Background and Purpose: We addressed questions about the potential discrepancy between improvements in activity capacity and improvements in activity performance in daily life. We asked whether this discrepancy is: Common in routine, outpatient care, or an artifact of intervention studies? Unique to upper limb (UL) rehabilitation, or is it seen in walking rehabilitation too? Only seen in persons with stroke, or a broader neurorehabilitation problem? Methods: A longitudinal, observational cohort of 156 participants with stroke or Parkinson disease (PD) receiving outpatient rehabilitation at 5 clinics was assessed around admission and monthly during their episode of care. Individual, longitudinal capacity (Action Research Arm Test or walking speed) and performance (wearable sensor measurements of use ratio or steps/day) data were modeled to extract predicted change scores. Simulation methods were used to determine whether an individual's change was greater than 1 standard error. Participants were classified into categories based on whether or not they improved in capacity (C+ or C−) and/or performance (P+ or P−). Results: A majority (59%) were classified as C+P−. Smaller portions of the sample were classified as C+P+ (20%) and C−P− (21%), with 1 participant (<1%) classified as C−P+. The proportions in the C+P− category were significantly larger in the stroke (χ² = 48.7, P < 0.0001) and PD (χ² = 24.3, P < 0.0001) walking subgroups than in the stroke UL subgroup. Discussion and Conclusions: The discrepancy between improvements in capacity and performance is a problem in routine, outpatient neurorehabilitation. If performance information were available, patients and clinicians could act to address it. Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see the Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A396).

Background: Neuropathic deformities impair foot and ankle joint mobility, often leading to abnormal stresses and impact forces. The purpose of our study was to determine differences in radiographic measures of hind foot alignment and ankle joint and subtalar joint motion in participants with and without neuropathic midfoot deformities and to determine the relationships between radiographic measures of hind foot alignment to ankle and subtalar joint motion in participants with and without neuropathic midfoot deformities.Methods: Sixty participants were studied in three groups. Forty participants had diabetes mellitus (DM) and peripheral neuropathy (PN) with 20 participants having neuropathic midfoot deformity due to Charcot neuroarthropathy (CN), while 20 participants did not have deformity. Participants with diabetes and neuropathy with and without deformity were compared to 20 young control participants without DM, PN or deformity. Talar declination and calcaneal inclination angles were assessed on lateral view weight bearing radiograph. Ankle dorsiflexion, plantar flexion and subtalar inversion and eversion were assessed by goniometry.Results: Talar declination angle averaged 34±9, 26±4 and 23±3 degrees in participants with deformity, without deformity and young control participants, respectively (p< 0.010). Calcaneal inclination angle averaged 11±10, 18±9 and 21±4 degrees, respectively (p< 0.010). Ankle plantar flexion motion averaged 23±11, 38±10 and 47±7 degrees (p<0.010). The association between talar declination and calcaneal inclination angles with ankle plantar flexion range of motion is strongest in participants with neuropathic midfoot deformity. Participants with talonavicular and calcaneocuboid dislocations result in the most severe restrictions in ankle joint plantar flexion and subtalar joint inversion motions.Conclusions: An increasing talar declination angle and decreasing calcaneal inclination angle is associated with decreases in ankle joint plantar flexion motion in individuals with neuropathic midfoot deformity due to CN that may contribute to excessive stresses and ultimately plantar ulceration of the midfoot.

In 1898, Norman Triplett published was has been called the first experiment in social psychology and sports psychology. Claiming to demonstrate "the dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition," this oft-cited article began the serious investigation of social facilitation. This area of research now numbers in the hundreds of published works, includes the study of humans and other animals, and encompasses basic research and applied settings. But what did Triplett really find? I examine Triplett’s original data and show that very little evidence existed for the social facilitation of the simple task he investigated. These analyses indicate the need to correct contemporary accounts of Triplett’s work and underscore the differences in how research was evaluated at that time compared with today.