Kinematics of Reaching Movements in a 2-D Virtual Environment in Adults With and Without Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual reality environments are increasingly being used for upper limb rehabilitation in poststroke patients. Our goal was to determine if arm reaching movements made in a 2-D video-capture virtual reality environment are similar to those made in a comparable physical environment. We compared arm and trunk kinematics for reaches made with the right, dominant arm to three targets (14 trials per target) in both environments by 16 adults with right poststroke hemiparesis and by eight healthy age-matched controls. Movement kinematics were recorded with a three-camera optoelectronic system at 100 samples/s. Reaching movements made by both control and stroke subjects were affected by viewing the targets in the video-capture 2-D virtual environment. Movements were slower, shorter, less straight, less accurate and involved smaller ranges of shoulder and elbow joint excursions for target reaches in the virtual environment compared to the physical environment in all subjects. Thus, there was a decrease in the overall movement quality for movements made in the 2-D virtual environment. This suggests that 2-D video-capture virtual reality environments should be used with caution when the goal of the rehabilitation program is to improve the quality of movement patterns of the upper limb.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".