Motor Control, 2011, 15, 285-301

2011 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Sensorimotor Integration for Functional

Recovery and the Bobath Approach
Mindy F. Levin and Elia Panturin
Bobath therapy is used to treat patients with neurological disorders. Bobath practitioners use hands-on approaches to elicit and reestablish typical movement patterns
through therapist-controlled sensorimotor experiences within the context of task
accomplishment. One aspect of Bobath practice, the recovery of sensorimotor
function, is reviewed within the framework of current motor control theories. We
focus on the role of sensory information in movement production, the relationship between posture and movement and concepts related to motor recovery and
compensation with respect to this therapeutic approach. We suggest that a major
barrier to the evaluation of the therapeutic effectiveness of the Bobath concept is the
lack of a unified framework for both experimental identification and treatment of
neurological motor deficits. More conclusive analysis of therapeutic effectiveness
requires the development of specific outcomes that measure movement quality.
Keywords: motor control theory, rehabilitation, recovery, stroke, Bobath concept

Knowledge of motor control has increased over the past few decades but the
translation of this knowledge to current clinical practice has not been fully realized.
This has led to criticism of long-standing clinical approaches such as Bobath/Neurodevelopmental Treatment (NDT), based on the impression that these approaches are
not founded on established principles of physiological function and motor control.
Bobath therapy is a treatment approach used by therapists to help patients regain
function and movement. The Bobath concept is a systems approach to movement
reeducation that seeks to optimize sensorimotor function according to the capacity of the individual. Key principles of Bobath include a whole-person ecological
approach and the avoidance of motor compensations to facilitate the potential reappearance of typical movement patterns (recovery) using sensory information from
multiple sources. In this context, typical movement patterns are characterized by
EMG and kinematic patterns similar to those that are observed in healthy individuals of the same age and gender who do not have musculoskeletal or neurological
injury. The Bobath concept favors motor solutions that optimize the quality of
movement while not permitting the system to find solutions that incorporate motor
compensations (Bobath 1990; Howle 2002). The term motor compensation is used
Levin is with the School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, and the Center for
Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation, Montreal, Quebec. Panturin is with the Faculty of Physical
Therapy, Tel Aviv University and Senior Instructor IBITA (International Bobath Instructor Training
Association), Nordiya, Israel.
285

286 Levin and Panturin

when movements incorporate new motor patterns resulting from the adaptation
of remaining motor elements or substitution by different muscles, joints or body
segments (Levin et al. 2009).
The Bobath concept uses both automatic (e.g., postural adjustments and limb
placingsee below) and cognitive processing (i.e., problem-solving). It focuses
on patient-initiated, therapist-guided movement production with the engagement of
the whole body where each part influences the whole and vice versa (Bobath 1990).
The approach is mainly indicated for the treatment of patients with neurological
disorders but it can be employed in other cases, including treatment of orthopedic
problems, requiring movement reeducation. It was initially formulated in 1943 by
Berta Bobath without concern about empirical physiological justification. Bobath
was a physiotherapist and the development of the approach stemmed from her
background as a remedial gymnast, her well-honed powers of observation and her
analytical approach to movement analysis. She was acutely aware of and sought out
neurophysiological evidence to justify her approach based on data from the physiological literature of the day and through consultations with her neurophysiologist
husband, Karel. Admittedly, the state of physiological knowledge at the time was
limited but nevertheless, the concept continued to evolve despite the lack of a clear
understanding of its physiological underpinnings.
The transfer and application of basic science knowledge to many aspects of
clinical practice such as the Bobath concept has been problematic for several reasonsthe motor control literature is based on principles of movement and motor
learning characteristic of the healthy nervous system; the motor control literature
is confusing and at times contradictory; the use of terminology is not precise and
includes jargon specific to particular subspecialties (e.g., biomechanics, robotics,
engineering, neurophysiology). Due to these reasons, among others, the literature
is often difficult to interpret by researchers and clinicians alike. In a recent review,
Vaughan-Graham et al. (2009) provided an overview of basic science principles
related to clinical practice within the framework of the Bobath approach to movement remediation. This review is an important step in the knowledge translation
and application process, but does not go far enough in providing in-depth analysis
of any specific principle of the Bobath approach.
It is not the intention of this review to present a detailed description of the
Bobath concept. Instead, our purpose is to provide an in-depth review and critical
analysis of the theoretical underpinnings of one of the key principles of the Bobath
concepthow sensorimotor information from multiple sources is used by the
central nervous system (CNS) to optimize functional performance. We will review
the physiological evidence for the role of sensory input in movement production in
the healthy and damaged CNS and discuss this evidence in light of current motor
control theoretical frameworks including dynamical systems and equilibrium-point
(EP) approaches.
It should be pointed out that despite all controversies between current motor
control theories, there is growing understanding that sensory information plays
a fundamental role in motor control, which is consistent with this key Bobath
principle. This understanding has received growing support despite numerous
demonstrations, starting from a classical work by Graham Brown (1911), that
movement could be produced in the absence of proprioceptive feedback. These
demonstrations resulted in the dominating view that the CNS basically programs

Motor Control of Bobath 287

motor commands, i.e., electromyographic (EMG) patterns, required for movements whereas proprioceptive feedback is used to adjust these patterns depending
on external conditions and required corrections. This view, however, is not fully
justified by results of such experiments since deafferentation artificially reduces
the control function of the CNS to a direct specification of motor commands,
which is not the case when afferent information is available. A cautious approach
to interpretations of deafferentation experiments is especially needed when human
movement is considered: two well-studied patients with deafferentation (CF and
GL) confirmed by appropriate neurological tests, are wheelchair bound and are
unable to stand or walk without substantial assistance. In addition, even years after
deafferentation, movements made by these individuals remain highly deficient (see
the web site by Jacques Paillard devoted to deafferentation: http://jacquespaillard.
apinc.org/deafferented). Thus, when considering different theories of motor control, clinicians should focus on those that take into account the fundamental role
of sensory information.

When Is Movement Considered Suboptimal

or Abnormal?
The healthy nervous system can involve different body segments to perform the same
motor task. In more specialized terms, this capacity is associated with redundancy
in the number of degrees of freedom of the motor apparatus (Bernstein 1967). For
example, we usually move only the arm to reach an object placed within reach,
but we can also perform the same reaching task while leaning the trunk forward
or even while taking a step. We can move the hand directly to the object or along
a curvilinear path, in order, for example, to avoid an obstacle. People with CNS
lesions often lack the ability to perform movements in different ways (Mihaltchev
et al. 2005). Thus, movement deficits or abnormal movement can be defined as
limitations in the range of motor patterns normally available to healthy individuals.
For example, when attempting to reach an object placed within arms reach, many
stroke survivors may use abnormal movement patterns in the arm such as shoulder
elevation and abduction and reduced elbow extension instead of shoulder flexion
and elbow extension. This abnormal arm movement pattern is then accompanied
by excessive recruitment of the trunk segment, a motor compensation, to be able to
extend the reach of the arm (Levin et al. 2002; Michaelsen et al. 2004). Excessive
compensatory trunk use is also observed when attempting to orient the hand for
grasping (Roby-Brami et al. 2003; Michaelsen et al. 2004). By itself, the pairing of
arm and trunk movement may not be considered as abnormal. What is abnormal,
however, is the inability of patients to make arm reaches in the absence of trunk
movement when trunk movement is not necessary, such as when an object to be
grasped is within reach of the arm (Levin et al. 2002). This can be viewed as a
limitation in the range of possible movement combinations and the presence of a
restricted repertoire of stereotypical movement patterns (Twitchell, 1970). Thus,
the term normal or abnormal, can refer to both individual motor actions and
movements as well as to the ranges or repertoires of possible movement patterns.
From this perspective, the purpose of rehabilitation is to help patients regain,
according to their potential, their full range of motor patterns.

288 Levin and Panturin

The Bobath Concept and Motor Control Theories

The Bobath approach is based on both implicit and explicit assumptions about
normal motor control and motor learning as well as some concepts of neurodevelopment. Traditional neurodevelopmental therapists take a top-down approach and
suggest that the acquisition of movement and motor skills results from the maturation and experience of the CNS. In therapy, the focus is on eliciting and establishing
typical movement patterns through therapist-controlled sensorimotor experiences
(Bobath 1990; Bower 1993; Howle 2002), within the context of task accomplishment (e.g., stepping within the context of walking; Davies 2000; Panturin 2002).
Conceptually however, the approach has evolved with the growth of knowledge in
neuroscience and rehabilitation toward the placement of an even greater emphasis
on function. Specifically, Bobath practice incorporates task-oriented movement
that targets the learning of meaningful motor skills perceived as problematic by
either the client or caregivers (Shepherd 1995; Howle 2002; Panturin 2002). Taskoriented approaches may be viewed as being based on the dynamical systems theory
of motor development and motor control (Bernstein 1967; Gibson 1979; Thelen
and Smith 1994; Kelso 1995) because of the underlying assumption, consistent
with this theory, that performance emerges from the dynamical interaction between
the performer, the environment and the task (i.e., see Shepherd 1995; Wagenaar
and van Emmerik 1996; Butler and Darrah 2001). Like task-oriented therapy, the
Bobath concept is a problem-solving approach to assessment and treatment. Bobath
involves active learning processes in environments that enable the individual to learn
to perform self-initiated actions within naturally occurring constraints (Thelen and
Smith 1994; Panturin 2002; Vaughan-Graham et al. 2009). An important concept
in this problem-solving approach is that it permits the system to find the best set of
motor solutions for a given task. Because of the redundancy of the system, motor
control theory suggests that there may be more than one motor solution, in terms
of the interjoint movement pattern, for a given task (Latash et al. 2004). Thus, the
Bobath concept is consistent with dynamical and EP theory in that the CNS is not
concerned with the selection of an optimal movement trajectory but that desired
trajectories emerge from the interaction between properties of the neuromuscular
elements and the environment within spatial boundaries predetermined by neural
control centers (see below; Feldman and Levin 2009).
One of the main techniques used in the Bobath approach is placing, which
is the ability of the patient to move his/her limb and trunk actively in response to
the segment being moved by the therapist (Bobath 1990; Howle 2002). This ability
is thought to be an automatic or subconscious process in which the CNS receives
afferent information from the moving limbs and trunk and responds by appropriate
active motor output (Bobath 1990). Thus, the Bobath principle of placing encourages the motor system to be actively involved in problem-solving (Shepherd 1995;
Latash and Anson 1996; Newell 1996).
Another Bobath technique that uses similar principles of sensorimotor integration is sensory guided muscle activation in which the therapist assists the patient
to stabilize a proximal body segment or joint in the correct orientation before and/
or during active movement of a distal effector. Assisted joint orientation is thought
to provide the CNS with desirable sensory information about joint position and
movement and uses biomechanical principles of optimal joint alignment to facilitate

Motor Control of Bobath 289

muscle contraction. For example, for the reeducation of a reaching movement in

which the normal scapulo-humeral rhythm is disrupted, a Bobath therapist may
encourage the contraction of the key muscles by placing his/her hands on or around
the scapula. Hand placement encourages proper scapular alignment by providing
cutaneous input over appropriate scapular stabilizers while the patient performs
functional movements with the upper limb (Figure 1). Subsequent arm movements

Figure 1 Example of the Bobath principle of sensory guided muscle activation in

which the therapist assists the patient to place the scapula in the correct alignment while
the patient performs reaching movements.

290 Levin and Panturin

performed by the patient provide more optimal proprioceptive feedback from the
target muscles. In this technique, the Bobath therapist attempts to encourage active
contractions and enlarge the shortened spatial range in which they can be produced.
One explanation for why this technique may result in better active movement
comes from recent studies on spasticity and voluntary muscle activation based on
the notion of threshold control in the EP theory of motor control.
According to EP theory, the notion of threshold position control (Matthews
1959; Feldman & Orlovsky 1972; Nichols & Steeves 1986; Capaday 1995)
suggests that movement is produced by shifting, in a feed-forward manner, the
articular position at which muscle recruitment begins (Feldman 2009). Specifically,
proprioceptive feedback produces position-dependent motoneuronal facilitation
mediated by muscle spindle afferents. For a single muscle or muscle group, this
results in an increase of the membrane potential until the electrical threshold (V+)
for motoneuronal recruitment is reached (Figure 2A). The electrical threshold is
achieved at a certain muscle length or joint angle called the referent or threshold
angle, R+, that due to sensory information (afferent feedback), is linked to spatial
aspects of the bodyi.e., muscle length, limb position and a specific whole body
configuration. It has also been shown that mono- and polysynaptic influences of
different descending systems on - and/or -motoneurons produced independently
of afferent feedback shift the spatial threshold (for review see Feldman 2009). Shifts
in spatial thresholds underlie intentional movements in humans (Asatryan and Feldman 1965) and are mediated by descending excitation and inhibition evoked by
direct or indirect brain and brainstem electrical stimulation (Feldman and Orlovsky
1972; Nichols and Steeves 1986). Recent data obtained in humans demonstrated
the involvement of corticospinal pathways in shifting spatial thresholds (Raptis et
al. 2010). These authors showed that corticospinal pathways are also involved in
muscle relaxation (see also Sowman et al. 2008). By changing spatial thresholds,
descending systems predetermine the special frame of reference within which the
neuromuscular periphery is constrained to work without indicating how it should
workthe activity of neuromuscular elements emerge and is graded depending on
the difference between the actual position of the body segments and their threshold positions predetermined by the brain. CNS damage leads to altered activity
in descending systems resulting in increased resting membrane potentials (Figure
2B, vertical arrow). This results in a decrease in the upper spatial threshold for
muscle activation (Figure 2B, R+). In other words, the subject cannot relax muscles
in the joint range that exceeds this upper limit (from R+ to the upper limit of the
biomechanical range (+). Accordingly, active or passive movement of the joint in
this range, causes early nondesirable velocity-dependent reflex-mediated muscle
activation, otherwise known as spasticity (Levin and Feldman 1994).
Estimations of the specification and range of regulation of tonic stretch reflex
thresholds in patients with upper limb spasticity have revealed articular ranges of
the elbow and shoulder during slow point-to-point movement in which muscles can
contract normally (i.e., with reciprocal muscle activation patterns), and other ranges
in which reciprocal muscle contraction is not possible and only muscle coactivation can occur, which is considered an abnormal pattern of muscle activation for
this type of movement (Levin et al. 2000; Musampa et al. 2007). Figure 3 shows
examples of experimentally determined joint ranges in which active control of elbow
flexor and extensor muscles is or is not possible in two patients with hemiparesis.

Motor Control of Bobath 291

Figure 2 Schematic diagram of threshold position control according to the equilibriumpoint theory. A. When the muscle is stretched, the membrane potential (V) of its motoneurons increases (lower diagonal line). If descending facilitation of motoneurons is initially
minimal, motoneurons reach their electrical threshold (V+) and are activated at a joint angle
(R+) beyond the upper biomechanical limit (+) of the joint. Thus the muscle will be relaxed
in the whole biomechanical range of the joint. When motoneurons are maximally facilitated,
then the same muscle stretch (upper diagonal line) results in motoneuronal recruitment at
joint angle R_ below the minimal biomechanical angle (_). The muscle will be activated
at any joint angle within the biomechanical range. Healthy subjects can regulate the spatial threshold, R, throughout the whole range (R_, R+; referent range) which exceeds the
biomechanical range of the joint (_, +). B. After CNS injury resulting in net excitation at
the level of motoneurons, the upper spatial limit R+ of the referent range is decreased. At
joint angles exceeding this spatial limit, the muscle cannot relax and exhibits spasticity.

In the patient shown in Figure 3A, when the elbow was initially placed at a joint
range in which the CNS could regulate thresholds, the patient was able to generate
elbow extension and flexion torque and move the elbow for a few degrees in either
direction using a typical reciprocal pattern of muscle activation (control range).

292

Figure 3 Patterns of muscle activation recorded from two patients with hemiparesis during voluntary elbow flexion (A) and extension (B).
Bottom panels show the biomechanical range of the elbow extending from 30 to 180 and the locations of the upper spatial limits (R+) (stretch
reflex thresholds) for elbow flexors (Rf ) and elbow extensors (Re) in each patient. In A, elbow flexion made from the initial position of 90 located
within the control zone was accomplished by reciprocal muscle activation (activation of the flexor agonists without coactivation of the extensors).
In B, elbow extension made from the initial position of 40, outside of the control range and in the spasticity range, was accomplished by excessive
coactivation of the antagonist flexor muscles. Adapted with permission from Levin et al. Brian Res. 2000;853:352369.

