Improved Function After Combined Physical and Mental Practice After Stroke: A Case of Hemiparesis and Apraxia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes change in functional performance and self-perception after participation in combined training with physical practice followed by mental practice. The patient was a 44-yr-old white man who experienced a single left ischemic stroke 7 mo before enrollment in the study. He engaged in physical and mental practice of two functional tasks: (1) reaching for and grasping a cup and (2) turning pages in a book with the more-affected arm. Practice took place 3 times per week during 60-min sessions for 6 consecutive wk. Primary outcome measures were the Arm Motor Ability Test (AMAT) and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). An abbreviated version of the Florida Apraxia Battery gesture-to-verbal command test approximated severity of ideomotor apraxia. After intervention, the patient demonstrated increased functional performance (AMAT) and self-perception of performance (COPM) despite persistent ideomotor apraxia. The results of this single-case report indicate functional benefit from traditional rehabilitation techniques despite comorbid, persisting ideomotor apraxia.
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".