Skip to main content
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by
    This (lowercase (translateProductType product.productType)) has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Kleynen, Melanie Beurskens, Anna Olijve, Huub Kamphuis, Jip and Braun, Susy 2018. Application of motor learning in neurorehabilitation: a framework for health-care professionals. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, p. 1.

    Timmermans, Celine Roerdink, Melvyn van Ooijen, Marielle W. Meskers, Carel G. Janssen, Thomas W. and Beek, Peter J. 2016. Walking adaptability therapy after stroke: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, Vol. 17, Issue. 1,

  • Print publication year: 2014
  • Online publication date: June 2014

Chapter 10 - Evolving insights into motor learning and their implications for neurorehabilitation

from Section 2 - Therapeutic technology
Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Textbook of Neural Repair and Rehabilitation
  • Online ISBN: 9780511995590
  • Book DOI:
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *


1. Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Lindeman E. Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: facts and theories. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2004; 22: 281–99.
2. Levin MF, Kleim JA, Wolf SL. What do motor “recovery” and “compensation” mean in patients following stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009; 23: 313–9.
3. Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet 2011; 377: 1693–702.
4. Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol 2009; 8: 741–54.
5. Hurn J, Kneebone I, Cropley M. Goal setting as an outcome measure: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil 2006; 20: 756–72.
6. Kwakkel G, Wagenaar RC, Twisk JWR, et al. Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: a randomised trial. Lancet 1999; 354: 191–6.
7. Fitts PM, Posner MI. Human Performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks Cole, 1967.
8. Wulf G, Höβ M, Prinz W. Instructions for motor learning: differential effects of internal versus external focus of attention. J Mot Behav 1998; 30: 169–79.
9. Wulf G. Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 10 years of research. In Hossner EJ, Wenderoth N, eds. Gabriele Wulf on attentional focus and motor learning [Target article]. Bewegung und Training 2007; 1: 4–14.
10. Wulf G, Prinz W. Directing attention to movement enhances learning: a review. Psychon Bull Rev 2001; 8: 648–60.
11. Wulf G, McNevin N, Shea CH. The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus. Q J Exp Psychol A 2001; 54: 1143–54.
12. Wulf G, Shea C, Park JH. Attention and motor performance: preferences for and advantages of an external focus. Res Q Exerc Sport 2001; 72: 335–44.
13. McNevin NH, Shea CH, Wulf G. Increasing the distance of an external focus of attention enhances learning. Psychol Res 2003; 67: 22–9.
14. McNevin NH, Wulf G, Carlson C. Effects of attentional focus, self-control, and dyad training on motor learning: implications for physical rehabilitation. Phys Ther 2000; 80: 373–85.
15. Landers M, Wulf G, Wallmann H, et al. An external focus of attention attenuates balance impairments in patients with Parkinson's disease who have a fall history. Physiotherapy 2005; 91: 152–8.
16. Wulf G, Landers M, Lewthwaite R, et al. External focus instructions reduce postural instability in individuals with Parkinson disease. Phys Ther 2009; 89: 162–8.
17. Fasoli SE, Trombly CA, Tickle-Degnen L, et al. Effect of instructions on functional reach in persons with and without cerebrovascular accident. Am J Occup Ther 2002; 56; 380–90.
18. Wulf G, Weigelt M, Poulter D, et al. Attentional focus on suprapostural tasks affects balance learning. Q J Exp Psychol A 2003; 56: 1191–211.
19. Reber AS. Implicit learning of artificial grammars. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 1967; 5: 855–63.
20. Berry DC, Broadbent DE. The combination of explicit and implicit learning processes in task control. Psychol Res 1987; 49: 7–15.
21. Masters RSW. Knowledge, nerves and know-how. The role of explicit versus implicit knowledge in the breakdown of a complex motor skill under pressure. Br J Psychol 1992; 83: 343–58.
22. Steenbergen B, van der Kamp J, Verneau M, et al. Implicit and explicit learning: applications from basic research to sports for individuals with impaired movement dynamics. Disabil Rehabil 2010; 32: 1509–16.
23. Orell AJ, Masters RSW, Eves FF. Reinvestment and movement disruption following stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009; 23: 177–83.
24. Masters RS, Pall HS, MacMahon KM, et al. Duration of Parkinson disease is associated with an increased propensity for “reinvestment”. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007; 21: 123–6.
25. Wong WL, Masters RSW, Maxwell JP, et al. Reinvestment and falls in community-dwelling older adults. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2008; 22: 410–14.
26. Orrell AJ, Eves FF, Masters RS. Motor learning of a dynamic balancing task after stroke: implicit implications for stroke rehabilitation. Phys Ther 2006; 86: 369–80.
27. Orrell AJ, Eves FF, Masters RS, et al. Implicit sequence learning processes after unilateral stroke. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2007; 17: 335–54.