Motor Control of Bobath 293

In the patient shown in Figure 3B, however, when the elbow was initially placed
beyond the angle at which the tonic stretch reflex became active for the antagonist
muscles, only agonist/antagonist coactivation could occur and the patient was not
able to finely control elbow movement. This concept, based on the idea of threshold position control, explains why patients may be able to control movements in
some joint ranges and not in others, as well as the occurrence of muscle weakness
(Mihaltchev et al. 2005; Musampa et al. 2007; Calota et al. 2008).
The concept of control ranges is likely exploited in the Bobath concept.
Returning to the example of scapular stabilization shown in Figure 1, based on
knowledge of that patients muscular threshold ranges, the therapist can place the
limb in a configuration in which the patient can produce sensory-guided muscle
activation in a given biomechanical range. Active control can be improved by
increasing the size of the threshold control range via plastic mechanisms, leading
to better recovery of typical movement patterns. In individuals with neurological
deficits, the recovery of typical movement patterns can also be understood based
on modern concepts of how sensory experiences drive CNS plasticity (Xerri et al.
1998). Moreover, the principles used in the Bobath concept to achieve recovery are
similar to those identified by stroke researchers that take advantage of the systems
plasticity (Kleim and Jones 2008). These include the encouragement of variable
and repetitive practice of the involved limbs, practice of challenging and/or novel
activities that provide appropriate sensory feedback, engagement of the learner
and problem-solving.

Sensorimotor Integration in Movement Control

One of the key concepts of the Bobath approach is the contribution of sensory
inputs for motor learning and for shaping motor output (Gjelsvik 2008). There is
ample evidence from the motor control literature for the essential roles of sensory
information in guiding motor output (e.g., Gandevia and Burke 1992; Schmidt and
Lee 2005). For example, it is well established that movements made by patients
with partial or complete sensory loss lack precision and coordination (Bard et
al. 1992; Levin et al. 1995; Stenneken et al. 2006). Movements in deafferented
patients with complete large fiber sensory loss who have no cutaneous sensation or
proprioception are imprecise and characterized by dysmetria (Forget and Lamarre
1995; Lajoie et al. 1996), even in the presence of visual information (Bard et al.
1999). The loss of sensory information has also been cited as a reason for the lack of
awareness of self-movement in deafferented patients (Fourneret et al. 2002). These
movement and recognition deficits can be explained in the context of the essential
role of sensory information in the specification and regulation of motoneuronal
activation thresholds according to the EP theory described above (Feldman 1986;
2009). When proprioceptive information is absent or altered following injury or
disease, the nervous system is unable to specify the origin point, or referent position of the spatial frame of reference for recruitment of motoneurons, leading to
abnormal movement.
Another example from the motor control literature of the importance of sensory
input in motor organization is the powerful effect of light touch applied to or by the
finger in reducing postural sway in older adults, adults (Kiemel et al. 2002; Baccini
et al. 2007), children (Metcalfe et al. 2005) and patients with gait disorders (Perez

294 Levin and Panturin

et al. 2009). The dramatic improvement in postural stability with light touch may
be explained as an enhancement of sensory estimates of self-motion (Kiemel et
al. 2002) or from a motor control perspective, as a reference point for the internal
body schema proposed by Paillard (2005) and reformulated as the referent body
configuration by Feldman and Levin (1995; 2009). Moreover, since the haptic
information originates from a point that is stationary in the environment, it places
the body reference frame within a relevant frame associated with that environment.
The environmental frame of reference is thought to be formed when the ability to
walk emerges in infancy (Feldman and Levin 2009). This suggestion is consistent
with the finding that light touch stabilizing sway occurs around the first months
following the transition to independent locomotion in infants (Barela et al. 1999).
Yet another example of the importance of sensory information in movement
control is the activation of dynamic touch receptors of the thumb and finger pads
in ensuring the maintenance of fingertip forces for stable and secure precision
grasping (Monzee et al. 2003; Hermsdorfer et al. 2008). This control can also be
related to the specification of the reference frame for interdigit aperture and the
notion that grip force emerges from the difference between the actual aperture
defined by the size of the object and the referent aperture specified by the brain
(Figure 4; Pilon et al. 2007).
Aside from sensory loss, altered sensory input also results in movement disruption, such as postural instability when vibration is applied to the soles of the
feet (Kavounoudias et al. 2001), or the change in gait speed following neck muscle
vibration (Ivanenko et al. 2000). Similarly, altered articular afferent information
may decrease -motoneuronal excitability, causing proprioceptive deficiencies. Joint
damage may decrease -motoneuronal excitability reducing voluntary activation
(Hurley 1999). On the other hand, some studies have reported the beneficial effects
of added noise for sensory detection based on the concept of stochastic resonance.

Figure 4 Example of grip force production based on a shift in the referent position (R). A. The actual
finger aperture (Q) is limited by the shape of the object grasped. The referent aperture (R) specified by the
nervous system is smaller than Q. The greater the difference between Q and R, the higher is the grip force.
B. The fixed Q aperture is shown by the vertical line (isometric condition). The referent aperture, R, is
smaller than the actual, Q, aperture. The point of intersection between the two configurations is the actual
grip force at the point of contact of the fingers with the object. By decreasing the R, subjects can increase
the force. Adapted with permission from Feldman et al., Progress in Brain Research, 165:267281, 2007.

