Effects of Combined vs. Sequential Attentional Focus Instructions on Upper Extremity Function in … (NCT07289308) | Clinical Trial Compass
CompletedNot Applicable
Effects of Combined vs. Sequential Attentional Focus Instructions on Upper Extremity Function in Subacute Stroke
Turkey (Türkiye)36 participantsStarted 2025-12-12
Plain-language summary
Stroke is a leading cause of long-term disability, and upper extremity impairments-affecting about 80% of survivors-limit functional reach, grasp, and manipulation more severely than lower limb deficits. Despite partial recovery of walking ability, meaningful functional use of the paretic arm remains limited. Conventional rehabilitation often lacks sufficient intensity, task specificity, and motor learning principles, highlighting the need for more effective approaches.
The subacute phase of stroke (up to 6 months post-onset) represents a period of heightened neuroplasticity and strong rehabilitation potential. During this time, integrating cognitive and motor training-such as attentional focus strategies-has gained attention. External focus enhances movement efficiency through motor automaticity, whereas internal focus supports early motor control. Evidence suggests that combining these strategies may optimize recovery, yet their relative effectiveness in stroke rehabilitation remains unclear.
Two main instructional approaches exist: combined attentional focus (internal and external cues delivered within the same session) and sequential attentional focus (internal focus first, followed by external focus as control improves). While both show therapeutic promise, comparative data in stroke populations are lacking.
This study aims to compare combined versus sequential attentional focus instructions in improving upper extremity function in subacute stroke. We hypothesize that a combined approach-starting with internal focus early, then integrating external focus-will yield superior motor improvements.
Who can participate
Age range
40 Years – 80 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Inclusion criteria
. Age 40-80 years at enrollment (Kwakkel et al., 1996; Coupar et al., 2012).
. Stroke diagnosed by a neurologist between 1 week and 6 months before enrollment (Langhorne et al., 2020; Bernhardt et al., 2017).
. Medically stable, as confirmed by a neurologist, with controlled and non-fluctuating vital signs (Stinear et al., 2020; Powers et al., 2019; Winstein et al., 2016).
. Sufficient cognitive function to follow instructions, sustain attention, and actively participate in rehabilitation, as judged by the treating therapist (Stinear et al., 2020; Boyd et al., 2018).
. Brunnstrom stage 2-5 in the affected upper limb (Brunnstrom, 1970; Langhorne et al., 2020).
. Individuals with a Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) score \<3: Participants were required to have a MAS score of less than 3 in both the upper and lower extremities to ensure that spasticity remained at a manageable level and to allow safe participation in upper-limb motor rehabilitation (Pandyan et al., 2005; Li \& Francisco, 2015; Ada et al., 2020).
Questions worth asking your doctor
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
1Based on my diagnosis and history, is this trial worth exploring for me — or is there a standard treatment we should try first?
2What does this trial's phase tell us about how much is already known about its safety and benefit?
3What would taking part actually involve for me — visits, tests, time, and travel?
4What are the known and possible risks or side effects I should weigh, and how would they be monitored?
5If this trial isn't the right fit, what other options or trials would you suggest I look into?
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
Questions for the trial coordinator
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
1What does taking part actually involve week to week — how many visits, where, and how long does each one take?
2What costs are covered by the study, and what might I have to pay for myself, including travel, parking, or time off work?
3What happens during screening, and what happens if the study team confirms I don't meet the criteria after those tests?
4Who pays for the scans, blood work, and other tests the trial requires — the study, my insurance, or me?
5How will being in the trial affect my regular care, and will my own doctor stay informed and involved?
6Can I leave the trial at any point if I change my mind, and what would happen to my care if I do?
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
What they're measuring
1
Fugl Meyer Assessment- Upper Extremity Subscore
Timeframe: baseline, four weeks after the baseline
. Preserved corticospinal tract integrity, confirmed by a positive Motor Evoked Potential (MEP) response (Stinear et al., 2017; Byblow et al., 2015; Stinear et al., 2020).
. Moderate to severe upper-extremity motor impairment, determined by Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) scores of 0-47 (0-19 severe, 20-47 moderate) (Fugl-Meyer et al., 1975).