Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Sep 17;7(9):e08007.
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08007. eCollection 2021 Sep.

Effects of sensory substituted functional training on balance, gait, and functional performance in neurological patient populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Review

Effects of sensory substituted functional training on balance, gait, and functional performance in neurological patient populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Peter Lynch et al. Heliyon. .

Abstract

Introduction: Sensory Substitution (SS) is the use of one sensory modality to supply environmental information normally gathered by another sense while still preserving key functions of the original sense.

Objective: This systematic literature review and meta-analysis summarises and synthesise current evidence and data to estimate the effectiveness of SS supplemented training for improving balance, gait and functional performance in neurological patient populations.

Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using a SS training intervention were included.

Results: Nine RCTs were included. Outcome measures/training paradigms were structured according to the balance framework of Shumway-Cook and Woollacott: Static steady-state, Dynamic steady-state and Proactive balance. Meta-analyses revealed significant overall effects of SS training for all three outcomes, as well as self-assessment and functional capacity outcomes, with Dynamic Steady-State balance and ability of stroke survivors to support bodyweight independently on paretic side lower limb found to have had the largest statistical and clinical effects. Meta-analyses also revealed non-significant retention effects.

Conclusion: This review provides evidence in favour of a global positive effect of SS training in improving Static steady-state, Dynamic steady-state and Proactive balance measures, as well as measures of self-assessment and functional capacity in neurological patient populations. Retention of effects were not significant at follow-up assessments, although no intervention met training dosage recommendations. It is important for future research to consider variables such as specific patient population, sensor type, and training modalities in order identify the most effective type of training paradigms.

Keywords: Balance; Gait; Meta-analysis; Neuroplasticity; Neuropsychology; Neurorehabilitation; Sensory substitution; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram of article extraction process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk of bias graph: review authors judgments about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Training effects on Balance; SS vs Control.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Training effects on Balance Retention; SS vs Control.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Training effects on Gait speed; SS vs Control.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Training effects on Gait speed Retention; SS vs Control.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Training effects on Proactive Balance; SS vs Control.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Training effects on Self-assessment; SS vs Control.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Training effects on overall single limb support time; SS vs Control.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Training effects on single limb support time sub-analysis; SS vs Control.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. GBD 2016 Neurology Collaborators Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2019;18(5):459–480. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Deuschl G., Beghi E., Fazekas F., Varga T., Christoforidi K.A., Sipido E.S., Bassetti C.L., Vos T., Feigin V.L. The burden of neurological diseases in Europe: an analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017. Lancet. 2020;5(10):551–567. - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization Mental health: neurological disorders. https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/mental-health-neurological-diso... Available from:
    1. World Health Organization . WHO Press; Switzerland: 2006. NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS: Public Health Challenges.
    1. King D., Wittenberg R., Patel A., Quayyum Z., Berdunov V., Knapp M. The future incidence, prevalence and costs of stroke in the UK. Age Ageing. 2020;49(2):277–282. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources