American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, In Press, 2007

Treatment of Limb Apraxia: Moving Forward to Improved Action

Laurel J. Buxbaum1, Kathleen Y. Haaland2, Mark Hallett3, Lewis Wheaton4, Kenneth M.

Heilman5, Amy Rodriguez5, Leslie J. Gonzalez Rothi5

1.
Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute and Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia;
2
Albuquerque VAMC and University of New Mexico;
3.
Human Motor Control Section, NINDS, NIH, Bethesda, MD
4.
Department of V.A. Affairs and the Baltimore Geriatric Research Education and

Clinical Center
5.
North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System and University of Florida,

Gainesville, FL

Primary Author Contact Information:

Laurel J. Buxbaum, Psy.D., Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, 1200 West Tabor

Rd., Philadelphia, PA 19141

[email protected], office: (215) 456-9042; fax: (215) 456-9613

Running Head: Treatment of limb apraxia

1
 Treatment of Limb Apraxia: Moving Forward to Improved Action

Abstract

Limb apraxia is a common disorder of skilled purposive movement that is

frequently associated with stroke and degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer Disease.

Despite evidence that several types of limb apraxia significantly impact functional

abilities, surprisingly few studies have focused on development of treatment paradigms.

Additionally, although the most disabling types of apraxia reflect damage to gesture

and/or object memory systems, existing treatments have not fully taken advantage of

principles of experience known to affect learning and neural plasticity. We review the

current state of the art in the rehabilitation of limb apraxia, indicate possible points of

contact with the learning literature, and generate suggestions for how translational

principles might be applied to the development of future research on treatment of this

disabling disorder.

Key Words: Apraxia,Ideomotor Apraxia, Treatment, Rehabilitation

2
Introduction

Apraxia is a common disorder of skilled, purposive movements. Praxis is

mediated by a complex system that stores components of skilled movements, thus

providing them a processing advantage (i.e., in terms of accuracy and response time) as

compared with less-practiced movements. Although several types of apraxia have clear

impact upon functional abilities, and are common consequences of stroke, Alzheimer

Disease, and corticobasal degeneration, fundamental knowledge in a number of areas

necessary to guide informed treatment is surprisingly lacking. There remains confusion

about the definitions, distinctiveness, and mechanisms of various types of apraxia, and

indeed, whether any have critical functional significance. In addition, although the most

disabling types of apraxia reflect damage to systems involved in movement and gesture

representation (i.e., memory), the nascent apraxia treatment literature has not taken

advantage of principles of experience known to affect skill learning. The aim of this

article is to review the current state of the rehabilitation of limb apraxia, and based on the

learning and plasticity literature, generate suggestions for how translational principles

might be applied to guide future treatment research.

Definitions of apraxia

The term ‘apraxia’ was introduced by Steinthal 1. While this word is derived

from Greek and literally means without action, the term apraxia is used to describe a

decrease or disorder in the ability to perform purposeful skilled movements. The

greatest advance in the description and understanding of these disorders is contained in a

series of papers written between 1900 and 1920 by Hugo Liepmann 2-4. Liepmann

described three forms of apraxia which, by virtue of his careful evaluations and

3
discussions, brought about a ‘paradigmatic shift’ in our understanding of motor control.

These three types were limb kinetic apraxia (also called melokinetic apraxia or

innervatory apraxia), ideomotor apraxia, and ideational apraxia. To this triad Rothi,

Heilman, Ochipa and colleagues 5-7 added another type, termed conceptual apraxia, and

DeRenzi as well as Heilman 8, 9 described a fifth type now called dissociation apraxia.

In this manuscript we will focus on ideomotor apraxia (hereafter, IMA), for two

reasons. First, as will be discussed, it is extremely common in stroke and degenerative

disease (Alzheimer’s disease and corticobasal degeneration). Second, it is increasingly

recognized that IMA has important functional consequences, and the disorder is thus in

need of continued critical investigation, particularly in the area of treatment.

IMA is usually diagnosed on the basis of spatiotemporal errors in the production

of transitive (object-related) gesture pantomime to sight of objects, to command, and

10-14
upon imitation of others . Kinematic analyses have revealed that IMA patients

pantomime skilled tool-use movements with abnormal joint angles and limb trajectories,

and with uncoupling of the spatial and temporal aspects of movement 13. Spatiotemporal
15, 16
errors persist to a lesser degree with actual tool use . The deficit is not restricted to
17-19
meaningful movements, and has also been observed in meaningless postures and
20, 21
sequences . IMA is also associated with cognitive deficits in declarative knowledge
22 23
of the action appropriate to objects , impairments in mechanical problem-solving ,
21, 24-26 27, 28
deficits in motor planning , and difficulty learning new gestures . Testing for

IMA frequently includes pantomiming to command of transitive (familiar actions with

objects, e.g., brush teeth) and intransitive (symbolic movements without objects, e.g.,

sign for crazy) movements, imitation of the examiner performing transitive, intransitive,

4
and novel meaningless movements, and gesture in response to seeing and holding actual

tools, as well as the objects upon which tools act.

Several investigators have distinguished between IMA with impaired gesture

recognition (“representational” IMA) and IMA with intact recognition (“dynamic” IMA;
11, 29, 30
. In representational IMA, inability to discriminate correctly from incorrectly

performed meaningful object related hand movements correlates strongly with ability to

produce the same movements, suggesting that the same representations are likely to

underlie both 31. Additionally, representational (but not dynamic) IMA patients are

significantly more impaired when producing object-related than symbolic, non-object

related movements 32. This in turn suggests that the damaged system underlying

representational IMA is specialized for movements related to skilled object use.

The Functional Implications of Limb Apraxia: Does Limb Apraxia Matter in the

Real World?

Historically, most clinicians and researchers believed that limb apraxia had little or no

real world implications 4, 10, 33-35. This is emphasized by DeRenzi, who wrote, “…apraxia

rarely appears in everyday situations and spontaneous motor behaviour, predominantly

emerging when gestures are produced out of context as a purposeful response to an

artificial request.” Although not specified, it appears that this view was particular to IMA

and stemmed from the notion that apraxia was present when pantomimes to command

and imitation were tested but improved when the use of actual objects were examined.

It is now widely believed that IMA impairs real world functioning, but there are

still remarkably few studies demonstrating such a relationship. In addition, most studies

to date are fraught with problems. First, these studies usually do not rule out the

5
influence of all other factors, such as hemiparesis. They commonly compare the

performance of apraxic and nonapraxic patients with left hemisphere damage 36-41, but

relative to nonapraxics, apraxics are often more impaired in other domains, such as

language and sensory and motor skills. Therefore, it is difficult to know if limb apraxia is

the best predictor of functional skills. Second, apraxics typically have larger lesions than

patients without apraxia, and those lesions more frequently damage the left parietal and

frontal regions 42 that are also important for many other cognitive functions that could

again confound the findings. Regression approaches have been used in order to evaluate

the unique impact of various factors including limb apraxia on activities of daily living 41,
43-45
, in some cases after controlling statistically for factors such as lesion size, primary

motor deficits, and/or other cognitive deficits. However, these studies usually suffer

from statistical problems related to a small number of subjects relative to the number of

predictors examined.

