Table 2 Summary of included studies
From: Action observation training to improve motor function recovery: a systematic review
Study | Participants | Intervention | Outcome measures |
|---|---|---|---|
Harmsen W. J. et al. [24] | 37 participants in the chronic stage after stroke Exp: n = 18 (9 F) Age: 57 (SD 10.4) Con: n = 19 (6 F) Age: 60 (SD 8.8) | Exp: observation of the upper-arm reaching movements similar to what patients would see in the mirror during mirror therapy (3 + 1 + 1 + 1 min) + execution of reaching movements (30 + 20 + 20 reps) Con: observation of a slideshow with static photographs of landscapes (3 + 1 + 1 + 1 min) + execution of reaching movements (30 + 20 + 20 reps) | Upper limb Kinematics: movement time and acceleration during a reaching movement. |
Park E.C. et al. [33] | 40 chronic stroke individuals Exp: n = 20 (10 F) Age = 51.15 (SD 14.81) Con: n = 20 (9 F) Age = 48.65 (SD 12.81) | Both: 30 min PT, 5/wk x 8wk Exp: observation of 3-minute videos of walking (3 videos) + walking training for 20 minutes (30 min, 5/wk x 8wk) Con: observation of 3-minute landscapes videos (3 videos) + walking training for 20 minutes (30 min, 5/wk x 8wk) | Balance ability = analysis system using biofeedback (LOS, SS, SA) Gait ability = TUG, 10MWT |
Kim E. et al. [25] | 12 stroke individuals Exp: n = 6 Con: n = 6 | Exp: traditional occupational treatment + purposeful action observation training program (30 min, 5/wk x 6wk) Con: traditional occupational treatment + topological treatment in which they performed purposeful action observation program assignments without actually observing the purposeful actions (30 min, 5/wk x 6wk) | Upper limb Kinematics: average velocity, trajectory ratio, motion angle |
Sale et al. [28] | 67 sub-acute stroke individuals (26 F) Age = 66.5 (SD 12.7) | Exp: observation of 3-minute videos of manual tasks (3 videos) + execution of observed movement for 2 minutes (3 times) (2 x 15 min, 5/wk x 4wk) Con: observation of 5 static images displaying objects (3 minutes) + execution of same movement as exp group for 2 minutes (3 times) (2 x 15 min, 5/wk x 4wk) | Manual dexterity: BBT Motor impairment: FMA Follow up = 4–5 mth |
Park H.R. et al. [34] | 21 chronic stroke individuals Exp: n = 11 (3 F), Age = 55.9 (SD 9.1) Con: n = 10 (3 F) Age = 54.8 (SD 12.22) | Exp: observation of 10 minutes of video demonstrating four tasks for functional walking + 20 min walking training (30 min, 3/wk x 4wk) Con: 10 minutes of different landscape images + 20 min walking training (30 min, 3/wk x 4wk) | Gait ability = 10 MWT, F8WT, DGI, Gait symmetry scores |
Kim J.H. et al. [31] | 30 chronic stroke individuals Exp AOT: n = 9 (2 F), Age = 55.3 (SD 12.1) Exp Mi: n = 9 (3 F) Age = 54.8 (SD 8.8) Con: n = 9 (2 F) Age = 59.8 (SD 8.9) | Exp AOT: observation of 20 minutes-video followed by physical training (10 minutes) (30 min, 5/wk x 4wk) Exp Mi: 20 minutes of Mi followed by physical training for 10 minutes(30 min, 5/wk x 4wk) Con: Physical training (30 min, 5/wk x 4wk) | Gait ability = TUG, WAQ, FAC Gait kinematics = Spatiotemporal gait parameters Balance = FRT |
Bang et al. [30] | 30 chronic stroke individuals Exp: n = 15 (6 F), Age = 64.1 (SD 6.35) Con: n = 15 (7 F) Age = 58.9 (SD 6.03) | Exp: treadmill training (30 min) after watching the treadmill video (9 min) (40 min, 5/wk x 4wk) Con: treadmill training (30 min) after watching the nature video (9 min). (40 min, 5/wk x 4wk) | Gait ability = TUG, 10MWT, 6MWT Gait kinematics = Knee angle in swing phase during walking |
Park C.S. et al. [35] | 20 chronic stroke individuals Exp: n = 10 (4 F) Con: n = 10 (5 F) | Both: functional electrical stimulation treatment. Exp = observation of a video on gait for 15 minutes. The video showed walking on flat ground, slopes and stairs. (15 min, 5/wk x 4wk) | Balance ability: Weight Distribution, Stability Index Gait kinematics: Gait Velocity |
Lee D. et al. [26] | 33 chronic stroke individuals Action observation group: n = 8 (3 F), Age: 63 (SD 3.7) Action practice group: n = 9 (4 F) Age: 62 (SD 1.5) Combination group: n = 9 (4 F) Age: 61 (SD 2.3) Control group: n = 7 (4 F) Age: 60 (SD 5.9) | The action observation group watched a video of the task (10 minutes), the action practice group performed the action (10 minutes), the combined action observation-action practice group watched the video of the task (5 minutes) and practiced the action (5 minutes), and the control group did not perform either action observation or action practice. | Upper-limb functional dexterity: number of times the full drinking action was performed in one minute Follow up = 1 wk |
Cowles et al. [29] | 29 acute stroke individuals Exp: n = 15 (7 F), Age = 78.8 (SD 8.1) Con: n = 14 (5 F) Age = 75.6 (SD 12.4) | Exp: 3 x 8 min imitation of therapist performing functional activities with upper limb (2 x 30 min, 15 consecutive working days) Con: no therapy in addition to conventional physiotherapy | Ability to voluntarily contract paretic muscle = MI Functional use of upper limb = ARAT |