Motor Control of Bobath 295

For example, Priplata et al. (2005) found that postural sway was reduced in patients
with stroke when subsensory noise was applied by vibrating insoles to the soles
of the feet during quiet standing. These are but a few examples of how sensory
information is essential for the organization of movement not only at the segmental
level but at multiple levels of the CNS. One of the explanations for multisegmental
movement organization is the role of segmental sensory inputs in the modulation
of reflex excitability in heteronymous muscles in both healthy subjects (Meunier
et al. 1994; Nichols 1999; Marchand-Pauvert et al. 2005; Nichols and Ross 2009)
and in stroke survivors (Sangani et al. 2007).
For motor relearning, therapists in general and Bobath therapists in particular
often use sensory inputs in the form of tactile information from the hands to shape
movement while removing manual guidance when patients become capable of selfgenerated movement. As in the example shown in Figure 1, by proper placing of
the therapists hands, it is thought that a therapist can nonverbally guide a patient
to move the limb in the desired direction. Physiologically, it is well-documented
that cutaneous and other sensory signals can modify motor output. For example,
H-reflexes in the lower limb can be modulated by cutaneous afferent input evoked
by electrical stimulation (Levin and Chapman 1987; Chandran et al. 1988). The
cutaneous information provided by the touch of the therapists hands may also
modify muscle activation in the same way as the tuning of spatial motoneuronal
thresholds produced by exteroceptive mechanical (vibration; Feldman and Latash
1982) or electrical stimulation (Feldman and Orlovsky 1972). Thus, foundations
for the principles of sensory guidance of movement production, presumably via
threshold regulation, can be found in the physiological literature.

Integration of Posture and Movement

The view that posture and movement are controlled by separate control mechanisms
has dominated the study of motor control either out of convenience or tradition.
However, rehabilitation approaches such as the Bobath approach evaluate and
treat movement and posture problems together. The EP and dynamical approaches
to motor control suggest that movement is not a separate state from posture of a
segment or of the whole body (Bernstein 1967; Feldman 2009). According to the
EP theory, postures are associated with an equilibrium state or referent posture of
the body interacting with the environment (Figure 4). In motionless states, muscle
and external forces are balanced, maintained by tonic motor activity, while the
same system gives rise to movement by shifts in the reference frame (Feldman et
al. 2007; Feldman 2009).
The EP theory is the only approach to motor control that solves the posturemovement problem described by von Holst and Mittelstaedt (1950). Briefly put,
von Holst and Mittelstaedt (1950) observed that postures were maintained by
mechanical and reflex responses to deviations from that posture. In other words,
when holding an object with an outstretched arm for someone else to take, if ones
arm is suddenly pushed away from the initial position, the arm returns to the initial
position through a combination of mechanical and reflex responses. This combination is called posture-stabilizing mechanisms (Ostry and Feldman 2003). On the
other hand, these mechanisms do not resist limb displacement when movements to
a new position are made voluntarily. The question of how the system manages to do

296 Levin and Panturin

this is the essence of the posture-movement problem. Von Holst and Mittelstaedt
(1950) emphasized that the idea of suppression of reflex mechanisms conflicts with
experimental data showing that reflexes can be active in any stationary and transitory limb position. A solution is offered in the EP theory as follows: by shifting the
threshold position, the system resets (re-addresses) posture-stabilizing mechanisms to a new posture so that the initial posture appears to be a deviation from the
new posture. Thus, instead of posture-stabilizing mechanisms resisting deviations
from the initial posture, these same mechanisms are used to drive the limb to a new
posture. In a detailed review, Feldman (2009) concluded that alternative models of
motor control (e.g., internal model, force control model, efference-copy), do not
provide a solution for this fundamental problem in motor control. The solution
to the posture-movement problem offered by the EP theory is consistent with the
Bobath concept that posture and movement are inextricably linked.
The integration of posture and movement is illustrated by studies of postural
adjustments when subjects made voluntary arm or leg movements (Aruin and Latash
1995; Hodges and Richardson 1997; Hodges et al. 1999). For example, self-triggered
arm movements were associated with anticipatory postural adjustments in muscles
of the trunk and lower limbs indicating that postural adjustments always precede
active movement (Aruin and Latash 1995; Hodges et al. 1999). The choice of the
component movements of a task is related to the final goal of the action and the
movement capabilities of the person. For example, when driving a car and planning to make a right turn at the next intersection, the driver grasps the wheel so
that the hands will be in a comfortable position at the end of the turn. Similarly,
in patients with stroke, reaching movements normally requiring only extension
of the arm joints in healthy individuals, can incorporate additional movements of
the trunk so that the hand can be positioned in a better orientation for grasping
(Michaelsen et al. 2004). The concept of the interrelationship between movement
and posture is well-exploited in the Bobath approach. For example, the action of
getting out of bed from side lying is a dynamic activity that includes stabilization
of postures in lying, sitting and standing while movements are made in sequence
by the trunk and all four limbs.

