SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Metronome Cueing of Walking Reduces Gait Variability after a Cerebellar Stroke.

Front Neurol · 2016-06-01

DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2016.00084PMID: 27313563

Open accessJournal Article; Case Reports; case-reportOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Cerebellar stroke typically results in increased variability during walking. Previous research has suggested that auditory cueing reduces excessive variability in conditions such as Parkinson's disease and post-stroke hemiparesis. The aim of this case report was to investigate whether the use of a metronome cue during walking could reduce excessive variability in gait parameters after a cerebellar stroke. An elderly female with a history of cerebellar stroke and recurrent falling undertook three standard gait trials and three gait trials with an auditory metronome. A Vicon system was used to collect 3-D marker trajectory data. The coefficient of variation was calculated for temporal and spatial gait parameters. SDs of the joint angles were calculated and used to give a measure of joint kinematic variability. Step time, stance time, and double support time variability were reduced with metronome cueing. Variability in the sagittal hip, knee, and ankle angles were reduced to normal values when walking to the metronome. In summary, metronome cueing resulted in a decrease in variability for step, stance, and double support times and joint kinematics. Further research is needed to establish whether a metronome may be useful in gait rehabilitation after cerebellar stroke and whether this leads to a decreased risk of falling.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.