MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982406814 · doi:10.1186/s12984-019-0596-7

Vision does not always help stroke survivors compensate for impaired limb position sense

2019· article· en· W2982406814 on OpenAlexafffund
Troy M. Herter, Stephen H. Scott, Sean P. Dukelow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of CalgaryHotchkiss Brain InstituteQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsStroke (engine)Compensation (psychology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationProprioceptionTask (project management)PsychologyNeurologyMedicinePhysical therapyNeuroscienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Position sense is commonly impaired after stroke. Traditional rehabilitation methods instruct patients to visualize their limbs to compensate for impaired position sense. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to evaluate how the use of vision influences impaired position sense. METHODS: We examined 177 stroke survivors, an average of 12.7 days (+/- 10 days (SD)) post-stroke, and 133 neurologically-intact controls with a robotic assessment of position sense. The robot positioned one limb (affected) and subjects attempted to mirror-match the position using the opposite limb (unaffected). Subjects completed the test without, then with vision of their limbs. We examined three measures of position sense: variability (Var), contraction/expansion (C/E) and systematic shift (Shift). We classified stroke survivors as having full compensation if they performed the robotic task abnormally without vision but corrected performance within the range of normal with vision. Stroke survivors were deemed to have partial compensation if they performed the task outside the range of normal without and with vision, but improved significantly with vision. Those with absent compensation performed the task abnormally in both conditions and did not improve with vision. RESULTS: Many stroke survivors demonstrated impaired position sense with vision occluded [Var: 116 (66%), C/E: 91 (51%), Shift: 52 (29%)]. Of those stroke survivors with impaired position sense, some exhibited full compensation with vision [Var: 23 (20%), C/E: 42 (46%), Shift: 32 (62%)], others showed partial compensation [Var: 37 (32%), C/E: 8 (9%), Shift: 3 (6%)] and many displayed absent compensation (Var: 56 (48%), C/E: 41 (45%), Shift: 17 (33%)]. Stroke survivors with an affected left arm, visuospatial neglect and/or visual field defects were less likely to compensate for impaired position sense using vision. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that vision does not help many stroke survivors compensate for impaired position sense, at least within the current paradigm. This contrasts with historical reports that vision helps compensate for proprioceptive loss following neurologic injuries.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations49
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroEngineering and RehabilitationSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207