Musical stairs: the impact of audio feedback during stair-climbing physical therapies for children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Enhanced biofeedback during rehabilitation therapies has the potential to provide a therapeutic environment optimally designed for neuroplasticity. This study investigates the impact of audio feedback on the achievement of a targeted therapeutic goal, namely, use of reciprocal steps. METHODS: Stair-climbing therapy sessions conducted with and without audio feedback were compared in a randomized AB/BA cross-over study design. Seventeen children, aged 4-7 years, with various diagnoses participated. Reports from the participants, therapists, and a blinded observer were collected to evaluate achievement of the therapeutic goal, motivation and enjoyment during the therapy sessions. RESULTS: Audio feedback resulted in a 5.7% increase (p = 0.007) in reciprocal steps. Levels of participant enjoyment increased significantly (p = 0.031) and motivation was reported by child participants and therapists to be greater when audio feedback was provided. DISCUSSION: These positive results indicate that audio feedback may influence the achievement of therapeutic goals and promote enjoyment and motivation in young patients engaged in rehabilitation therapies. This study lays the groundwork for future research to determine the long term effects of audio feedback on functional outcomes of therapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Stair-climbing is an important mobility skill for promoting independence and activities of daily life and is a key component of rehabilitation therapies for physically disabled children. Provision of audio feedback during stair-climbing therapies for young children may increase their achievement of a targeted therapeutic goal (i.e., use of reciprocal steps). Children's motivation and enjoyment of the stair-climbing therapy was enhanced when audio feedback was provided.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".