Modifications in ankle dorsiflexor activation by applying a torque perturbation during walking in persons post-stroke: a case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Results obtained in a previous study (Gait Posture 34:358-363, 2011) have shown that, in non-disabled participants, a specific increase in ankle dorsiflexor (Tibialis anterior [TA]) activation can be induced by walking with a torque perturbation that plantarflexes the ankle during the swing phase. After perturbation removal, the increased TA activation persisted temporarily and was associated with a more dorsiflexed ankle during swing. The objective of the present case-series study was to verify if these results can be reproduced in persons post-stroke. METHODS: Six participants who sustained a stroke walked on a treadmill before, during and after exposure to a torque perturbation applied at the ankle by a robotized ankle-foot orthosis. Spatiotemporal gait parameters, ankle and knee kinematics, and the electromyographic activity of TA and Soleus were recorded. Mean amplitude of the TA burst located around toe off and peak ankle dorsiflexion angle during swing were compared across the 3 walking periods for each participant. RESULTS: At the end of the walking period with the perturbation, TA mean amplitude was significantly increased in 4 of the 6 participants. Among these 4 participants, modifications in TA activation persisted after perturbation removal in 3 of them, and led to a statistically significant increase in peak dorsiflexion during swing. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This approach may be helpful to evaluate the residual adaptive capacity in the ankle dorsiflexors after a stroke and guide decision-making for the selection of optimal rehabilitation interventions. Future work will investigate the clinical impact of a multiple-session gait training based on this approach in persons presenting a reduced ankle dorsiflexion during the swing phase of walking.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".