Changes in arm kinematics of chronic stroke individuals following “Assist-As-Asked” robot-assisted training in virtual and physical environments: A proof-of-concept study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In this proof-of-concept study, we introduce a custom-developed robot-assisted training protocol, named "Assist-As-Asked", aiming at improving arm function of chronic stroke subjects with moderate-to-severe upper extremity motor impairment. The study goals were to investigate the feasibility and potential adverse effects of this training protocol in both physical and virtual environments. METHODS: A sample of convenience of four chronic stroke subjects participated in 10 half-hour sessions. The task was to practice reaching six targets in both virtual and physical environments. The robotic arm used the Assist-As-Asked paradigm in which it helped subjects to complete movements when asked by them. Changes in the kinematics of the reaching movements and the participants' perception of the reaching practice in both environments were the outcome measures of interest. RESULTS: Subjects improved their reaching performance and none of them reported any adverse events. There were no differences between the two environments in terms of kinematic measures even though subjects had different opinions about the environment preference. CONCLUSIONS: Using the Assist-As-Asked protocol in moderate-to-severe chronic stroke survivors is feasible and it can be used with both physical and virtual environments with no evidence of one of them to be superior to the other based on users' perspectives and movement kinematics.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".