BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v17i4.361
Special issue:
“Control of Gait and Posture: a tribute to Professor Lilian T. B. Gobbi”
clinical course of the disease
13
. Thus, correctly diagnosing subtypes supports predicting how the disease will progress, guiding early
treatment options
13
. However, the motor subtype can change across the disease progression, mainly from the TD motor subtype to PIGD
14,15
. An effective method for tracking subtype changes and distinguishing between PIGD and TD motor subtypes is evaluating the
standing center of pressure (COP) time series, a crucial aspect of postural control
13
.
Postural instability is the most refractory to treatment based on dopaminergic replacement through levodopa and its agonists
16
and, with the evolution of the disease, postural control is affected by both cognitive and motor impairment since it requires the complex
interaction of these systems
17
, especially among individuals of the PIGD motor subtype
16,17
.
Several studies have demonstrated that PD does not preclude the learning of motor skills
5,14–21
, including postural control skills
18–20
. However, given the heterogeneity of cognitive and motor symptoms between individuals with TD and PIGD, we supposed that the
characteristics of each PD motor subtype could influence the learning of postural control tasks. There is a lack in the motor learning
scientific literature about the effects of PD motor subtypes on motor learning, even with a current call for new studies to consider the
investigation of PD subtypes on motor and cognitive outcomes
21
.
Only one study, carried out by Vakil et al
22
, included the motor symptoms (predominance of bradykinesia or resting tremor) and
procedural memory in PD. The performed task was the stacking of disks in the Tower of Hanoi. There were two outcomes regarding task
performance, the execution time and the number of disk movements in three different moments (immediately, 30 minutes later and one
week after task practice). The bradykinesia predominance group improved the execution time of the task without improvement in the
number of disc movements. The tremor predominance group improved the execution time and the number of disc movements without
significant differences to the control group (non-disabled people)
22
.
The results of the Vakil et al
22
, despite not classifying the groups by motor subtypes but by the predominance of symptoms, we
could relate the group with a predominance of bradykinesia with the motor subtype PIGD, and the group with a predominance of tremor
with the motor subtype TD. In this study, the TD motor subtype was superior to the PIGD in learning the proposed task.
In this sense, we questioned whether the same behavior would be maintained in tasks with a high demand for postural control
since this is the main symptom of the PIGD motor subtype. Only studies in the Motor Control area of study were found in the literature,
specifically to postural control tasks. Some studies have demonstrated that the TD subtype performs better than PIGD in balance and
gait tasks
23,24
and challenging postural tasks
25
. In this sense, if the PIGD group presents an inferior performance in tasks with high
demand for postural control, we hypothesized that this performance could affect the learning of challenging skills with high postural
control demands. This study aimed to verify the motor learning process of PD individuals, considering the motor subtypes (TD and
PIGD).
METHODS
The study was approved by the Ethics and Research Committee of the School of Physical Education and Sport of the
University of São Paulo (CAAE: 44795315.8.1001.5391). This study is part of a larger randomized clinical trial (registration: RBR-27kqv5)
that aimed to investigate the effects of a virtual reality intervention in the rehabilitation of individuals with PD
26
. In a complementary study,
Freitas et al
27
, assessed the performance in the virtual reality intervention using a motor learning experimental design approach
(experimental study, with parallel groups (PD x neurologically healthy individuals) including pre, post, and retention tests) to evaluate the
motor learning of individuals with PD. In our study, we reanalyzed the Freitas et al
27
to evaluate the impact of PD subtypes on their
results
27
.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria were individuals diagnosed with idiopathic PD, between stages 1.0 and 3.0 of the Hoehn and Yahr scale
28
,
motor subtypes TD and PIGD, treated with levodopa and/or its synergists; score < 28 on the Mini Balance Evaluation System Test
(MiniBEStest)
29
; who do not have other detectable neurological or orthopedic diseases; who were able to walk with or without the use of
aids, with normal or corrected visual acuity; good auditory acuity, these last two criteria being clinically evaluated; without previous
experience with the Kinect Adventures!® game and signed the Informed Consent Form for the study.
The exclusion criteria were no other detectable neurological, cardiorespiratory, or orthopedic diseases; no signs of dementia
30
(score of >14/30 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA))
, if they were part of a rehabilitation program within the last six months
or if they presented any clinical deficits that made it impossible to perform physical exercises in standing positions, i.e., fall occurrences,
freezing observed both at the initial evaluation and during the intervention.