Sensorimotor integration in chronic stroke: Baseline differences and response to sensory training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The integration of somatosensory information from the environment into the motor cortex to inform movement is essential for motor function. As motor deficits commonly persist into the chronic phase of stroke recovery, it is important to understand potential contributing factors to these deficits, as well as their relationship with motor function. To date the impact of chronic stroke on sensorimotor integration has not been thoroughly investigated. OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to comprehensively examine the influence of chronic stroke on sensorimotor integration, and determine whether sensorimotor integration can be modified with an intervention. Further, it determined the relationship between neurophysiological measures of sensorimotor integration and motor deficits post-stroke. METHODS: Fourteen individuals with chronic stroke and twelve older healthy controls participated. Motor impairment and function were quantified in individuals with chronic stroke. Baseline neurophysiology was assessed using nerve-based measures (short- and long-latency afferent inhibition, afferent facilitation) and vibration-based measures of sensorimotor integration, which paired vibration with single and paired-pulse TMS techniques. Neurophysiological assessment was performed before and after a vibration-based sensory training paradigm to assess changes within these circuits. RESULTS: Vibration-based, but not nerve-based measures of sensorimotor integration were different in individuals with chronic stroke, as compared to older healthy controls, suggesting that stroke differentially impacts integration of specific types of somatosensory information. Sensorimotor integration was behaviourally relevant in that it related to both motor function and impairment post-stroke. Finally, sensory training modulated sensorimotor integration in individuals with chronic stroke and controls. CONCLUSION: Sensorimotor integration is differentially impacted by chronic stroke based on the type of afferent feedback. However, both nerve-based and vibration-based measures relate to motor impairment and function in individuals with chronic stroke.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".