gait. METHODS: Participants with chronic isolated ankle pathology were recruited and their personal and clinical characteristics were collected (functional performance, dorsiflexion maximal strength, range of motion). To assess motor acquisition (Day 1) and retention (Day 2), participants performed an adaptation task on two consecutive days that consisted of walking while experiencing a perturbing force applied to the ankle. The level of pain during the task was measured, and participants who reported pain were attributed to the Pain group and participants without pain to the No Pain group. Learning performance was assessed by measuring ankle kinematics (Mean plantarflexion absolute error) and learning strategy was assessed by measuring the Relative timing of error and the tibialis anterior (TA) electromyographic activity. RESULTS: Twenty-five participants took part in the experiment. Eight (32%) were excluded because they could not be included in either the Pain or No Pain group due to the intermittent pain, leaving eight participants in the Pain group and nine in the No Pain group. Both groups were similar in terms of baseline characteristics. Musculoskeletal pain had no influence on learning performance, but the learning strategy were different between the two groups. The No Pain group showed a TA activity reduction before perturbation between the days, while the Pain group did not. CONCLUSION: Some barriers were identified in studying musculoskeletal pain including the high rates of participants' exclusion, leading to a small sample size. However, we showed that it is feasible to investigate clinical pain and motor learning. From the results of this study, musculoskeletal pain has no influence on motor learning performance but influences the learning strategy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207