28. Masters RS, Pall HS, MacMahon KM. Implicit motor learning in Parkinson's disease. Rehabil Psychol 2004; 49: 79–82.
29. Liao CM, Masters RSW. Analogy learning: a means to implicit motor learning. J Sports Sci 2001; 19: 307–19.
30. Shea J, Morgan R. Contextual interference effects of the acquisition, retention and transfer of a motor skill. J Exp Psychol 1979; 5: 179–87.
31. Brady F. A theoretical and empirical review of the contextual interference effect and the learning of motor skills. Quest 1998; 50: 266–93.
32. Hanlon RE. Motor learning following unilateral stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 811–15.
33. Bouwsema H, van der Sluis CK, Bongers RM. The role of order of practice in learning to handle an upper-limb prosthesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89: 1759–64.
34. Porter JM, Magill RA. Systematically increasing contextual interference is beneficial for learning sport skills. J Sports Sci 2010; 28: 1277–85.
35. Winstein CJ. Designing practice for motor learning: clinical implications. In Lister MJ, ed. II Step: Contemporary Management of Motor Control Problems. Alexandria, VA: Foundation for Physical Therapy Inc., 1991; 65–76.
36. Jarus T. Motor learning and occupational therapy: the organization of practice. Am J Occup Therap 1994; 48: 810–16.
37. Schmidt RA. A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychol Rev 1975; 82: 225–60.
38. van Rossum JH. Schmidt's schema theory: the empirical base of the variability of practice hypothesis: a critical analysis. Hum Mov Sci 1990; 9: 387–435.
39. Schöllhorn WI. Individualität – ein vernachlässigter Parameter? Leistungssport 1999; 29: 5–12.
40. Schöllhorn WI. Erfolg durch Abwechslung. Physiopraxis, Fachzeitschrift für Physiotherapie, 2011; 6: 32–5.
41. Schöllhorn WI, Beckmann H, Davids K. Exploiting system fluctuations. Differential training in physical prevention and rehabilitation programs for health and exercise. Medicina (Kaunas) 2010; 46: 365–73.
42. Frank TD, Michelbrink M, Beckmann H, et al. A quantitative dynamical systems approach to differential learning: self-organization principle and order parameter equations. Biol Cybern 2008; 98: 19–31.
43. Schöllhorn WI, Nigg BM, Stefanyshyn DJ, et al. Identification of individual walking patterns using time discrete and time continuous data sets. Gait Posture 2002; 15: 180–6.
44. Schöllhorn WI, Bauer HU. Identifying individual movement styles in high performance sports by means of self organizing Kohonen maps. In Riehle H, Vieten M, eds. Proceedings of XVI International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports. Konstanz, Universitätsverlag, 1998.
45. Schöllhorn WI, Michelbrink M, Beckmann H, et al. Does noise provide a basis for the unification of motor learning theories? Int J Sport Psychol 2006; 37: 186–206.
46. Schöllhorn WI, Mayer-Kress G, Newell KM, et al. Time scales of adaptive behavior and motor learning in the presence of stochastic perturbations. Hum Mov Sci 2009; 28: 319–33.
47. Beckmann H, Schöllhorn WI. Differenzielles Lernen im Kugelstoßen. Leistungssport 2006; 36: 44–50.
48. Savelsbergh GJP, Kamper WJ, Rabius J, et al. A new method to learn to start in speed skating. Int J Sport Psychol 2010; 41: 415–27.
49. Roerdink M, Beek PJ (inventors). Device for displaying target indications for foot movements to persons with a walking disorder. Patent assignee: ForceLink. Patent numbers: US2009246746-A1; EP2106779-A1; JP2009240775-A; NL1035236-C2; EP2106779-B1; DE602009000962-E.
50. Roerdink M. Anchoring: Moving from Theory to Therapy. M Roerdink: Amsterdam, 2008; 196–204.
51. Roerdink M, Coolen H, Clairbois B, et al. Online gait event detection using a large force platform embedded in a treadmill. J Biomech 2008; 41: 2628–32.
52. Bank PJM, Roerdink M, Peper CE. Comparing the efficacy of metronome beeps and stepping stones to adjust gait: Steps to follow! Exp Brain Res 2011; 209: 159–69.
53. Hollands MA, Marple-Horvat DE. Coordination of eye and leg movements during visually guided stepping. J Mot Behav 2001; 33: 205–16.
54. Chapman GJ, Hollands MA. Evidence for a link between changes to gaze behaviour and risk of falling in older adults during adaptive locomotion. Gait Posture 2006; 24: 288–94.
55. Chapman GJ, Hollands MA. Evidence that older adult fallers prioritise the planning of future stepping actions over the accurate execution of ongoing steps during complex locomotor tasks. Gait Posture 2007; 26: 59–67.
56. Berg WP, Alessio HM, Mills EM, et al. Circumstances and consequences of falls in independent community-dwelling older adults. Age Ageing 1997; 26: 261–8.
57. Young WR, Hollands MA. Can telling older adults where to look reduce falls? Evidence for a causal link between inappropriate visual sampling and suboptimal stepping performance. Exp Brain Res 2010; 204: 103–13.
58. Latash ML, Anson JG. What are “normal movements” in atypical populations? Behav Brain Sci 1996; 19: 55–106.
59. Buurke JH, Nene AV, Kwakkel G, et al. Recovery of gait after stroke: what changes? Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2008; 22: 676–83.
60. Olney SJ, Richards C. Hemiparetic gait following stroke. Part 1: Characteristics. Gait Posture 1996; 4: 136–48.
61. Roerdink M, Beek PJ. Understanding inconsistent step-length asymmetries across hemiplegic stroke patients: impairments and compensatory gait. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2011; 25: 253–8.