Using a Module-Based Analysis Framework for Investigating Muscle Coordination during Walking in Individuals Poststroke: A Literature Review and Synthesis
Table 3
Study findings (cross-sectional designs).
Author, year
Study purpose
Primary findings
Findings related to module number, composition and control, gait, and rehabilitation outcomes
Determines biomechanical functions for modules used during poststroke walking using EMG data for simulations
Common merging patterns category A (modules 1 with 2) and category B (module 1 with 4) are correlated with common gait impairments seen in individuals poststroke
Category A: (1) Reduced propulsion during push off due to increased hamstring activity (2) Reduced limb swing (3) Reduced mediolateral stability during stance
Category B: (1) Reduced propulsion during push off due to premature plantarflexion (2) Reduced limb swing (3) Reduced body support during initial stance
Determines if gait mechanics and modules are better predictors of walking performance than current clinical assessments (Fugl-Meyer)
Individuals poststroke used a range of 2–5 modules. There was a significant difference between mean VAF between the paretic and nonparetic limbs for individuals with 3, 4, or 5 modules ().
Stepwise multiple linear regression: Overground gait speed = 7.785–0.48 (time of peak nonparetic knee flexion) − 3.672 (nonparetic VAF with 4 modules) ,
Evaluates relationships between gait asymmetries and changes in modules
Factor analysis resulted in a range of modules (3–5) to explain the gait cycle variance. The authors selected 3 modules as their maximum value which explained 75% of the variance.
In participants poststroke, module 1 explained a greater degree of variance than in healthy controls
Changes in speed did not alter the number of modules, but did have a significant effect on weight coefficients for module 1 () and module 2 () between a stroke participant’s paretic and nonparetic legs.
Determines if the number of modules is similar in individuals with subacute stroke (≤20 weeks) and if the inclusion of more muscles will change the number of modules
The number of modules was consistent with the previous findings in chronic stroke ranging from 2–4. The inclusion of upper extremity and trunk musculature did not change the number of modules.
Module number was equivalent using NNMF for the set of 16 muscles and set of 7 lower extremity only muscles.
Timing patterns for each module did not differ between limb-affected side (); unaffected side of patients, (); or healthy controls (, )
Determines if there is a difference between TM and OG walking on module assignment
There was no difference between the numbers of modules assigned for individuals walking on the TM or OG despite differences in speed.
Module number explained greater than 90% variance for participants and controls for SS on TM (91.9% ± 4.1%, 93.5% ± 3.5%) OG (95.2% ± 2.8%, 97.5% ± 1.0%)
Hemiparetic participants walked slower on the TM (TM, 0.38 versus OG, 0.58 m/s; ), with increased cadence (TM, 84.9 versus OG, 77.6 steps/min, ) and decreased stride length (TM, 0.52 versus OG, 0.85 m; ).