Added Value of Mental Practice Combined with a Small Amount of Physical Practice on the Relearning of Rising and Sitting Post-Stroke: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: : The additional effects of combining mental practice with a small amount of physical practice on the relearning of a motor task post-stroke are unknown. This study investigated the added value of mental practice on the relearning of rising up from a chair and sitting down when combined with a small amount of physical practice. METHODS: : Twelve individuals with chronic stroke were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a group that combined mental practice with physical practice (MP), a group that combined physical practice with cognitive training (Cog) and a group without training (NOT.). Training was provided three times per week for four weeks, and participants were assessed at baseline, after training, and three weeks later. The vertical forces were recorded under each foot, and the vertical impulse was calculated for five trials and converted in percent of body weight. RESULTS: : The MP and Cog groups received the same amount of physical training. Significant gains (P < 0.04) in limb loading found only in the MP group were retained. Larger (P < 0.03) change scores in limb loading for rising up from a chair and sitting down were found in the MP group (median = rising up: 18.4%; sitting down: 12.2%) compared with Cog group (median = rising up: -6.8%; sitting down: 5.4%) and a group without training (median = rising up: 6.2%; sitting down: 5.4%). CONCLUSION: : Combining series of mental repetitions ( approximately 1100 repetitions) with minimal physical repetitions ( approximately 120 repetitions) yielded significant gains and retention of those gains. These preliminary results provide some support to the added value of combining mental repetitions with a small number of physical repetitions to promote the relearning of motor strategies post-stroke and warrant further investigation in clinical trials.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".