Another problem in efforts to understand the influence of apraxia on disability is

the use of a wide variety of functional measures, including object use 46, 47, performance-

based measures of activities of daily living 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, 48, 49, and caregiver or patient

report of daily functioning 39, 44, 45, 50. These outcome measures vary in complexity from
51
isolated object use, such as brushing teeth , to simulated activities of daily living, such

as picking up a bean with a spoon 38, 39, 41, to instrumental activities of daily living, such

as eating a meal 36, dressing 49, 52, preparing food 43, 48, 53-55 or changing batteries in a

recorder 37. It is common in performance-based studies to use instruments that do not

have demonstrated reliability; thus, validity is frequently demonstrated only in the

context of the specific study. In addition, there are significant problems with obtaining

6
reliable measures of these skills because the tasks are usually quite complex and the

number of possible errors is large. Furthermore, because performance-based tasks are

dependent upon a great number of cognitive abilities, patients may be impaired for

different reasons 56, 57.

Taken together, these problems in the literature suggest that future studies must 1)

examine the relationship of different types of limb apraxia to real world functioning

(activities of daily living and instrumental activities) of various kinds; and 2) utilize

sufficiently large groups of patients to provide sufficient power for analysis. It is also

reasonable to consider at least two different approaches for subject recruitment. The first

approach examines well- characterized patients with unilateral focal lesions, and the

second approach examines a broader range of patients with and without limb apraxia

without regard to lesion location. The latter approach may yield patients more broadly

representative of the patients typically seen in the clinic.

Finally, some of the most innovative work in this area attempts to identify

cognitive mechanisms that are associated with ideomotor limb apraxia and potentially

with the resulting deficits in real world functioning (see 58 for a review). These cognitive
46
processes include mechanical problem solving , sequence planning and organization 21,

the ability to develop and/or retrieve optimal motor programs 13, knowledge of how to

manipulate an object 22, 25, 59, and knowledge of optimal hand position when real world

objects provide minimal cues 25, 39.

7
Treatment of Limb Apraxia

A recent review of the literature on treatment of limb apraxia yielded reports of ten

treatment approaches, many of which were single case studies. Methods reported were

varied and can be summarized as follows:

Multiple Cues. The multiple cues treatment method was developed in 1991 by Maher,

Rothi & Greenwald 60 for a 55 year old male with chronic ideomotor apraxia and intact

gesture recognition. It focused on treatment of gestures using presentation of multiple

cues, including tools, objects, visual models, and feedback. Errors were corrected using

imitation and physical manipulation. As performance improved, cues were

systematically withdrawn. The individual participated in one hour sessions daily for two

weeks. The multiple cues method resulted in positive effects, with treated gestures

showing some lasting improvement. Generalization to untreated gestures was not

assessed.

Error Reduction. In an attempt to define the active components of the multiple cues

method, Ochipa and colleagues 61, 62 conducted a treatment study aimed at treating

specific error types. Two males, 44 and 66 years old, with chronic Broca’s aphasia and

ideomotor apraxia but preserved gestural recognition participated in the treatment.

Treatment duration and intensity varied, with the 44 year old receiving treatment four

times per week (n=44 sessions) and the 66 year old receiving treatment two times a day

twice a week (n=24 sessions). The goals of treatment consisted of reduction of external

configuration, movement, and internal configuration errors, depending upon the error

types exhibited by the individual. Reduction of external configuration errors involved

training the individual to correctly orient his hand to objects, while reduction of internal

8
configuration errors involved positioning of hand and fingers to accommodate a tool.

Movement errors were reduced through verbal descriptions to guide joint movement

while gesturing. Only one error type was addressed at a time and feedback was only

provided about the error type being trained. Error reduction treatment resulted in a

significant and lasting improvement on treated gestures for both individuals. However,

no generalization to untreated error types or gestures was noted. Improvements were

noted to continue at 2 week post treatment follow-up, but later follow-ups were not

performed.

Six Stage Task Hierarchy. The task hierarchy method was developed by Code & Gaunt
63
who studied in an individual with severe chronic aphasia, ideomotor apraxia and

ideational apraxia. This six stage task hierarchical treatment for limb apraxia was a

modification of an Eight-Step Continuum used for treatment of apraxia of speech 64. The

Code and Gaunt method involves requiring the patient to produce target words and signs

in various combinations and in concert with the therapist in response to a therapist model

or in response to a picture elicitation. The patient participated in 45 minute sessions once

weekly for 8 months. The six stage task hierarchy method resulted in acquisition of

trained signs and a non-significant trend toward improvement in untrained signs during

treatment. Maintenance of effects was not formally tested, but the authors provide

anecdotal reports of the patient’s continued use of signs in group treatment sessions.

Treatment did not impact limb apraxia.

Conductive Education. The conductive education method was developed by Pilgrim &

Humphreys 65for a patient with head injury and chronic unimanual apraxia of the non-

dominant limb. Treatment focused on a task-analysis of the movements and articulation

9
of goal-directed tasks. The treatment began with physical manipulation plus

verbalization of task elements (e.g., “reach the beaker, clasp the beaker, carry to my lips,

drink, stop”) and those cues were systematically withdrawn as performance improved.

There were daily 15 minute sessions for 3 weeks. The conductive education method

improved this patient’s performance on treated items as compared to untreated items.

There was no generalization to untreated objects. Maintenance of effects were not

assessed.

Strategy Training. The strategy training method was developed as a compensatory

technique for individuals with ADL (Activities of Daily Living) impairment secondary to

apraxia. This method was first described in the literature in a study of 33 individuals

with apraxia secondary to left hemisphere stroke 66. The patients were trained on three

ADLs, and the specific method of treatment was chosen based on each individual’s

performance in baseline testing of those tasks. A similar strategy training method

utilizing 5ADLs was studied in another group of 56 individuals with left hemisphere

stroke and subsequent apraxia. Both strategy training approaches focused on the use of

internal compensatory strategies (ie, self-verbalization) and external compensatory

strategies (ie, use of pictures) to maximize independence. The duration and intensity of

treatments varied among individuals in both studies. Strategy training resulted in positive

outcomes across all domains measured (effect sizes .37 for the ADL tasks and .47 for the

Barthel ADL index; both significantly greater than for patients receiving usual

occupational therapy treatment), but the improvements were not lasting 67, 68. In the final

study in this series, there was an additional finding of interest; namely, maintenance of

gains in trained tasks at 5-month followup. . Transitive/Intransitive Gesture Training.

10
The transitive/intransitive gesture training method was investigated by Smania and

colleagues 69 in 22 individuals at least two months post onset of a left hemisphere stroke

with subsequent ideomotor limb apraxia. Treatment focused on the training of transitive

and intransitive gestures. Transitive gesture training consisted of three phases in which

the individual was (1) shown use of common tools, (2) shown a static picture of a portion

of the transitive gesture and asked to produce the pantomime, and (3) shown a picture of

common tool and asked to produce the associated gesture. The intransitive gesture

training also consisted of three phases in which the individual was (1) shown two

pictures, one illustrating a context and the other showing related symbolic gesture, and

asked to reproduce the gesture (2) shown the context picture alone, and asked to

reproduce the gesture (3) shown a picture of a different but related contextual situation

and asked to reproduce the gesture. Fifty-minute treatment sessions were administered

three times per week for approximately 10 weeks, with the number of total treatment

sessions ranging from 30-35. A control group was administered aphasia treatment only

for a similar intensity and duration. Results indicated there was a difference between the

two groups post-treatment, with the gesture training method resulting in improved

performance on an IMA test (U=69.00, p= .016), a gesture comprehension test (U=64.00,

p= .018) and an ADL questionnaire (U=53.50, p<.01). Importantly, patients and

caregivers reported more independence in ADLs following treatment. Nine patients

showed maintenance of gains at two months post treatment.

