Effect of Force-Feedback Treatments in Patients with Chronic Motor Deficits After a Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects a motor reeducation approach based on static dynamometers used to provide feedback on the force produced. DESIGN: The study design was a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Chronic stroke subjects participated in a 6-wk, thrice-weekly, force-feedback program of either the upper paretic limb (n = 13) or the lower paretic limb (n = 12). Baseline and postintervention assessments of the performance of both the upper and the lower limb were measured for each subject, the untreated paretic limb of each group serving as a control for the other group. RESULTS: With the exception of the handgrip force, strength measurements of the treated limb increased after completion of the treatment. The outcome measurements of the upper limb of the subjects included in the upper paretic limb were not significantly different after treatment from those measured in the lower paretic limb. In contrast, gait velocity and the distance walked in 2 min increased after treatment in the lower paretic limb as compared with the upper paretic limb, whereas the scores in the Fugl-Meyer test for the lower limb and the timed up-and-go test did not increase for either group after treatment. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that treatment of the lower limb based on force feedback produces an improvement of gait velocity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".