Effectiveness of Bobath Interventions

for Motor Recovery in Stroke
In view of its motor control underpinnings, determination of the effectiveness of
Bobath interventions should necessarily include measures that target movement
quality. However, recent reviews have not been able to draw definitive conclusions
about Bobath treatment effectiveness (Paci 2003; Luke et al. 2004; Kollen et al.
2009). This may be due to two factors. First, the intervention described as Bobath
is not always consistent with traditional Bobath practice (Raine 2006). Functional
improvements reported are not always based on restoration of typical movement
patterns but often include the use of adaptive or compensatory movements (Kollen
et al. 2009). Second, most studies have not measured treatment outcomes at the
appropriate motor level. Since a major emphasis of the Bobath concept is on the
restoration of the quality of movement, treatment effectiveness should be measured
within the same context. Outcome measures should thus target the quality of task

Motor Control of Bobath 297

performance at the level of the basic muscle and/or motor patterns employed for that
particular task rather than only at the level of task completion (Levin et al. 2009).
To better assess treatment effectiveness therefore, measures should target changes
in impairment within the theoretical context of modern approaches to motor control.

Conclusions
Understanding the theoretical underpinning of motor control and sensorimotor
recovery may lead to better understanding of the Bobath concept. Derived from
intuitive assumptions about motor behavior, this foundation of physical neurorehabilitation has not been heretofore subjected to an in-depth analysis of the motor
control concepts on which it is based. Some of the key concepts of the Bobath
approach are consistent with the physiological principles of sensorimotor integration and control processes such as those described in the dynamical systems
approach and the equilibrium-point theory. Bobath therapy likely implicitly exploits
these principles of motor control to facilitate motor recovery. Recognition of these
principles by Bobath therapists may promote the development of more accurate
assessment procedures to determine treatment effectiveness.
Acknowledgments
MFL holds a Canada Research Chair in Motor Recovery and Rehabilitation. The authors
would like to thank Anatol Feldman for his comments.

References

Aruin, A.S., & Latash, M.L. (1995). The role of motor action in anticipatory postural adjustments studied with self-induced and externally triggered perturbations. Experimental
Brain Research, 106, 291300.
Asatryan, D.G., & Feldman, A.G. (1965). Functional tuning of the nervous system with
control of movements or maintenance of a steady posture: I. Mechanographic analysis
of the work of the joint on execution of a postural task. Biophysics USSR, 10, 925935.
Baccini, M., Rinaldi, L.A., Federighi, G., Vannucchi, L., Paci, M., & Masotti, G. (2007).
Effectiveness of fingertip light contact in reducing postural sway in older people. Age
and Ageing, 36(1), 3035.
Bard, C., Paillard, J., Lajoie, Y., Fleury, M., Teasdale, N., Forget, R., et al. (1992). The role
of afferent information on the timing of motor commands: A comparative study with
a deafferented patient. Neuropsychologia, 30, 201206.
Bard, C., Turrell, Y., Fleury, M., Teasdale, N., Lamarre, Y., & Martin, O. (1999). Deafferentation and pointing with visual double-step perturbations. Experimental Brain
Research, 125(4), 410416.
Barela, J., Jeka, J.J., & Clark, J.E. (1999). The use of somatosensory information during
the acquisition of independent upright stance. Infant Behavior and Development, 22,
87102.
Bernstein, N.A. (1967). The coordination and regulation of movements. London: Pergamon
Press.
Bobath, B. (1990). Adult Hemiplegia: Evaluation and treatment. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann.
Bower, E. (1993). Physiotherapy for cerebral palsy: a historical review. In: Ward CD, eds.
Rehabilitation of motor disorders. Ballires Clinical Neurology, 12, 29-54.

298 Levin and Panturin

Butler, C., & Darrah, J. (2001). Effects of neurodevelopmental treatment (NDT) for cerebral
palsy: an AACPDM evidence report. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology,
43(11), 778790.
Calota, A., Feldman, A.G., & Levin, M.F. (2008). Spasticity measurement based on tonic
stretch reflex threshold in stroke using a portable device. Clinical Neurophysiology,
119, 23292337.
Capaday, C. (1995). The effects of baclofen on the stretch reflex parameters of the cat.
Experimental Brain Research, 104, 287296.
Chandran, A.P., Maini, B.K., & Marya, R.K. (1988). Long-latency inhibition of H-reflex
recovery by cutaneous tactile stimulation in man: A cutaneous transcortical reflex.
Neuroscience, 27(3), 10381048.
Davies, P.M. (2000). Steps to Follow (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Feldman, A.G. (1986). Once more on the equilibrium-point hypothesis ( model) for motor
control. Journal of Motor Behavior, 18(1), 1754.
Feldman, A.G. (2009). New insights into action-perception coupling. Experimental Brain
Research, 194(1), 3958.
Feldman, A.G., Goussev, V., Sangole, A., & Levin, M.F. (2007). Threshold position control and the principle of minimal interaction in motor actions. In: Cisek, P., Drew, T.,
Kalaska, J.F., eds. Progress in Brain Research, 165, 267-281.
Feldman, A.G., & Latash, M.L. (1982). Inversions of vibration-induced senso-motor events
caused by supraspinal influences in man. Neuroscience Letters, 31(2), 147151.
Feldman, A.G., & Levin, M.F. (1995). The origin and use of positional frames of reference
in motor control. Target article. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 723806.
Feldman, A.G., & Levin, M.F. (2009). The equilibrium-point hypothesis past, present and
future. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 629, 699726.
Feldman, A.G., & Orlovsky, G.N. (1972). The influence of different descending systems on
the tonic stretch reflex in the cat. Experimental Neurology, 37, 481494.
Forget, R., & Lamarre, Y. (1995). Postural adjustments associated with different unloadings
of the forearm: effects of proprioceptive and cutaneous afferent deprivation. Canadian
Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 73(2), 285294.
Fourneret, P., Paillard, J., Lamarre, Y., Cole, J., & Jeannerod, M. (2002). Lack of conscious
recognition of ones own actions in a haptically deafferented patient. Neuroreport,
13(4), 541547.
Gandevia, S.C., & Burke, D. (1992). Does the nervous system depend on kinesthetic information to control natural limb movement? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 614632.
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: HoughtonMifflin.
Gjelsvik, B.E. (2008). The Bobath concept in adult neurology. Stuttgart: Thieme.
Graham Brown, T. (1911). The intrinsic factors in the act of progression in the mammal.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Containing Papers of a Biological Character, 84(572), 308319.
Hermsdorfer, J., Elias, Z., Cole, J.D., Quaney, B.M., & Nowak, D.A. (2008). Preserved
and impaired aspects of feed-forward grip force control after chronic somatosensory
deafferentation. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 22(4), 374384.
Hodges, P., Cresswell, A., & Thorstensson, A. (1999). Preparatory trunk motion accompanies
rapid upper limb movement. Experimental Brain Research, 124(1), 6979.
Hodges, P.W., & Richardson, C.A. (1997). Contraction of the abdominal muscles associated
with movement of the lower limb. Physical Therapy, 77(2), 132142.
Howle, J.M. (2002). Neurodevelopmental Treatment Approach: Theoretical foundation
and principles of clinical practice. USA: Neurodevelopmental Treatment Association.
Hurley, M.V. (1999). The role of muscle weakness in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis.
Rheumatological Diseases Clinics of North America, 25(2), 283298.