“Rehabilitative Treatment”. Smania and colleagues 70 reported a positive outcome with a

so-called rehabilitative treatment. It was noted that the treatment was “devised to treat a

wide range of gestures and to reduce several types of praxic errors…” and that it “used

11
different contextual cues in order to teach patients how to produce the same gesture under

different contextual situations” (p. 2052). Thus, although details were not provided, the

treatment appears substantially similar to the one previously reported by this group 69.

Forty-one post-acute left hemisphere stroke patients with limb apraxia (either ideational

or IMA – not defined) were assigned randomly to treatment or no-treatment groups. The

no-treatment group received aphasia therapy. Patients attended 30 fifty-minute sessions

over the course of 10 weeks. Although the groups were equivalent in ADL performance,

apraxia scores, and ADL questionnaire scores prior to treatment, they differed

significantly on these measures after treatment, both immediately and after a 2 week

delay.

Errorless Completion + Exploration Training. The errorless completion/exploration

training method was developed by Goldenberg & Hagmann 51 for 15 individuals with

IMA (impairment on gesture imitation and gesture to sight of objects) who were on

average 6.1 weeks post onset of a left hemisphere stroke with subsequent aphasia and

severe limb apraxia. The errorless completion method utilized physical manipulation

during ADLs, simultaneous demonstration of ADL by the examiner and imitation by the

patient, and copy by the patient after demonstration during performance of three ADLs.

The exploration training method directed attention to functional significance of details

and critical features of action but did not incorporate direct practice of actions with actual

objects. These two methods were combined and treatment was applied to one ADL at a

time daily for 20-40 minutes for 2-5 weeks. Combined errorless completion/exploration

training resulted in positive effects that were lasting for individuals who remained active

in ADLs at home. A subsequent study was conducted by Goldenberg, Daumuller, &

12
Hagmann 37 comparing these two methods in 6 individuals with left hemisphere stroke

and subsequent chronic aphasia and limb apraxia. Each treatment type was applied on a

different pair of ADLs. The exploration training method had no effect. The errorless

completion method yielded a positive and lasting effect. When different objects were

used to test ADL, however, the rate of errors increased, and were comparable to

untrained gestures. Therefore, there was no evidence of generalization.

_________

Table 1 about here

_________

Table 1 provides a summary of the 10 apraxia treatment approaches discussed in the

literature to date. Several trends are worth noting. First, apraxia type is frequently poorly

characterized. For example, although gesture recognition is clearly an important index of

the integrity of gesture representations (which in turn, may have important implications

for rehabilitation strategies), recognition testing is usually not performed. Second, while

some studies provide data on treatment effects and generalization to untreated items, they

are more sparse with regards to treatment effect upon degree or nature of limb apraxia,

maintenance of treatment effect, and impact of treatment upon ADLs. Third, the duration

and intensity of treatment differs within and across studies making it difficult to

determine the active components of the treatment. Fourth, the length of time between

termination of treatment and follow-up differs across studies, which renders it difficult to

compare the lasting effects of treatment upon limb apraxia or ADLs. Finally, methods

such as the nature of the feedback or correction are commonly underspecified in these

reports if described at all, making replication in additional subjects nearly impossible.

13
Despite these issues, the data consistently suggest that intervention yields a treatment

effect. Furthermore, in the cases where it is reported, there is indication of maintenance

of treatment effects, and impact upon nature/degree of limb apraxia as well as upon ADL

facility. Thus, it appears that the evidence based on these 10 Phase I studies suggests that

limb apraxia is amenable to treatment. However, according to Robey 71, the purpose of

Phase I research is to develop hypotheses, protocols, and methods, establish safety and

activity, determine the best outcome measures, identify responders vs. nonresponders,

determine optimal intensity and duration, and determine why the treatment is producing

an effect 71. Little of this information is found in these 10 reports and thus, we must

continue to promote systematic inquiry until the objectives of Phase I research are

satisfied for limb apraxia.

Evidence suggests that 9 of the 10 treatments reported in the literature yielded a

treatment effect. However, only 4 of these 9 treatments resulted in generalization. Since

the ultimate goal of rehabilitation is the use of acquired skill in the individual’s natural

environment, it is important to consider why certain treatments resulted in generalization

while others did not.

Nadeau et al 72 recently identified seven treatment attributes that may contribute

to generalization in language rehabilitation: 1) Intrinsic: application of knowledge

acquired in therapy; 2) Cross function: development of knowledge that can be applied to

multiple tasks; 3) Extrinsic: acquisition of a technique that can be applied outside of

treatment to rebuild function (requires motivation); 4) Mechanistic: training of key brain

resources (i.e., working memory capacity, distributed concept representations, intentional

bias); 5) Substrate mediated: development of a critical mass of skill needed to further the

14
therapeutic process; necessary for intrinsic/extrinsic mechanisms to operate; 6)

Contextual: learning environment resembles retrieval environment; 7) Socially mediated:

restoration of social context and change in perception regarding roles to promote activity

in the environment.

Unfortunately, in the realm of apraxia rehabilitation, there is no clear relationship

between these putatively critical mechanisms and treatment generalization. All 4

treatments that generalized included cross function and extrinsic mechanisms, but some

treatments that did not generalize included these mechanisms as well. Similarly, some

treatments that were mechanistic generalized while others did not. Of the 3 treatments

that incorporated home practice (contextual mechanism), none resulted in generalization.

In addition, based on the available information, there appears to be no consistent

relationship between duration/intensity/type of items trained and generalization of results.

These equivocal results suggest that while limb apraxia may be amenable to treatment,

systematic investigation of factors promoting generalization is still essential.

Motor Learning and Motor Plasticity: An Overview

The learning of skilled movements is called procedural learning, and its

underlying mechanisms and neuroanatomical correlates differ from declarative

learning73). In the following sections, we will provide a brief introduction to the

literature on motor learning and plasticity, with an eye toward applying this literature to

the study of IMA.

Some of the actions typically assessed in motor learning studies differ in complexity

and/or meaningfulness from the skilled actions that comprise praxis. A number of motor

learning studies, however, have used complex, learned actions that are arguably akin to

15
what we commonly term “praxis movements”. Other motor learning studies have

examined complex spatiomotor transformations that may have relevance to spatial coding

of complex action. Thus, it is important to carefully examine the motor learning

literature for points of possible convergence with the study of learning in apraxia.

Neuroanatomical Considerations.

The primary motor cortex, in particular,exhibits a great deal of plasticity as a function

of motor learning . Using transcranial magnetic stimulation, a number of investigations

have mapped the degree and extent of excitability of individual muscles on the scalp

surface. Body parts that are used more have a larger representation, and this

representation shrinks if the body part is not used (e.g., 74 ). Based on neuroimaging

paradigms, a variety of brain regions have been demonstrated to be active depending on

the task and the stage of motor learning; in nearly all cases, however, there is activation

of primary motor cortex 75.

