MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160523181 · doi:10.1093/brain/123.5.940

Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke

2000· article· en· W2160523181 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

VenueBrain · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrunkPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)PsychologyRehabilitationKinematicsElbowMotor controlHemiparesisPhysical therapyMedicineNeuroscienceSurgeryLesion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major prerequisite for successful rehabilitation therapy after stroke is the understanding of the mechanisms underlying motor deficits common to these patients. Studies have shown that in stroke patients multijoint pointing movements are characterized by decreased movement speed and increased movement variability, by increased movement segmentation and by spatial and temporal incoordination between adjacent arm joints with respect to healthy subjects. We studied how the damaged nervous system recovers or compensates for deficits in reaching, and correlated reaching deficits with the level of functional impairment. Nine right-hemiparetic subjects and nine healthy subjects participated. All subjects were right-hand dominant. Data from the affected arm of hemiparetic subjects were compared with those from the arm in healthy subjects. Seated subjects made 40 pointing movements with the right arm in a single session. Movements were made from an initial target, for which the arm was positioned alongside the trunk. Then the subject lifted the arm and pointed to the final target, located in front of the subject in the contralateral workspace. Kinematic data from the arm and trunk were recorded with a three-dimensional analysis system. Arm movements in stroke subjects were longer, more segmented, more variable and had larger movement errors. Elbow-shoulder coordination was disrupted and the range of active joint motion was decreased significantly compared with healthy subjects. Some aspects of motor performance (duration, segmentation, accuracy and coordination) were significantly correlated with the level of motor impairment. Despite the fact that stroke subjects encountered all these deficits, even subjects with the most severe motor impairment were able to transport the end-point to the target. All but one subject involved the trunk to accomplish this motor task. In others words, they recruited new degrees of freedom typically not used by healthy subjects. The use of compensatory strategies may be related to the degree of motor impairment: severely to moderately impaired subjects recruited new degrees of freedom to compensate for motor deficits while mildly impaired subjects tended to employ healthy movement patterns. We discuss the possibility that there is a critical level of recovery at which patients switch from a strategy employing new degrees of freedom to one in which motor recovery is produced by improving the management of degrees of freedom characteristic of healthy performance. Our data also suggest that stroke subjects may be able to exploit effectively the redundancy of the motor system.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.261 · 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