Franceschini et al. [27] | 102 sub-acute stroke individuals Exp: n = 53 (20 F) Age = 67.0 (SD 12.4) Con: n = 49 (21 F) Age = 65.7 (SD 11.9) | Exp: observation of 3-minute videos of manual tasks (3 videos) + execution of observed movement for 2 minutes (3 times) (2 x 15 min, 5/wk x 4wk) Con: observation of 5 static images displaying objects (3 minutes) + execution of same movement as exp group for 2 minutes (3 times) (2 x 15 min, 5/wk x 4wk) | Upper-limb functional dexterity: FAT, BBT, FIMM Motor impairment: FMA Follow up = 4–5 mth |
Kim JS et al. [32] | 30 chronic stroke individuals Exp: n = 15, Age = 64.1 (SD 8.3) Con: n = 15 Age = 65.5 (7.7) | Both: 30 min PT Exp: observation of 2-minute videos of walking (5 videos) + walking training for 10 minutes Con: 10 minutes of video in which they were taken through a progressive relaxation program (stretching) | Gait kinematics: Spatiotemporal gait parameters (including walking speed) |
Ertelt et al. [23] | 15 chronic stroke individuals Exp: n = 7 (2 F) Age = 57.16 (SD 8.73) Con: n = 8 (2 F) Age = 55.40 (SD 10.77) | (90 min x 18 consecutive working days) Exp: observation of 6-minute videos of daily life hand and arm actions (3 videos) + execution of observed movement for 6 minutes (3 times) Con: observation of sequences of geometric symbols and letters + execution of same movement as exp group for 6 minutes (3 times) | Upper-limb functional dexterity: WMFT, FAT Subjective scale: SIS Follow up = 8 wk |
Pelosin et al. [38] | 38 individuals with PD (21 F) Age = 67.4 (SD 7.4) 14 matched healthy controls (7 F) | VIDEO group: observation of a 6-minute video clip showing repetitive finger movements paced at 3 Hz ACOUSTIC group: listening to an acoustic cue paced at 3 Hz for 6 minutes. 8 participants with PD were recruited for a sham intervention, watching a 6-minute video representing a static hand. | Spontaneous movement rate (SMR) of self-paced finger movements. Follow up = 2 days |
Buccino et al. [36] | 15 PD individuals Exp: n = 7 Age = 68 (2 F) (min-max: 59–80) Con: n = 8 Age = 73.5 (3 F) (min-max: 67.5–76.5) | Exp: observation and subsequently execution of different daily actions presented through video clips Con: observation of video clips with no motor content and subsequently performance of the same actions as exp group | Autonomy in ADL: UPDRS, FIM |
Pelosin et al. [37] | 18 individuals with PD (8 F) Exp: n = 9 Age = 68.8 (SD 4.1) Con: n = 9 Age = 70.2 (SD 6.8) | Exp: observation of 6-minute videos of walking tasks (4 videos) + execution of the same motor training (36 minutes) (60 min, 3/wk x 4wk) Con: observation of landscape videos + execution of same exercises in the exact order and for the same amount of time than AOT group (60 min, 3/wk x 4wk) | FoG frequency and severity: FoG-Q, FoG-diary Disease severity: H&Y Motor impairment: UPDRSIII Gait ability = TUG, 10MWT Balance ability: BBS, Tinetti score Quality of life: PDQ-39 Follow up = 4 wk |
Sgandurra et al. [40] | 24 cerebral palsy children Exp: n = 12 (4 F) Age 9.48 (SD 2.12) Con: n = 12 (4 F) Age 9.94 (SD 2.77) | Exp: observation of 3 minutes-videos representing upper limb actions + execution of the same motor tasks (3 minutes) (60 min x 15 consecutive working days) Con: observation of computer games + execution of the same motor tasks as exp group (60 min x 15 consecutive working days) | Upper limb function = AHA, MUUL Manual ability = ABILHAND-Kids questionnaire Follow up = 1-8-24 wk |
Buccino et al. [39] | 24 cerebral palsy children Exp: n = 8 (4 F) Con: n = 7 (2 F) | Exp: observation of 9–12 minutes-videos representing upper limb actions + execution of the same motor tasks (6–8 minutes) (5/wk x 3wk) Con: observation of history, geography or science videos (9–12 minutes) + execution of the same motor tasks as exp group (6–8 minutes) (5/wk x 3wk) | Upper limb function = MaS |
Park S.D. et al. [34] | 18 individuals with TKR Exp: n = 9 Age = 72.67 (SD 12.25) Con: n = 9 Age = 70.56 (SD 10.98) | Both: 30 minutes of gait exercise and treadmill Exp: observation of a 10 \minutes-video clip showing daily actions + execution (30 minutes) of the same actions (3/wk x 3wk) Con: execution of the same actions as patients in the AOT group (30 minutes) (3/wk x 3wk) | Scale for Osteoarthritis = WOMAC (including pain, stiffness and function) Gait ability = TUG |
Bellelli et al. [41] | 60 individuals (hip fractures or hip or knee replacement) Exp: n = 30 (21 F) Age = 71.9 (SD 8.4) Con: n = 30 (16 F) Age = 71.8 (SD 6.9) | Both: 60 min conventional post-orthopedic rehabilitation Exp: observation of 8 minutes-video clips showing daily actions (3 videos) + execution of the same actions (6/wk x 3wk) Con: observation geographic documentary + execution of the same actions as patients in the AOT group (6/wk x 3wk) | Functional ability: FIM, FIMM Gait ability: Tinetti, types of walking aids Follow up = 1-2-3 wk |