In most neuroimaging studies, cerebellar activation is evident in the learning phase

and declines when the movement is learned. This certainly indicates a role in learning,

and in particular suggests that the cerebellum may critical for developing the movement

representation but not storing it. The frontal and parietal lobes are also clearly involved

in motor learning, but the precise structures involved in early versus later stages of

learning are unclear. For example, a frontal to parietal shift in activation has been

observed as a sequence task is learned 76, a prefrontal to premotor, posterior parietal, and

cerebellar shift in activation has been observed in force adaptation learning 77. On the

other hand, several studies using motor sequence tasks and at least one using a rotational

learning task have demonstrated that parietal activation is associated with early stages of

16
learning, with greater cerebellar and/or premotor involvement in later stages 78-81. At this

juncture, we may conclude that the parietal regions so frequently lesioned in apraxic

patients are clearly important in aspects of skill learning.

There is evidence that perilesional plasticity may play a role in recovery of function

after stroke. It has been shown, for example, that after finger tracking movements,

paretic stroke patients improved in finger pointing accuracy and grasp and release

capabilities 82. These functional gains were accompanied by increased fMRI activations

in sensorimotor areas of the lesioned hemisphere, and diminished activations in the intact

hemisphere (and see 83).

At least one previous account has attributed preserved function in apraxia to

preservation of non-dominant (right) hemisphere fronto-parietal regions involved in

praxis function 84. On the other hand, non-dominant hemisphere plasticity changes have

been demonstrated to be maladaptive in recovery from aphasia 85, and may plausibly be

similarly counterproductive in apraxia recovery. Additional investigations are required to

shed light on this question.

Implicit and Explicit Skill Learning. A considerable literature attests to important

differences between skill learning that is unavailable to conscious experience (implicit

learning) and that which is cognitively accessible. Ideally, the study of learning in

apraxia could tap into this large body of evidence to support the framing of hypotheses

and predictions. However, one critical concern is that it is not clear whether to align

praxis learning with explicit or implicit knowledge, or both. The types of complex skills

that fall under the rubric of “praxis” are not typically verbalized, yet they can be made

explicit under certain circumstances. It is perhaps most reasonable to begin with the

17
hyptothesis that praxis learning is more similar to implicit procedural learning than to

learning of declarative information. Specific investigations that test predicted patterns of

results based on this hypothesis need to be performed.

A typical exploration of skill learning entails the use of serial reaction time tasks

(SSRT). Participants are usually faster to perform sequences of key presses that are

repeated throughout and experiment, even though they are unaware of the repetition. This

is an example of implicit learning. With additional practice, the sequence can frequently

be specified; in this case, the learned information has become declarative as well as

procedural. Performance gets even better at this stage, but the subject's strategy can

change since the stimuli can be consciously anticipated.

Honda et al. 86 examined the dynamic involvement of different brain regions in

implicit and explicit motor sequence learning using a SRTT and Positron Emission

Tomography. During the implicit learning phase, when the subjects were not aware of

the sequence, improvement of the reaction time was associated with increased activity in

the contralateral primary sensorimotor cortex. Explicit learning, reflected by a positive

correlation with correct recall of the sequence, was associated with increased activity in

the posterior parietal, precuneus and premotor cortices bilaterally, supplementary motor

area predominantly in the left anterior part, left thalamus, and right dorsolateral prefrontal

cortex. In a study by Grafton et al. 87, there was activation of the contralateral primary

motor cortex, supplementary motor area and putamen in an implicit learning task, and

activation of ipsilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and premotor cortex as well as

bilateral parietal cortex during explicit learning.

18
 In summary of the studies of motor learning in healthy subjects, it appears that

multiple structures in the brain are involved, and that differential involvement arises at

different stages. The primary motor cortex and cerebellum (and sometimes parietal

cortex) are active early and at least the former appears to play a role in implicit learning.

Premotor and parietal cortical areas are active later and appear to play a role in explicit

learning, perhaps in part by storage of the sequence. This concept is supported by the

observation that the premotor and parietal areas increase their activation in proportion to

the length of a sequence performed from memory 88. The relation to regions that when

damaged cause apraxia is obvious.

Principles of motor learning as they may be relevant to apraxia rehabilitation

Several basic principles of motor learning have been explored in other aspects of

motor control rehabilitation, but have received relatively little attention in the study of

IMA.

Internal Models of Movement. The motor system in healthy participants is adept at

developing internal models that represent the kinematics (geometry and speed) and

dynamics (forces) of a motor task. Forward models calculate the movements resulting

from a given pattern of force (dynamics) or the limb positions resulting from a given

pattern of joint rotation (kinematics). Inverse models compute the muscle forces or

movements needed to reach a visual goal or goal posture 89. The learning (that is,

practice-dependent reduction of error) of kinematic and dynamic internal models appears

to be separable, and may be disrupted by different brain lesions 90.

Several models of motor performance distinguish a mode of action concerned

with planning, learning, and motor prediction, and another specialized for motor

19
execution and control (see 91). One influential account, for example, distinguishes

semantic representations necessary for motor learning and planning from pragmatic

representations subserving the control and execution of action 92. The planning mode has

been proposed to generate movement parameters by way of internal models. The

execution mode, in contrast, emphasizes on-line control that is sensitive to current

environmental conditions.

Recent investigations provide indirect evidence that patients with IMA may be

impaired in learning and/or accessing internal models of movement. Motor imagery has

been proposed by several investigators to serve as a proxy for motor planning in the

absence of execution 93-97. Sirigu et al. 98 and Buxbaum, Johnson-Frey, & Bartlett-

Williams 25 demonstrated that participants with left parietal lesions and IMA were

impaired in motor imagery. In contrast, these patients perform well on tasks more reliant

upon on-line control, such as reaching and grasping with visual feedback 13, 26. The

nature and extent of putative deficiencies in generating and accessing internal models are

being explored in several of the authors’ laboratories using visuomotor and force-field

adaptation paradigms borrowed from the motor control literature. Such studies are an

important step in developing rehabilitation paradigms targeted at relearning of

appropriate internal models.

Practice Schedules. It is clear that practice benefits motor learning, but optimal types

and schedules of training remain unclear, and may vary across tasks. In most motor

tasks, practice that is distributed over (rather than massed in) time appears to result in

optimized learning and retention 99. In learning new sensorimotor transformations, rest

breaks between sessions is of benefit, and may allow for the consolidation of newly

20
acquired internal models 100. It is also frequently beneficial to train a variety of similar

movements to encourage so-called contextual interference. Shea & Kohl 101, for example,

found in a force-learning task that filling the inter-test-trial interval with related motor

tasks significantly improved retention. Ollis et al. 102 demonstrated that learning a variety

of knot-tying movements enhances learning, even for novices practicing complex knots.

There is some suggestion, however, that the benefit of contextual interference may be

task specific 103. Additionally, a contextual interference manipulation in patients with

Parkinson’s disease did not enhance learning, suggesting that successful learning

strategies in healthy controls may not generalize to brain-damaged patients 104. It is also

of interest to note that training of items that share many features with other items is

disruptive and not beneficial in the lexical-semantic domain 105, 106. As object-related

praxis movements are complex skills with close ties to semantic knowledge 22, it remains

unclear whether training on shared or distinctive motor features, semantic features, or

both will be optimal in praxis rehabilitation.

The Role of Feedback and Error Correction. Feedback and knowledge of results

frequently facilitate motor skill acquisition. Recent investigations have probed the types

of feedback that may be most optimal, and here, as in other areas of motor learning, the

answer is unclear. For example, varying the movement component about which feedback

is provided may benefit simple skill learning, but disrupt more complex motor skill

learning 107.

In the domain of cognitive implicit learning, error may be disruptive. As a

result, rehabilitation paradigms have evolved that emphasize “errorless learning”.

