The feasibility of using robotic technology to quantify sensory, motor, and cognitive impairments associated with ALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We used the KINARM robot to quantify impairments in cognitive and upper-limb sensorimotor performance in a cohort of people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). We sought to study the feasibility of using this technology for ALS research, to quantify patterns of impairments in individuals living with ALS, and elucidate correlations between robotic and traditional clinical behavioral measures. METHODS: Participants completed robot-based behavioral tasks testing sensorimotor, cognitive, and proprioceptive performance. Performance on robotic tasks was normalized to a large healthy control cohort (no neurological impairments), adjusted for age. Task impairment was defined as performance outside the 95% range of controls. Traditional clinical tests included: Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB), ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). RESULTS: Seventeen people with ALS were assessed. Two participants reported pain or discomfort from the robot's seat and 2 others reported discomfort from arm position during the assessment (both rectified and did not affect exam completion). Participants were able to perform the majority of the robotic tasks, although 9 participants were unable to complete 1 or more tasks. Between 20 and 69% of participants displayed sensorimotor impairments; 19 and 69% displayed cognitive task impairments; 25% displayed proprioceptive impairments. MoCA was impaired in 9/17 participants; 10/17 had impaired performance on FAB. MoCA and FAB correlated well with robot-based measures of cognition. CONCLUSION: Use of robotic assessment is generally feasible for people with ALS. Individuals with ALS have sensorimotor impairments as expected, and some demonstrate substantial cognitive impairments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".