Balance training following stroke: effects of task-oriented exercises with and without altered sensory input
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a task-oriented exercise program with and without altered sensory input on postural stability in subjects with stroke. Sixteen hemiparetic subjects, at least 6 months post-stroke, were randomly assigned to the experimental or control group, and participated in an 8-week task-oriented exercise program focusing on balance and mobility exercises. Exercises were performed under normal conditions by the control group, and under conditions of vision and surface manipulation by the experimental group. Pre- and post-test assessments involved the measurement of the center of pressure (COP) displacement during double-legged stance and sit-to-stand under four sensory conditions: (1) eyes open, normal surface; (2) eyes open, soft surface; (3) eyes closed, normal surface; and (4) eyes closed, soft surface, as well as the 10-m walking test. Results showed significant improvements (P<0.05) in COP displacement under sensory conditions (1) and (2) for the experimental group only, and limited changes for the sit-to-stand in both groups after training. Significant improvements (P<0.05) were also found in both groups for the walking test. It is concluded that a task-oriented exercise program, assisted by sensory manipulation, is more effective at improving the standing balance of stroke subjects than a conventional task-oriented program.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".