Performance may be “shaped” by minimizing opportunities to make errors and by

21
rewarding successful performance. In contrast, in the domain of simple movements, such

as reaching under visual guidance, performance appears to be “tuned” by the opportunity

to correct error (e.g., 108). The role of error in these different types of learning remains

poorly understood; moreover, it is not clear whether and where praxis movements may

fall on this continuum.

Hemiparetic stroke patients without IMA are able to adapt to forces applied

perpendicular to the moving hemiparetic arm 109 as well as to spring-like forces that act

against movement 110 when they receive feedback about error. This suggests that

hemiparetic patients can use error to adjust internal models of movement to achieve an

intended goal 109, 111. It has also been suggested that perception of gross errors may

enhance the recovery process in stroke 112.

Unfortunately, patients with apraxia frequently exhibit some degree of

anosognosia, or unawareness of deficit. They may recognize that they are unable to

move correctly, but fail to recognize the extent of deficit, or may attribute it to

clumsiness, memory loss, or intellectual decline 113. It may be necessary to provide

augmented feedback about error. Fortunately, a number of virtual reality paradigms under

recent development present promising opportunities to do just this (see 114).

Paradigms using robot-assisted devices (e.g., 115, 116) can launch correct actions

based on electromyographic activity that is associated with the intention to act. Thus,

preparatory activity is linked to a correct response, and errors are prevented. This would

seem to be an extremely useful feature. However, given that IMA patients may fail at the

level of planning and intention, it is not obvious that robot-assisted therapies will be

22
helpful in the rehabilitation of IMA, unless the correct performance of an act can feed

back to augment the putatively deficient internal model.

V. Summary and Recommendations

There are several different subtypes of apraxia, resulting in some cases from

damage to differing underlying neural systems. Ideomotor, ideational, and conceptual

apraxia all appear to impact real world-functioning. Development of appropriate

treatment paradigms is clearly needed. A review of the apraxia treatment literature to

date reveals that the field is in the early stages of efforts to develop effective treatments,

and that most studies have relied upon individual case experimental designs. Additional

problems include poor specification of patient characteristics, including incidence and of

aphasia, variable criteria for diagnosing apraxia, vague description of treatments applied,

unequal application of treatment even within a given study, and absence of information

about treatment generalization. Most central to the aims of this review, principles from

the existing motor learning literature have not yet informed the development of treatment

studies.

The motor learning literature identifies several principles that may benefit the

rehabilitation of apraxia, if appropriately applied. For example, distributed practice of

the target task appears to improve learning and retention. Creating contextual

interference by interleaving the target task with other similar tasks may aid 117or disrupt

(c.f. 106) generalization. Feedback of results should be provided. Intensity of practice is

also clearly important.

One potential strategy in development of apraxia treatment studies is to

systematically vary one treatment feature at a time (e.g., massed versus distributed

23
practice schedule, similarity or distinctiveness of items, presence or absence of feedback,

shaping of easier to harder items to maximize success, as opposed to allowing errors)

while systematically holding the others constant. This is clearly preferable from the

perspective of clarifying the features of the training that are critical. On the other hand,

there is unfortunately very little to suggest how these motor learning principles are best

parameterized (e.g., in terms of strength, duration, or intensity) or applied to the treatment

of IMA. Another strategy, then, is to attempt to obtain a beneficial effect by “loading”

the treatment on all of the motor learning features that may plausibly be beneficial, and if

an effect is obtained, follow up with studies designed to disentangle the critical versus

non-critical factors. Of course, if no training benefit is observed, then it would be unclear

which features were applied incorrectly, and this in turn would necessitate a return to the

“one feature at a time” strategy.

As an exercise, at least, we can imagine a treatment study based on the strategy of

“loading” the treatment with principles derived from the motor learning literature. One

might predict, for example, that deficits in naturalistic action may be most successfully

treated by providing an intense but distributed schedule of practice on a variety of

targeted naturalistic tasks, interleaved with other similar tasks. Principles of shaping

might be predicted to be beneficial, such that easy tasks are used early in training and

harder tasks later in training such that performance is successful. On the other hand,

opportunities to correct errors should be provided should they arise.

The apraxia literature also provides some hints about other factors that may

impact rehabilitation. A recent learning study from the lab of one of the authors 118

assessed the role of the “affordances” of unfamiliar objects – in this case, the degree to

24
which the unfamiliar objects signal the actions associated with them by virtue of their

shape – in learning new object-related gestures. Patients with IMA, but not age- and

education-matched non-apraxic left hemisphere stroke patients, were significantly better

at learning new gestures when the gestures were highly afforded by their associated

objects. This “affordance benefit” could clearly be exploited in the design of future

treatment studies by focusing early treatment on high affordance objects.

Tasks trained early in a shaping procedure may be designed to be “easy” in a

number of other critical ways. Clearly, these early tasks should have few steps. Arrays

should be simple, with few visual elements, and no distractor (task-irrelevant) objects.

Spatial consistency of object placement from trial to trial is also critical 119. These task

and object features may all be titrated gradually such that tasks higher up in the shaping

hierarchy are increasingly complex with respect to these features.

Treatments must be applied identically across all treated subjects. Treated and

untreated patients must either be matched across a large number of putatively important

variables, including lesion size, severity of cognitive and language deficits, apraxia type

(and subtype) and severity, and motor impairment, or sample sizes must be large and

patients randomly assigned to treated and untreated groups. Efficacy of treatment should

be assessed by applying pre- and post-treatment measures of caregiver burden,

performance of ADLs, and/or functional independence that are different from the trained

tasks.

25
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper is an outgrowth of a Workshop in Plasticity/NeuroRehabilitation Research

sponsored and supported by the VA Brain Rehabilitation Research Center of Excellence

and the University of Florida Dept. of Occupational Therapy, Gainesville, Florida. Work

on the manuscript was supported in part by NIH R01-NS036387 to the first author.

26
 REFERENCES

1. Steinthal P: Abriss der sprachwissenschaft. Berlin, 1871.

2. Liepmann H: Das krankheitsbild der apraxie. Monatsschr Psychiatr Neurol

1900;8:102-132,182-197.

3. Liepmann H: Die linke hemisphare und das handeln. Munchener Medizinische

Wochenschrift 1905;40; 49(2322-2326; 2375-2378).

4. Liepmann H: Apraxie. Ergebnisse der Gesamten Medizin 1920;1:516-543.

5. Hanna-Pladdy B, Rothi LJG: Ideational apraxia: Confusion that began with

Liepmann. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2001;11(5):539-547.

6. Ochipa C, Rothi LJG, Heilman KM: Ideational apraxia: A deficit in tool selection

and use. Annals of Neurology 1989;25:190-193.

7. Ochipa C, Rothi LJG, Heilman KM: Conceptual apraxia in Alzheimer's disease.

Brain 1992;115:1061-1072.

8. DeRenzi E, Faglioni P, Sorgato P: Modality-specific and supramodel mechanisms

of apraxia. Brain 1982;105:301-312.

9. Heilman KM, Gonzalez Rothi LJ: Apraxia, In: Heilman KM, valenstein E, (eds).

Clinical Neuropsychology. 3rd ed. New York, Oxford University Press;

1993:141-150.

10. DeRenzi E, Motti F, Nichelli P: Imitating gestures: A quantitative approach to

ideomotor apraxia. Achives of Neurology 1980;37:6-10.

