Motor and Visuospatial Attention and Motor Planning After Stroke: Considerations for the Rehabilitation of Standing Balance and Gait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention and planning can be altered by stroke, which can influence motor performance. Although the influence of these factors on recovery from stroke has been explored for the upper extremity (UE), their impact on balance and gait are unknown. This perspective article presents evidence that altered motor and visuospatial attention influence motor planning of voluntary goal-directed movements poststroke, potentially affecting balance and gait. Additionally, specific strategies for rehabilitation of balance and gait poststroke in the presence of these factors are discussed. Visuospatial attention selects relevant sensory information and supports the preparation of responses to this information. Motor attentional impairments may produce difficulty with selecting appropriate motor feedback, potentially contributing to falls. An original theoretical model is presented for a network of brain regions supporting motor and visuospatial attention, as well as motor planning of voluntary movements. Stroke may influence this functional network both locally and distally, interfering with input or output of the anatomical or functional regions involved and affecting voluntary movements. Although there is limited research directly examining leg function, evidence suggests alterations in motor and visuospatial attention influence motor planning and have a direct impact on performance of gait and balance. This model warrants testing comparing healthy adults with individuals with stroke.
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".