Motor Control of Bobath 299

Kavounoudias, A., Roll, R., & Roll, J.P. (2001). Foot sole and ankle muscle inputs contribute
jointly to human erect posture regulation. The Journal of Physiology, 532(Pt 3), 869878.
Kelso, J.A.S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kiemel, T., Oie, K.S., & Jeka, J.J. (2002). Multisensory fusion and the stochastic structure
of postural sway. Biological Cybernetics, 87, 262277.
Kleim, J.A., & Jones, T.A. (2008). Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity:
implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research: JSLHR, 51(1), S225S239.
Kollen, B.J., Lennon, S., Lyons, B., Wheatley-Smith, L., et al. (2009). The effectiveness of
the Bobath concept in stroke rehabilitation: What is the evidence? Stroke, 40, e89e87.
Ivanenko, Y.P., Grasso, R., & Lacquaniti, F. (2000). Neck muscle vibration makes walking humans accelerate in the direction of gaze. The Journal of Physiology, 525(Pt 3),
803814.
Lajoie, Y., Teasdale, N., Cole, J.D., Burnett, M., Bard, C., Fleury, M., et al. (1996). Gait of
a deafferented subject without large myelinated sensory fibers below the neck. Neurology, 47(1), 109115.
Latash, M.L., & Anson, J.G. (1996). What are normal movements in atypical populations?
The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 55106.
Latash, M.L., Danion, F., Scholz, J.F., & Schoner, G. (2004). Coordination of multielement motor systems based on motor abundance. In: M.L. Latash & M.F. Levin, (eds.)
Progress in Motor Control. Vol. 3, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2004: 97-124.
Levin, M.F., & Chapman, C.E. (1987). Inhibitory and facilitatory effects from the peroneal
nerve onto the soleus H-reflex in normal and spinal man. Electroencepholography and
clinical. Neurophysiology, 67, 468478.
Levin, M.F., & Feldman, A.G. (1994). The role of stretch reflex threshold regulation in
normal and impaired motor control. Brain Research, 657, 2330.
Levin, M.F., Kleim, J.A., & Wolf, S.L. (2009). POINT OF VIEW: Enhancing interdisciplinary perspectives: What do motor recovery and compensation mean in patients
following stroke? Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 23(4), 313319.
Levin, M.F., Lamarre, Y., & Feldman, A.G. (1995). Control variables and proprioceptive
feedback in fase single-joint movement. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 73, 316330.
Levin, M.F., Michaelsen, S.M., Cirstea, C.M., & Roby-Brami, A. (2002). Use of the trunk for
reaching targets placed within and beyond the reach in adult hemiparesis. Experimental
Brain Research, 143(2), 171180.
Levin, M.F., Selles, R.W., Verheul, M.H.G., & Meijer, O.G. (2000). Deficits in the coordination of agonist and antagonist muscles in stroke patients: Implications for normal
motor control. Brain Research, 853, 352369.
Luke, C., Dodd, K.J., & Brock, K. (2004). Outcomes of the Bobath concept on upper limb
recovery following stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18, 888898.
Marchand-Pauvert, V., Nicolas, G., Marque, P., Iglesias, C., & Pierrot-Deseilligny, E. (2005).
Increase in group II excitation from ankle muscles to thigh motoneurones during human
standing. The Journal of Physiology, 566(Pt 1), 257271.
Matthews, P.B.C. (1959). The dependence of tension upon extension in the stretch reflex
of the soleus muscle of the decerebrated cat. The Journal of Physiology, 147, 5246.
Metcalfe, J.S., McDowell, K., Chang, T.Y., Chen, L.C., Jeka, J.J., & Clark, J.E. (2005). Development of somatosensory-motor integration: an event-related analysis of infant posture
in the first year of independent walking. Developmental Psychobiology, 46(1), 1935.
Meunier, S., Pierrot-Deseilligny, E., & Simonetta-Moreau, M. (1994). Pattern of heteronymous recurrent inhibition in the human lower limb. Experimental Brain Research,
102(1), 149159.

