Skip to main content

Table 4 Description of studies on lower limb rehabilitation (Second part)

From: Action observation training for rehabilitation in brain injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author Experimental group Control group Study Outcome Results: differences between experimental and control group
Type of AOT Videos (perspective; speed) Type of intervention
Kim J-C et al.; 2017 [30] Observation (2 min 30 s) + 12 min 30 s for physical training × 2/day
Actions: tasks related to STW and imitated actions. 16 tasks with adjusted difficulty and condition based on patient’s functional status and level
n.s. Observe static landscape photos + physical training as the EG WDI, LOS, TUG, DGI No significant difference in the TUG, DGI, and WDI between the AOPT and LIOPT groups. Significant difference in LOS between the AOPT and LIOPT groups
Bae S et al.; 2017 [31] 20 min. Video of dorsiflexion of the contralateral ankle recorded in advance whit simultaneously application of ETFES, movement of the contralateral ankle, induced by ETFES shown live on a monitor during subjects’ performance n.s. Patients were instructed to dorsiflex upon FES application. A Microstim device was used to apply FES by bipolar placement of the electrodes. Asymmetrical biphasic waves were applied for 20 min with valgus position MRCP was measured by the QEEG-8; the H reflexes with Neuro-EMG-Micro, EMG, and Biorescue system for assessment of the effects of ETFES with AOT MRCP in MP at C4 and dynamic balance (LOS) showed significant differences between DASI and control group
Park HJ et al.; 2017 [32] video clips of walking on even and uneven ground, in a complex and unpredictable community environment, in a parking lot, shopping center 3 different directions (front back, side), 2 different filming speeds: normal and half times normal speed. 30 min video clips of static landscape pictures; any human or animal representation were excluded 10MWT In EG walking function and ambulation confidence was significantly different between the pre- and post-intervention, whereas the CG showed a significant difference only in the 10MWT
Lee et al.; 2017 [33] Observation (15 min) + execution (15 min)
Actions: dorsiflexor training composed of 3 stages of active assistive exercise. 1 stage: knee joint extensor and dorsiflexor training. 2 stage: knee joint flexor and dorsiflexor training. 3 stage: hip and knee joint flexor and dorsiflexor training
Front and lateral side videos were produced separately for the left and right hemiplegic subjects The MTA group received mirror therapy for 15 min/day and physical training of the same motions without a mirror for 15 min/day. The AOT group conducted action observation only for 30 min/day OBI, ABI, MBI, Postural stability and fall risk, mEFAP No significant difference was found between the groups on all outcome measures
Park and Hwangbo; 2015 [34] AOGT: 3 min video+ 1 min break + 5 min walking training + 1–2 min break. (x3) n.s. GGT: 12 min video with break (3 min) showing images of nature unrelated with walking + 20 min walking training Balance ability: sway area, sway speed, limit of stability by analysis system using biofeedback, AP1153BioRescue. Gait ability: TUG, 10MWT There were significant differences in the sway speed, in the limit of stability, in TUG and 10 MWT between the two groups after the experiment but not in the sway area
Park HR et al.; 2014 [35] Observation (10 min) of video clips + sessions of walking training (20 min).
4 Tasks for functional training frequently experienced in premorbid life including weight shifting to the affected side, walking on straight and curved paths, walking on even and uneven surfaces, crossing obstacle.
2 filming speed options (normal and half- speeds) in the front, back and side views in twice sequence Observation of video clips showing different landscape images (10 min) + perform the same walking tasks as the EG 10MWT, DGI, Gait Symmetry Score The difference between the pre- and post-test values of the 10MWT, figure-of-8 walk test, and DGI showed statistically significant differences between the EG and CG
Kim JH et al.; 2013 [36] Observation (20 min) + Physical training with a therapist (10 min).
Actions: 4 stages including trunk flexion, trunk rotation, sit to stand, and crossing obstacles.
n.s. MIG: 20 min of motor imagery program played through a computer speaker + physical training for 10 min based on the training contents.
PTG: training of the trunk for learning supine to rolling movements, sit to stand, and normal gait pattern
EEG data quantitative analysis using Telescan 2.9. Raw EEG data were converted into frequencies, then relative alpha power (8–13/4–50 Hz) and relative beta power (13–20/4–50 Hz) were analyzed There were no significantly differences between the 3 groups
Kim JH et Lee BH; 2013 [37] Observation of task video (20 min) + physical training with a therapist (10 min)
Actions divided in 4 stages: Stage 1) pelvic tilting, trunk flexion and extension, and trunk rotation in the sitting position; Stage 2) sit to stand and stand to sit; Stage 3) weight shift to the front and back, left and right; Stage 4) gait level surface and step over obstacle
The video was produced separately for patients with left hemiplegia and right hemiplegia MIG: 20 min of motor imagery program + physical training for 10 min as in the EG program. PTG: training of the trunk for learning supine to rolling movements, sit-to-stand, normal gait pattern, as well as training of the lower extremity, weight shifting, and gait level surface and gait stairs TUG, the functional reaching test, the walking ability questionnaire, the functional ambulation category. Spatiotemporal gait parameters were collected using a GAITRite system No significant differences in any outcome measure were observed between the AOT group and the MIG, except for Stride length. Significant difference was observed between the AOT group and the PTG in the TUG, gait speed, cadence, and single limb support of the affected side
  1. EG Experimental Group, CG Control Group, LIOPT Landscape Imagery Observation Physical Training Group, AOPT Action Observation Physical Training Group, STW Sit To Walk, PT Physical Therapy, WDI Weight Distribution Index, LOS Limit of Stability, TUG Time Up and Go Test, DGI Dynamic Gait Index, DASI Dual-Afferent Sensory Input, FES Functional Electric Stimulation, EMG Electromyography, ETFES Electromyography triggered-functional electric stimulation, TA Tibialis Anterior, MRCP Movement-related cortical potential, MP Motor Potential, 10MWT 10 Meter Walk Test, MTA Mirror Therapy with Activity, OBI Overall Balance Index, ABI Anteroposterior Balance Index, MBI Mediolateral Balance Index, mEFAP Modified Functional Ambulation Profile, AOGT Action Observation Gait Training, GGT General Gait Training, F8W Figure of 8 walk test, MIG Motor Imagery Group, PTG Physical Training Group, n.s. not specified