11. Heilman KM, Rothi LJ, Valenstein E: Two forms of ideomotor apraxia.

Neurology 1982;32:342-346.

27
12. Goldenberg G: Imitating getures and manipulating a mannikin-the representation

of the human body in ideomotor apraxia. Neuropsychologia 1995;33(1):63-72.

13. Haaland KY, Harrington DL, Knight RT: Spatial deficits in ideomotor limb

apraxia: A kinematic analysis of aiming movements. Brain 1999;122:1169-1182.

14. Foundas A, Maccauley B, Raymer A, Maher L, Rothi L, Heilman K: Ideomotor

apraxia in Alzheimer's disease and left hemisphere stroke: Limb transitive and

intransitive movements. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Behavioral

Neurology 1999;12(161-166).

15. Poizner H, Clark M, Merians A, Macauley B, Gonzalez Rothi L, Heilman K: Joint

coordination deficits in limb apraxia. Brain 1995;118:227-242.

16. Poizner H, Mack L, Verfaellie M, Rothi LJG, Heilman KM: Three-dimensional

computergraphic analysis of apraxia: Neural representations of learned

movement. Brain 1990;113:85-101.

17. Goldenberg G, Hagmann S: The meaning of meaningless getures: a study of

visuo-imitative apraxia. Neuropsychologia 1997;35:333-341.

18. Weiss PH, Dohle C, Binkofski F, Schnitzler A, Freund HJ, Hefter H: Motor

impairment in patients with parietal lesions: Disturbances of meaningless arm

movement sequences. Neuropsychologia 2001;39:397-405.

19. Rumiati R, Weiss P, Tessari A, et al.: Common and differential neural

mechanisms supporting imitation of meaningful and meaningless actions. Journal

of Cognitive Neuroscience 2005;17(9):1420-1431.

28
20. DeRenzi E, Faglioni P, Lodesani M, Vecchi A: Performance of left brain-

damaged patients on imitation of single movements and motor sequences. Frontal

and parietal-injured patients compared. Cortex 1983;19:333-343.

21. Harrington DL, Haaland KY: Motor sequencing with left hemisphere damage:

Are some cognitive deficits specific to limb apraxia? Brain 1992;115:857-874.

22. Buxbaum LJ, Saffran EM: Knowledge of object manipulation and object

function: Dissociations in apraxic and non-apraxic subjects. Brain and Language

Under Review 2002;82:179-199.

23. Spatt J, Bak T, Bozeat S, Patterson K, Hodges J: Apraxia, mechanical problem

solving and semantic knowledge: Contibutions to object usage in corticobasal

degeneration. Journal of Neurology 2002;249:601-608.

24. Clark M, Merians AS, Kothari A, et al.: Spatial planning deficits in limb apraxia.

Brain 1994;117:1093-1106.

25. Buxbaum LJ, Johnson-Frey SH, Bartlett-Williams M: Deficient internal models

for planning hand-object interactions in apraxia. Neuropsychologia

2005;43(6):917-929.

26. Jax SA, Buxbaum LJ, Moll AD: Deficits in movement planning and intrinsic

coordinate control in ideomotor apraxia. J Cogn Neurosci Dec 2006;18(12):2063-

2076.

27. Gonzalez Rothi LJ, Heilman KM: Ideomotor apraxia: Gestural learning and

memory, In: Roy EA, (ed). Neuropsychological studies in apraxia and related

disorders. New York, Oxford University Press; 1985:65-74.

29
28. Faglioni P, Basso A, Botti C, Aglioti S, Saetti C: Gestural learning in apraxia, In:

Jeannerod M, (ed). Attention and performanc XIII. Hillsdale (NJ), Lawrence

Erlbaum; 1990:837-856.

29. Buxbaum LJ: Ideomotor apraxia: A call to action. Neurocase 2001;7:445-458.

30. Buxbaum LJ, Giovannetti T, Libon D: The role of the dynamic body schema in

praxis: evidence from primary progressive apraxia. Brain and Cognition

2000;44:166-191.

31. Buxbaum LJ, Kyle KM, Menon R: On beyond mirror neurons: internal

representations subserving imitation and recognition of skilled object-related

actions in humans. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res Sep 2005;25(1):226-239.

32. Buxbaum LJ, Kyle K, Grossman M, Coslett HB: Left inferior parietal

representations for skilled hand-object interactions: Evidence from stroke and

corticobasal degeneration. Cortex In Press.

33. Geschwind N: Disconnection syndromes in animals and man. Brain 1965;8:237-

294, 585-644.

34. Kimura D: Translations from Liepmann's Essays on Apraxia. 506 ed. London,

University of Western Ontario, 1980.

35. Poeck K: The clinical examination for motor apraxia. Neuropsychologia

1986;24(1):129-134.

36. Foundas AL, Macauley BL, Raymer AM, Maher LM, Heilman KM, Roth LJG:

Ecological implications of limb apraxia: Evidence from mealtime behavior.

Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 1995;1:62-66.

30
37. Goldenberg G, Daumuller M, Hagmann S: Assessment and therapy of complex

activities of daily living in apraxia. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation

2001;11(2):147-169.

38. Sunderland A, Bowers MP, Sluman SM, Wilcock DJ, Ardron ME: Impaired

dexterity of the ipsilateral hand after stroke and the relationship to cognitive

deficit. Stroke May 1999;30(5):949-955.

39. Sunderland A, Sluman SM: Ideomotor apraxia, visuomotor control and the

explicit representation of posture. Neuropsychologia 2000;38:923-934.

40. van Heugten CM, Dekker J, Deelman BG, Stehmann-Saris JC, Kinebanian A:

Rehabilitation of stroke patients with apraxia: the role of additional cognitive and

motor impairments. Disability and Rehabilitation 2000;22(12):547-554.

41. Wetter S, Poole JL, Haaland KY: Functional implications of ipsilesional motor

deficits after unilateral stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil Apr 2005;86(4):776-781.

42. Haaland KY, Harrington DL, Knight RT: Neural representations of skilled

movement. Brain 2000;123:2306-2313.

43. Donkervoort M, Dekker J, Deelman B: Sensitivity of different ADL measures to

apraxia and motor impairments. Clinical Rehabilitation 2002;16(3):299-305.

44. Hanna-Pladdy B, Heilman KM, Foundas AL: Ecological implications of

ideomotor apraxia: evidence from physical activities of daily living. Neurology

Feb 11 2003;60(3):487-490.

45. Sundet K, Finset A, Reinvang I: Neuropsychological predictors in stroke

rehabilitation. Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology

1988;10(4):363-379.

31
46. Goldenberg G, Hagmann S: Tool Use and Mechanical problem solving in apraxia.

Neuropsychologia 1998;36(7):581-589.

47. Laimgruber K, Goldenberg G, Hermsdorfer J: Manual and hemispheric

asymmetries in the execution of actual and pantomimed prehension.

Neuropsychologia 2005;43:682-692.

48. van Heugten CM, Dekker J, Deelman BG, van Dijk AJ, Stehmann-Saris FC,

Kinebanian A: Measuring disabilities in stroke patients with apraxia: A validation

study of an observational method. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation

2000;10(4):401-414.

49. Walker CM, Sunderland A, Sharma J, Walker MF: The impact of cognitive

impairment on upper body dressing difficulties after stroke: a video analysis of

patterns of recovery. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Jan 2004;75(1):43-48.

50. Sunderland A: Recovery of ipsilateral dexterity after stroke. Stroke Feb

2000;31(2):430-433.

