Use of Visual Feedback in Retraining Balance Following Acute Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Visual feedback related to weight distribution and center-of-pressure positioning has been shown to be effective in increasing stance symmetry following stroke, although it is not clear whether functional balance ability also improves. This study compared the relative effectiveness of visual feedback training of center-of-gravity (CoG) positioning with conventional physical therapy following acute stroke. SUBJECTS: Forty-six people who had strokes within 80 days before the study, resulting in unilateral hemiparesis, and who were in need of balance retraining participated. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Initially, subjects were randomly assigned to visual feedback or conventional physical therapy groups for balance retraining until 16 subjects per group were recruited. The next 14 subjects were assigned to a control group. All subjects received physical therapy and occupational therapy (regular therapy) 2 hours a day, and subjects in the 2 experimental groups received additional balance training 30 minutes a day until discharge. The visual feedback group received information about their CoG position as they shifted their weight during various activities. The conventional therapy group received verbal and tactile cues to encourage symmetrical stance and weight shifting. Static (postural sway) and activity-based measures of balance (Berg Balance Scale, gait speed, and the Timed "Up & Go" Test) were contrasted across the 3 groups at baseline, at discharge, and at 1 month following discharge using an analysis of variance for repeated measures. RESULTS: All groups demonstrated marked improvement over time for all measures of balance ability, with the greatest improvements occurring in the period from baseline to discharge. No between-group differences were detected in any of the outcome measures. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: Visual feedback or conventional balance training in addition to regular therapy affords no added benefit when offered in the early stages of rehabilitation following stroke.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".