Restoration of Upper Limb Function After Chronic Severe Hemiplegia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional electrical stimulation therapy (FEST) is a state-of-the-art treatment for retraining motor function after neurological injuries. Recent literature suggests that FEST can be further improved with brain-computer interface (BCI) technology. In this case study, we assessed the feasibility of using BCI-triggered FEST (BCI-FEST) to restore upper limb function in a 57-yr-old man with severe left hemiplegia resulting from a stroke 6 yrs before enrollment in the study. The intervention consisted of two blocks of forty 1-hr BCI-FEST sessions, with three sessions delivered weekly. During therapy, a single-channel BCI was used to trigger the stimulation programmed to facilitate functional movements. The measure of the feasibility of the BCI-FEST included assessing the implementation and safety of the intervention. Clinical improvements were assessed using (a) Functional Independence Measure, (b) Action Research Arm Test, (c) Toronto Rehabilitation Institute - Hand Function Test, and (d) Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity test. Upon completion of 80 therapy sessions, 14-, 17-, and 18-point changes were recorded on Action Research Arm Test, Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity test, and Toronto Rehabilitation Institute - Hand Function Test, respectively. The participant also indicated improvement as demonstrated by his ability to perform various day-to-day tasks. The results suggest that BCI-FEST is safe and viable.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".