Electrodermal Recording and fMRI to Inform Sensorimotor Recovery in Stroke Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) appears to be useful for investigating motor recovery after stroke. Some of the potential confounders of brain activation studies, however, could be mitigated through complementary physiological monitoring. OBJECTIVE: To investigate a sensorimotor fMRI battery that included simultaneous measurement of electrodermal activity in subjects with hemiparetic stroke to provide a measure related to the sense of effort during motor performance. METHODS: Bilateral hand and ankle tasks were performed by 6 patients with stroke (2 subacute, 4 chronic) during imaging with blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) fMRI using an event-related design. BOLD percent changes, peak activation, and laterality index values were calculated in the sensorimotor cortex. Electrodermal recordings were made concurrently and used as a regressor. RESULTS: Sensorimotor BOLD time series and percent change values provided evidence of an intact motor network in each of these well-recovered patients. During tasks involving the hemiparetic limb, electrodermal activity changes were variable in amplitude, and electrodermal activity time-series data showed significant correlations with fMRI in 3 of 6 patients. No such correlations were observed for control tasks involving the unaffected lower limb. CONCLUSIONS: Electrodermal activity activation maps implicated the contralesional over the ipsilesional hemisphere, supporting the notion that stroke patients may require higher order motor processing to perform simple tasks. Electrodermal activity recordings may be useful as a physiological marker of differences in effort required during movements of a subject's hemiparetic compared with the unaffected limb during fMRI studies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".