300 Levin and Panturin

Michaelsen, S.M., Jacobs, S., Roby-Brami, A., & Levin, M.F. (2004). Compensation for
distal impairments of grasping in adults with hemiparesis. Experimental Brain Research,
157, 162173.
Mihaltchev, P., Archambault, P.S., Feldman, A.G., & Levin, M.F. (2005). Control of doublejoint arm posture in patients with unilateral brain damage. Experimental Brain Research,
163, 468486.
Monzee, J., Lamarre, Y., & Smith, A.M. (2003). The effects of digital anesthesia on force
control using a precision grip. Journal of Neurophysiology, 89(2), 672683.
Musampa, N.K., Mathieu, P., & Levin, M.F. (2007). Relation between stretch reflex thresholds and abnormal muscle activation during voluntary movement in the arm of patients
with stroke. Experimental Brain Research, 181(4), 579593.
Newell, K.M. (1996). Change in movement and skill: Learning, retention, and transfer.
In M.L. Latash & M. Turvey (Eds.), Dexterity and its development (pp. 393432).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nichols, T.R. (1999). Receptor mechanisms underlying heterogenic reflexes among the
triceps surae muscles of the cat. Journal of Neurophysiology, 81(2), 467478.
Nichols, T.R., & Ross, K.T. (2009). The implications of force feedback for the model.
In D. Sternad (Ed.), Progress in Motor Control. A multidisciplinary perspective (pp.
663680). New York: Springer.
Nichols, T.R., & Steeves, J.D. (1986). Resetting of resultant stiffness in ankle flexor and
extensor muscles in the decerebrate cat. Experimental Brain Research, 62(2), 401410.
Ostry, D.J., & Feldman, A.G. (2003). A critical evaluation of the force control hypothesis
in motor control. Experimental Brain Research, 153, 275288.
Paci, M. (2003). Physiotherapy based on the Bobath concept for adults with post-stroke
hemiplegia: A review of effectiveness studies. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine,
35, 27.
Paillard, J. (2005). Vectorial versus configural encoding of body space. A neural basis for a
distinction between body schema and body image. In V. Knockaert & H. De Preester
(Eds.), Body image and body schema: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 80109).
Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Panturin, E. (2002). Early rehabilitation of a stroke patient. In C. Partridge (Ed.), Neurological physiotherapy. London: Whurr.
Perez, C., Oates, A., McFadyen, B., & Fung, J. (2009). Enhanced somatosensory input
and gait stability. International Society for Posture and Gait Research, Bologna, Italy,
June, p.312 [Abstract]
Pilon, J.F., De Serres, S.J., & Feldman, A.G. (2007). Threshold position control of arm movement with anticipatory increase in grip force. Experimental Brain Research, 181, 4967.
Priplata, A.A., Patritti, B.L., Niemi, J.B., Hughes, R., Gravelle, D.C., Lipsitz, M.D., et al.
(2005). Noise-enhanced balance control in patients with diabetes and patients with
stroke. Annals of Neurology, 59, 412.
Raine, S. (2006). Defining the Bobath concept using the Delphi technique. Physiotherapy
Research International, 11, 413.
Raptis, H.A., Burtet, L., Forget, R., & Feldman, A.G. (2010) Control of wrist position and
muscle relaxation by shifting spatial frames of reference for motoneuronal recruitment:
possible involvement of corticospinal pathways. Journal of Physiology, el. publication
ahead of print].
Roby-Brami, A., Feydy, A., Combeaud, M., Biryukova, E.V., Bussel, B., & Levin, M.F.
(2003). Motor compensation and recovery for reaching in stroke patients. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 107, 369381.
Sangani, S.G., Starsky, A.J., McGuire, J.R., & Schmit, B.D. (2007). Multijoint reflexes of the
stroke arm: neural coupling of the elbow and shoulder. Muscle & Nerve, 36(5), 694703.
Schmidt, R.A., & Lee, T.D. (2005). Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis (4th
ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Motor Control of Bobath 301

Shepherd, R.B. (1995). Physiotherapy in paediatrics. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Sowman, P.F., Flavel, S.C., McShane, C.L., Miles, T.S., & Nordstrom, M.A. (2008). Transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces masseter motoneuron pool excitability throughout
the cortical silent period. Clinical Neurophysiology, 119(5), 11191129.
Stenneken, P., Prinz, W., Cole, J., Paillard, J., & Aschersleben, G. (2006). The effect of
sensory feedback on the timing of movements: evidence from deafferented patients.
Brain Research, 1084(1), 123131.
Thelen, E., & Smith, L.B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognitive and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Twitchell, T. (1970). Reflex mechanisms and the development of prehension. In K. Connolly
(Ed.), Mechanisms of motor skill development. New York: Academic.
Vaughan-Graham, J., Eustace, C., Brock, K., Swain, E., & Irwin-Carruthers, S. (2009). The
Bobath concept in contemporary clinical practice. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation,
16(1), 5769.
Von Holst, E., & Mittelstaedt, H. (1950). Daz reafferezprincip. Wechselwirkungen zwischen
Zentralnerven-system und Peripherie, Naturwiss. 37:467-476. English translation
(1973: The reafference principle. In: The behavioral physiology of animals and man.
The collected papers of Erich von Holst. Martin R (translater) University of Miami
Press, Coral Gables, Florida. pp. 139-173.
Wagenaar, R.C., & van Emmerik, R.E.A. (1996). Dynamics of movement disorders. Human
Movement Science, 15 Special issue.
Xerri, C., Merzenich, M.M., Peterson, B.E., & Jenkins, W. (1998). Plasticity of primary
somatosensory cortex paralleling sensorimotor skill recovery from stroke in adult
monkeys. Journal of Neurophysiology, 79(4), 21192148.