51. Goldenberg G, Hagmann S: Therapy of activities of daily living in patients with

apraxia. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 1998;8(2):123-141.

52. Walker MF, Lincoln NB: Factors influencing dressing performance after stroke. J

Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Aug 1991;54(8):699-701.

53. Buxbaum LJ, Schwartz MF, Montgomery M: Ideational apraxia and naturalistic

action. Cognitive Neuropsychology 1998;15:617-643.

54. Schwartz MF, Montgomery, M.W., Buxbaum, L.J., Lee, S.S., Carew, T.G.,

Coslett, H.B., Ferraro, M., Fitzpatrick-DeSalme, E., Hart, T., & Mayer, N.:

32
 Naturalistic action impairment in closed head injury. Neuropsychology 1998;in

press.

55. Schwartz MF, Buxbaum L, Montgomery MW, et al.: Naturalistic action

production following right hemisphere stroke. Neuropsychologia 1999;37:51-66.

56. Hartmann K, Goldenberg G, Daumuller M, Hermsdorfer J: It takes the whole

brain to make a cup of coffee: the neuropsychology of naturalistic actions

involving technical devices. Neuropsychologia 2005;43(4):625-637.

57. Mayer NH, Reed ES, Schwartz MF, Montgomery MW, Palmer C: Buttering a hot

cup of hot coffee: An approach to the study of errors of action after brain

damage, In: Cicerone K, Tupper D, (eds). The neuropsychology of everyday life:

Assessment and basic competencies. Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers;

1990:259-283.

58. Sunderland A, Shinner C: Ideomotor apraxia and functional ability. Cortex in

press.

59. Buxbaum LJ, Veramonti T, Schwartz MF: Function and manipulation tool

knowledge in apraxia: Knowing 'What for' but not 'how'. Neurocase 2000;6:83-

97.

60. Maher L, Rothi L, Greenwald M: Treatment of gesture impairment: a single case.

American Speech and Hearing Association 1991;33:195.

61. Maher LM, Ochipa C: Management and treatment of limb apraxia, In: Gonzalez-

Rothi LJ, Heilman KM, (eds). Apraxia: The Neuropsychology of Action. United

Kingdom, Psychology Press; 1997:75-91.

33
62. Ochipa C, Maher L, Rothi L: Treatment of ideomotor apraxia. Journal of the

International Neuropsychological Society 1995;2:149.

63. Code C, Gaunt C: Treating severe speech and limb apraxia in a case of aphasia.

Br J Disord Commun Apr 1986;21(1):11-20.

64. Deal JL, Florance CL: Modification of the eight-step continuum for treatment of

apraxia of speech in adults. J Speech Hear Disord Feb 1978;43(1):89-95.

65. Pilgrim E, Humphreys GW: Rehabilitation of a case of ideomotor apraxia, In:

Riddoch MJ, Humphrey GW, (eds). Cognitive Neuropsychology and Cognitive

Rehabilitation. Hillsdale, Lawrence erlbaum associates; 1994:271-285.

66. van Heugten CM, Dekker J, Deelman BG, van Dijk AJ, Stehmann-Saris JC,

Kinebanian A: Outcome of strategy training in stroke patients with apraxia: a

phase II study. Clin Rehabil Aug 1998;12(4):294-303.

67. Donkervoort M, Dekker J, Stehmann-Saris FC, Deelman BG: Efficacy of strategy

training in left hemisphere stroke patients with apraxia: a randomized clinical

trial. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 2001;11(5):549-566.

68. Geusgens C, van Heugten C, Donkervoort M, van den Ende E, Jolles J, van den

Heuvel W: Transfer of training effects in stroke patients with apraxia: an

exploratory study. Neuropsychol Rehabil Apr 2006;16(2):213-229.

69. Smania N, Girardi F, Domenicali C, Lora E, Aglioti S: The rehabilitation of limb

apraxia: a study in left-brain-damaged patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil

2000;81:379-388.

34
70. Smania N, Aglioti SM, Girardi F, et al.: Rehabilitation of limb apraxia improves

daily life activities in patients with stroke. Neurology Dec 12 2006;67(11):2050-

2052.

71. Robey RR, Schultz MC: A model for conducting clinical-outcome research: An

adaptation of the standard protocol for use in aphasiology. Aphasiology

1998;12:787-810.

72. Nadeau SE, Rothi LJG, Rosenbek JC: Language rehabilitation from a neural

perspective, In: Chapey R, (ed). Language intervention strategies in adult aphasia.

Baltimore, Williams and Wilkins; In Press.

73. Hallett M: Motor Learning, In: Freund HJ, Jeannerod M, Hallett M, Leiguarda R,

(eds). Higher-order Motor Disorders: From Neuroanatomy and Neurobiology to

Clinical Neurology. Oxford, Oxford University Press; 2005:123-140.

74. Pascual-Leone A, Dang N, Cohen LG, Brasil-Neto JP, Cammarota A, Hallett M:

Modulation of muscle responses evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation

during the acquisition of new fine motor skills. J Neurophysiol 1995;74:1037-

1045.

75. Karni A, Meyer G, Jezzard P, Adams MM, Turner R, Ungerleider LG: Functional

MRI evidence for adult motor cortex plasticity during motor skill learning. Nature

Sep 14 1995;377(6545):155-158.

76. Hikosaka O, Nakamura K, Sakai K, Nakahara H: Central mechanisms of motor

skill learning. Curr Opin Neurobiol Apr 2002;12(2):217-222.

77. Shadmehr R, Holcomb H: Neural correlates of motor memory consolodation.

Science 1997;277:821-825.

35
78. Bapi RS, Miyapuram KP, Graydon FX, Doya K: fMRI investigation of cortical

and subcortical networks in the learning of abstract and effector-specific

representations of motor sequences. Neuroimage Aug 15 2006;32(2):714-727.

79. Graydon FX, Friston KJ, Thomas CG, Brooks VB, Menon RS: Learning-related

fMRI activation associated with a rotational visuo-motor transformation. Brain

Res Cogn Brain Res Mar 2005;22(3):373-383.

80. Muller RA, Kleinhans N, Pierce K, Kemmotsu N, Courchesne E: Functional MRI

of motor sequence acquisition: effects of learning stage and performance. Brain

Res Cogn Brain Res Aug 2002;14(2):277-293.

81. Toni I, Krams M, Turner R, Passingham RE: The time course of changes during

motor sequence learning: a whole-brain fMRI study. Neuroimage Jul

1998;8(1):50-61.

82. Carey DP: Multisensory integration: attending to seen and felt hands. Curr Biol

Nov 30 2000;10(23):R863-865.

83. Fridman EA, Hanakawa T, Chung M, Hummel F, Leiguarda RC, Cohen LG:

Reorganization of the human ipsilesional premotor cortex after stroke. Brain Apr

2004;127(Pt 4):747-758.

84. Rapcsak SZ, Ochipa C, Beeson PM, Rubens AB: Praxis and the right hemisphere.

Brain and Cognition 1993;23:181-202.

85. Winhuisen L, Thiel A, Schumacher B, et al.: Role of the contralateral inferior

frontal gyrus in recovery of language function in poststroke aphasia: a combined

repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and positron emission tomography

study. Stroke Aug 2005;36(8):1759-1763.

