The influence of a concurrent cognitive task on lower limb reaction time among stroke survivors with right- or left-hemiplegia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of cognitive interference on foot pedal reaction time among stroke survivors with right- (RH) or left-hemiplegia (LH). DESIGN: Cross-sectional comparison without randomization. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS: 10 patients post-stroke with RH, 10 with LH; 10 age-matched controls. METHODS: Foot pedal response times were measured using three different reaction time (RT) paradigms: simple RT, dual-task RT (counting backward by serial 3 seconds), and choice RT (correct response contingent on stimuli to eliminate pre-programing). RH and LH used the non-paretic leg for all trials. Three 3 (RT task) × 3 (group) mixed-model factorial ANOVAs were used to compare RT, movement time (MT), total response time (TRT). RESULTS: Overall controls demonstrated faster RT than RH (332 ± 73 versus 474 ± 144 ms, P < 0.001) or LH (402 ± 127 ms, P < 0.05); LH group demonstrated faster RT than those with RH (P < 0.05). Control subjects demonstrated significantly faster RT than RH for all RT conditions (P < 0.05 for all). In contrast, controls achieved significantly faster RT than LH for the choice RT condition only (P < 0.05), but not for the simple (P = 0.12) or dual-task RT conditions (P = 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to controls, response time was significantly impaired among LH and RH when the response could not be pre-programmed. While current simple RT testing commonly employed by driver rehab specialists may be sufficient for detecting RT deficits in patients with RH, simple or dual-task RT tests alone may fail to detect RT deficiencies among LH, even when testing the non-paretic limb. Choice RT should be added to post-stroke driver fitness assessment, particularly for patients with LH.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".