Combined Task-Specific Training and Strengthening Effects On Locomotor Recovery Post-Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Task-specific and strength training have demonstrated efficacy as therapeutic interventions poststroke. The intent of this case study is to describe outcomes associated with a therapy program that combines task-specific and strength training in an individual post-stroke and to discuss some possible mechanisms and modulating factors that may affect post-stroke neurologic recovery and responsiveness to intervention. CASE DESCRIPTION: The participant was a 38-year-old female with right middle cerebral artery stroke, evaluated 15 months postonset. She ambulated independently with an ankle-foot orthosis and straight cane. Her free and fast overground velocity was 0.50 m/s and 0.62 m/s, respectively. Body-weight supported treadmill training and a limb-loaded cycling exercise were alternated over 24 treatments sessions (4 times/wk for 6 wks). Measurements were taken pre-, post-treatment, and at a 6-mo follow-up. Instrumented gait and motion analysis with fine-wire EMG recording of LE muscle activity occurred pre- and post-treatment. OUTCOMES: Post-treatment, walking speed increased 18% for free--(0.59 m/ s) and 14.4% for fast-velocity (0.71 m/s); 6-min walking distance increased 4% (184.4 m). At 6-mos, continued improvements in all walking outcomes were evident. Gait and motion analysis revealed that functional locomotor recovery was associated with increases in magnitude of paretic leg gluteus maximus and gluteus medius activation during gait. Motion analysis confirmed an increase of hip and knee extension motions throughout stance and swing. DISCUSSION: For the person in this case clinically meaningful changes in walking function were associated with a combined therapeutic program that included both task-specific and LE strength training. Possible mechanisms associated with response to therapy were related to improved motor unit activation associated with increased strength in key muscles used in gait.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".