MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755731951 · doi:10.1152/jn.00362.2017

Spasticity may obscure motor learning ability after stroke

2017· article· en· W2755731951 on OpenAlexafffund
Sandeep Subramanian, Anatol G. Feldman, Mindy F. Levin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationJewish Rehabilitation Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsSpasticityElbowPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)PsychologyTonic (physiology)Stretch reflexReflexMedicinePhysical therapyElectromyographyNeuroscienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous motor learning studies based on adapting movements of the hemiparetic arm in stroke subjects have not accounted for spasticity occurring in specific joint ranges (spasticity zones), resulting in equivocal conclusions about learning capacity. We compared the ability of participants with stroke to rapidly adapt elbow extension movements to changing external load conditions outside and inside spasticity zones. Participants with stroke ( n = 12, aged 57.8 ± 9.6 yr) and healthy age-matched controls ( n = 8, 63.5 ± 9.1 yr) made rapid 40°-50° horizontal elbow extension movements from an initial (3°) to a final (6°) target. Sixteen blocks (6-10 trials/block) consisting of alternating loaded (30% maximal voluntary contraction) and nonloaded trials were made in one (controls) or two sessions (stroke; 1 wk apart). For the stroke group, the tonic stretch reflex threshold angle at which elbow flexors began to be activated during passive elbow extension was used to identify the beginning of the spasticity zone. The task was repeated in joint ranges that did or did not include the spasticity zone. Error correction strategies were identified by the angular positions before correction and compared between groups and sessions. Changes in load condition from no load to load and vice versa resulted in undershoot and overshoot errors, respectively. Stroke subjects corrected errors in 1-4 trials compared with 1-2 trials in controls. When movements did not include the spasticity zone, there was an immediate decrease in the number of trials needed to restore accuracy, suggesting that the capacity to learn may be preserved after stroke but masked by the presence of spasticity. NEW & NOTEWORTHY When arm movements were made outside, instead of inside, the range affected by spasticity, there was an immediate decrease in the number of trials needed to restore accuracy in response to a change in the external load. This suggests that motor learning processes may be preserved in patients with stroke but masked by the presence of spasticity in specific joint ranges. This has important implications for designing rehabilitation interventions predicated on motor learning principles.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.649

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations80
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207