The Effect of Combined Versus Sequential Attentional Focus Instructions on Upper Extremity Function in Subacute Stroke Patients: An Assessor-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial
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.
• 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).
• 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).