Back

Using visual biofeedback to reduce step length error at fast walking speeds is feasible after stroke

Holl, C. K.; Bonilla Yanez, M.; Finley, J. M.; Hooyman, A.; Leech, K. A.

2026-06-16 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.64898/2026.06.08.26355006 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background and Purpose: Walking after stroke is often characterized by persistent biomechanical impairments and reduced walking capacity. While visual biofeedback can improve gait mechanics and fast walking can enhance capacity, it is unclear whether individuals post-stroke can effectively use biofeedback at higher walking speeds to address both deficits simultaneously. This study examined the effects of walking speed on the ability of participants with chronic stroke to reduce step length (SL) errors using visual biofeedback. Methods: Sixteen individuals with chronic stroke walked on a treadmill at slow, self-selected, and fast speeds with and without visual SL biofeedback. Absolute SL error relative to individualized targets was calculated for paretic and non-paretic limbs. Linear mixed-effects models with piecewise linear splines assessed the effects of speed, limb, and feedback condition. Post hoc comparisons were performed for significant interactions. Results: At lower speeds, increasing speed reduced SL error in both limbs (p < 0.001). At higher speeds, the effects of speed were dependent on limb and condition (p < 0.001). Paretic SL error increased with speed without feedback but remained stable with feedback (p < 0.001). Non-paretic SL error decreased with speed regardless of condition. SL error was greater in the paretic limb overall (p < 0.001). Discussion and Conclusions: Fast walking alone did not reduce paretic SL errors. Participants with chronic stroke can effectively use visual biofeedback to reduce paretic SL errors at higher speeds, supporting its integration into high-intensity gait training to simultaneously treat biomechanical impairments and walking capacity deficits after stroke.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.1%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 19%
9.6%
3
Gait & Posture
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
4
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
5
Journal of Biomechanics
64 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.1%
7
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
8
Human Movement Science
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
9
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.3%
10
Disability and Rehabilitation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
11
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
12
Experimental Brain Research
53 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
13
Journal of Neurophysiology
302 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
14
Journal of Applied Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
15
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
16
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 60%
1.4%
17
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
18
Stroke
40 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
19
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.0%
20
Trials
29 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
21
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
22
F1000Research
88 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%