Test 10 meter walk (m/s)a 6 minute walk (m) Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Timed up and go (s)b Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Step length (m) Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Five times sit-to-stand (s)c 0.60 0.29 0.83 170 93 271 21.4 21.4 9.14 12.1 12.4 11.4 0.49 0.29 0.54 Byl Journal of Medical Case Reports 2012, 6:216 http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/content/6/1/216 Page 4 of 5 Table 2 Baseline and post-intervention values for functional outcome assessments* Baseline Post-training Differencea (%)* One month Differencea (%)* 0.81 0.43 1.03 207 140 300 14.5 23.3 8.94 10.5 13.0 12.2 0.56 0.40 0.59 35 48 24 22 50 11 5 7 14 38 9 (32) 9 (2) (13.7) 0.95 0.45 1.14 250 123 285 (12.4) 24.0 10.1 (11.1) 13.2 10.1 0.59 0.39 0.60 58 55 37 47 32 5 (42) 11 11 (8) 6 (11) 20 35 11 *Percentage change scores from baseline. Improvement is indicated by positive change scores for gait speed, endurance and step length and by negative change scores (indicated by parentheses) for five times sit-to-stand and timed up and go. Normative Values Table 2 : a. Average walking speed for people 60 to 69 years of age averages 1.34 m/s for males and 1.24 m/s for females. Average self-selected walking speed for patients post stroke is 0.74 m/s; Ambulation can be further classified as :household ambulators, <0.4 m/s; limited ambulators, 0.4 to 0.8 m/s; unlimited community ambulators, >0.8m/s [13]. b. Timed up and go > 13.4s indicates patients are at risk of falls [14]. c. Five times sit-to-stand predicts falls when the time is >11.7s for patients 60 to 69 years; >12.6 s for patients 69 to 79 years; and >14.8 s for patients 80 to 89 years [15]. increased with training. Each participant reported feeling more stable and able to walk faster. Gains in gait speed and endurance were not consistent with the intensity of training. Two of the participants progressed in their gait classification - participant 2 from a household ambulator to a limited community ambulator and participant 1from a limited community ambulator to a community ambu- lator. Participant 3 began and ended the study as a com- munity ambulator. The gains were maintained or further improved at the one-month follow-up, in the absence of additional train- ing. In a follow-up telephone contact approximately one year after the training, all three participants reported making continued improvements in community mobility and participation. Changes in balance measures post training were less conclusive. At baseline, all participants performed within the age-expected normal values on the five times sit-to-stand test (FTSTS) (scores <14s). However, two of the participants exhibited slower than age-expected time on the timed up and go (TUG) test, both at the beginning and the end of the study. Discussion When considering the clinical significance of the gait speed and endurance gains in this study, it is important to note the participants had reached a plateau from pre- vious conventional BWSTT. Unlike BWSTT, the RLO employed in this study enabled patients to move in an untethered fashion, with movements that required a therapist-determined level of patient intention and bal- ance during training. It is conceivable, although unlikely, that a learning effect could explain some of the gains. Gait practice with the RLO was multifactorial and included stair climbing, balance activities on unstable surfaces, ball kicking and other weight-shifting activities, treadmill walking and stepping up and down progres- sively high steps. The variability of practice activities facilitated by use of the RLO improves the likelihood that the post-therapy gains are attributable to differences