Investigating the feasibility and acceptability of real-time visual feedback in reducing compensatory motions during self-administered stroke rehabilitation exercises: A pilot study with chronic stroke survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Homework-based rehabilitation programs can help stroke survivors restore upper extremity function. However, compensatory motions can develop without therapist supervision, leading to sub-optimal recovery. We developed a visual feedback system using a live video feed or an avatar reflecting users' movements so users are aware of compensations. This pilot study aimed to evaluate validity (how well the avatar characterizes different types of compensations) and acceptability of the system. METHODS: Ten participants with chronic stroke performed upper-extremity exercises under three feedback conditions: none, video, and avatar. Validity was evaluated by comparing agreement on compensations annotated using video and avatar images. A usability survey was administered to participants after the experiment to obtain information on acceptability. RESULTS: There was substantial agreement between video and avatar images for shoulder elevation and hip extension (Cohen's κ: 0.6-0.8) and almost perfect agreement for trunk rotation and flexion (κ: 0.80-1). Acceptability was low due to lack of corrective prompts and occasional noise with the avatar display. Most participants suggested that an automatic compensation detection feature with visual and auditory cuing would improve the system. CONCLUSION: The avatar characterized four types of compensations well. Future work will involve increasing sensitivity for shoulder elevation and implementing a method to detect compensations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".