MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2505907423 · doi:10.1109/biorob.2016.7523720

Preliminary results for a force feedback bimanual rehabilitation system

2016· article· en· W2505907423 on OpenAlexafffund
Gil Herrnstadt, Nezam Alavi, Jason L. Neva, Lara A. Boyd, Carlo Menon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationStroke (engine)ElectromyographyNeurorehabilitationPhysical therapyElectroencephalographyPsychologyMedicineChronic strokeStimulationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stroke, a cardiovascular disease, is causing an increasingly heavy financial and medical load in modern societies. Yet the current therapeutic alternatives leave many individuals with stroke with limited ability to sustain an independent lifestyle. In turn, stroke survivors' quality of life is significantly diminished. Physical therapy is considered the main course of treatment for individuals with chronic stroke. Predominantly, research in rehabilitation investigates methods aiming to maximize the treatment benefits to patients. A novel Bimanual Wearable Robotic Device (BWRD) and protocol are proposed for the rehabilitation of stroke patients. The BWRD is composed of Master and Slave devices for the non-paretic and paretic upper limbs respectively. While the non-paretic arm controls the paretic arm in position, force feedback from the paretic arm, providing an indication of impairment, is sent back to the non-paretic arm. In this preliminary study, three participants with chronic unilateral stroke were recruited to participate in a total of three sessions per participant. To evaluate the effects of the BWRD, participants underwent pre and post training functional assessments. In addition we explored the neurobiological effects of this therapy using indices of brain excitability (Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS)), brain activity (Electroencephalography (EEG)) and muscle activation (Electromyography (EMG)). This work presents preliminary results. Following bimanual training, we measured an increase in excitability of both hemispheres as well as reduced inhibition as measured by Transcallosal Inhibition Laterality Index (TCI LI). The presented data supports and validates the approach implemented with the BWRD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→