Quantifying lower limb joint position sense using a robotic exoskeleton: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinicians and scientists often focus on tracking the recovery of motor skills after spinal cord injury (SCI), but less attention is paid to the recovery of sensory skills. Measures of sensory function are imperative for evaluating the efficacy of treatments and therapies. Proprioception is one sensory modality that provides information about static position and movement sense. Because of its critical contribution to motor control, proprioception should be measured during the course of recovery after neurological injury. Current clinical methods to test proprioception are limited to crude, manual tests of movement and position sense. The purpose of this study was to develop a quantitative assessment tool to measure joint position sense in the legs. We used the Lokomat, a robotic exoskeleton, and custom software to assess joint position sense in the hip and knee in 9 able-bodied (AB) subjects and 1 person with incomplete SCI. We used two different test paradigms. Both required the subject to move the leg to a target angle, but the presentation of the target was either a remembered or visual target angle. We found that AB subjects had more accurate position sense in the remembered task than in the visual task, and that they tended to have greater accuracy at the hip than at the knee. Position sense of the subject with SCI was comparable to those of the AB subjects. We show that using the Lokomat to assess joint position sense may be an effective clinical measurement tool.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".