Disruption of Coordination between Arm, Trunk, and Center of Pressure Displacement in Patients with Hemiparesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine how arm movements influence postural sway in the upright position after stroke, interactions between arm, trunk, and center of pressure (CoP) displacements in the sagittal direction were investigated in participants with hemiparesis and healthy subjects. Participants swung both arms sagittally in either of 2 directions (in-phase, anti-phase) and at 2 speeds (preferred, fast) while standing on separate force plates. Variables measured included amplitude and frequency of arm swinging, shoulder and trunk range of motion, CoP displacements under each foot and of the whole body, and the relationships between the arm, trunk, and CoP displacements. CoP displacements under the non-paretic leg were greater than those under the paretic leg, which may in part be related to the larger amplitude of swinging of the non-paretic arm. CoP displacements under each foot were not related to arm swinging during in-phase swinging at the preferred speed in healthy subjects. When speed of arm swinging was increased, however, the CoP moved in a direction opposite to the arm movement. In contrast, in individuals with hemiparesis, CoPs and arms moved in the same direction for both speeds. During anti-phase swinging in healthy subjects, the trunk counterbalanced the arm movements, while in participants with hemiparesis, the trunk moved with the affected arm. Results show that stroke resulted in abnormal patterns of arm-trunk-CoP interactions that may be related to a greater involvement of the trunk in arm transport, an altered pattern of coordination between arm and CoP displacements, and an impaired ability of the damaged nervous system to adapt postural synergies to changes in movement velocity.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".