36
86. Honda M, Deiber MP, Ibanez V, Pascual-Leone A, Zhuang P, Hallett M:

Dynamic cortical involvement in implicit and explicit motor sequence learning. A

PET study. Brain Nov 1998;121 ( Pt 11):2159-2173.

87. Grafton ST, Hazeltine E, Irvy R: Functional mapping of sequence learning in

normal humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1995;7:497-510.

88. Catalan MJ, Honda M, Weeks RA, Cohen LG, Hallett M: The functional

neuroanatomy of simple and complex sequential finger movements: a PET study.

Brain Feb 1998;121 ( Pt 2):253-264.

89. Wise SP, Shadmehr R: Motor control, In: Ramachandran VS, (ed). Encyclopedia

of the Human Brain, Vol 3. San Diego, Academic Press; 2002:137-157.

90. Krakauer JW, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C: Independent learning of internal models for

kinematic and dynamic control of reaching. Nat Neurosci Nov 1999;2(11):1026-

1031.

91. Keele SW: Motor control., In: Brooks WB, (ed). Handbook in Physiology,

Section 1: The Nervous System, Vol Vol.2. Baltimore, Williams & Williams;

1981:1391-1414.

92. Jeannerod M: Object oriented action. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1994.

93. Blakemore SJ, Sirigu A: Action prediction in the cerebellum and in the parietal

lobe. Exp Brain Res Nov 2003;153(2):239-245.

94. Glover S: Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action.

Behav Brain Sci Feb 2004;27(1):3-24; discussion 24-78.

95. Jeannerod M: Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor

cognition. Neuroimage 2001;14(S103-S109).

37
96. Johnson SHR, M., Grafton, S.T., Hinrichs, H., Gazzaniga, M.S. & Heinze, H-J.:

Selective activation of a parieto-frontal circuit during implicity imagined

prehension. Neuroimage 2002;17:1693-1704.

97. Prinz W: Motor images are action plans (commentary). Behavioral and Brain

Sciences 1994;17(2):218.

98. Sirigu A, Duhamel J-R, Cohen L, Pillon B, Dubois B, Agid Y: The mental

representation of hand movements after parietal cortex damage. Science

1996;273(1564-1568).

99. Krakauer JW, Ghez C, Ghilardi MF: Adaptation to visuomotor transformations:

consolidation, interference, and forgetting. J Neurosci Jan 12 2005;25(2):473-478.

100. Bock O, Thomas M, Grigorova V: The effect of rest breaks on human

sensorimotor adaptation. Exp Brain Res May 2005;163(2):258-260.

101. Shea CH, Kohl RM: Composition of practice: influence on the retention of motor

skills. Res Q Exerc Sport Jun 1991;62(2):187-195.

102. Ollis S, Button C, Fairweather M: The influence of professional expertise and task

complexity upon the potency of the contextual interference effect. Acta Psychol

(Amst) Mar 2005;118(3):229-244.

103. Tong C, Flanagan JR: Task-specific internal models for kinematic

transformations. J Neurophysiol Aug 2003;90(2):578-585.

104. Haaland KY, Harrington DL, O'Brien S, Hermanowicz N: Cognitive-motor

learning in Parkinson's disease. Neuropsychology Apr 1997;11(2):180-186.

105. Park H, Arndt J, Reder LM: A contextual interference account of distinctiveness

effects in recognition. Mem Cognit Jun 2006;34(4):743-751.

38
106. Plaut DC, McClelland JL, Seidenberg MS, Patterson K: Understanding normal

and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains.

Psychological Review 1996;103(1):56-115.

107. Wulf G, Horger M, Shea CH: Benefits of Blocked Over Serial Feedback on

Complex Motor Skill Learning. J Mot Behav Mar 1999;31(1):95-103.

108. Rossetti Y, Rode G, Pisella L, et al.: Prism adaptation to a rightward optical

deviation rehabilitates left hemispatial neglect. Nature 1998(166-169).

109. Patton JL, Stoykov ME, Kovic M, Mussa-Ivaldi FA: Evaluation of robotic

training forces that either enhance or reduce error in chronic hemiparetic stroke

survivors. Exp Brain Res Jan 2006;168(3):368-383.

110. Dancause N, Ptito A, Levin MF: Error correction strategies for motor behavior

after unilateral brain damage: short-term motor learning processes.

Neuropsychologia 2002;40(8):1313-1323.

111. Gandolfo F, Mussa-Ivaldi FA, Bizzi E: Motor learning by field approximation.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Apr 30 1996;93(9):3843-3846.

112. Rossetti Y: Implicit short-lived motor representations of space in brain damaged

and healthy subjects. Consciousness and Cognition 1998;7:520-558.

113. Heilman KM, Gonzalez-Rothi LJ: Apraxia, In: Heilman KM, Valenstein E, (eds).

Clinical Neurophysiology. New York, Oxford University Press; 2003:215-235.

114. Holden MK: Virtual environments for motor rehabilitation: review. Cyberpsychol

Behav Jun 2005;8(3):187-211; discussion 212-189.

115. Kahn L, Rymer W, Reinkensmeyer D: Adaptive assistance for guided force

training in chronic stroke. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2004;4:2722-2725.

39
116. Masiero S, Celia A, Rosati G, Armani M: Robotic-assisted rehabilitation of the

upper limb after acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil Feb 2007;88(2):142-149.

117. Hanlon RE: Motor learning following unilateral stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil

1996;77:811-815.

118. Barde L, Buxbaum L, Moll A: Abnormal reliance on object structure in apraxics'

learning of novel actions. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society

In Press.

119. Giovannetti T, Schwartz MF, Buxbaum LJ: The effect of divided attention on

action slips: A new error elicitation paradigm. Journal of Clinical and

Experimental Neuropsychology In Press.

40
Table 1: Summary of Apraxia Treatment Studies
Apraxia Trained Duration Intensity Treatment Generalization Maintenance Apraxia ADL
Type(s) Items Effect Impact Impact
Multiple Cues (n=1) IMA gestures 2 weeks One hour daily Y Y Y-treated items NA NA
only (2 weeks)

Error Type Reduction (n=2) IMA gestures Varied; 6- Varied; once daily 4 Y N Y- treated error N NA
11 weeks days/week- twice daily 2 types only (2
days/week weeks)
Six Stage Task Hierarchy (n=1) IMA + IA gestures 8 months 45 minutes; once weekly Y N NA N NA

Conductive Education (n=1) IMA gestures 3 weeks Daily Y N NA NA NA

Strategy Training (n=89) IA? * ADL Varied; 8- Varied; 25 sessions, 15 Y Y N (5 months) Y Y

12 weeks hours total
Transitive/Intransitive Gesture IMA gestures 10-11 35 sessions, 50 minutes Y Y NA Y NA
Training (n = 13) weeks each

“Rehabilitative Treatment” (n=20) IA or IMA gestures 10 weeks 30 sessions, 50 minutes Y Y Y (2 weeks) Y Y

each
Errorless Completion+Exploration NA ADL 2-5 weeks 5 days/week plus 20-40 Y N Y (6-30 months) NA NA
Training (n=15) minutes practice daily
Errorless Completion (n=6) IMA ADL 2 weeks 6 sessions, one hour each Y N Y (3 months) NA NA

Exploration Training (n=6) IMA ADL 2 weeks 6 sessions, one hour each N N N (3 months) NA NA

Legend: IMA = ideomotor apraxia, IA = ideational apraxia, Y = yes, N = no, NA = not assessed/no information provided
* “Inability to carry out purposeful activities”

41