MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121896729 · doi:10.2522/ptj.20090029

Mental Practice for Relearning Locomotor Skills

2009· review· en· W2121896729 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotor imageryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyRetrainingRehabilitationStroke (engine)Motor learningMental imageMotor skillGaitCognitionMedicineDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscienceElectroencephalographyBrain–computer interface

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past 2 decades, much work has been carried out on the use of mental practice through motor imagery for optimizing the retraining of motor function in people with physical disabilities. Although much of the clinical work with mental practice has focused on the retraining of upper-extremity tasks, this article reviews the evidence supporting the potential of motor imagery for retraining gait and tasks involving coordinated lower-limb and body movements. First, motor imagery and mental practice are defined, and evidence from physiological and behavioral studies in healthy individuals supporting the capacity to imagine walking activities through motor imagery is examined. Then the effects of stroke, spinal cord injury, lower-limb amputation, and immobilization on motor imagery ability are discussed. Evidence of brain reorganization in healthy individuals following motor imagery training of dancing and of a foot movement sequence is reviewed, and the effects of mental practice on gait and other tasks involving coordinated lower-limb and body movements in people with stroke and in people with Parkinson disease are examined. Lastly, questions pertaining to clinical assessment of motor imagery ability and training strategies are discussed.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.414 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it