The Feasibility of Longitudinal Upper Extremity Motor Function Assessment Using EEG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motor function assessment is crucial in quantifying motor recovery following stroke. In the rehabilitation field, motor function is usually assessed using questionnaire-based assessments, which are not completely objective and require prior training for the examiners. Some research groups have reported that electroencephalography (EEG) data have the potential to be a good indicator of motor function. However, those motor function scores based on EEG data were not evaluated in a longitudinal paradigm. The ability of the motor function scores from EEG data to track the motor function changes in long-term clinical applications is still unclear. In order to investigate the feasibility of using EEG to score motor function in a longitudinal paradigm, a convolutional neural network (CNN) EEG model and a residual neural network (ResNet) EEG model were previously generated to translate EEG data into motor function scores. To validate applications in monitoring rehabilitation following stroke, the pre-established models were evaluated using an initial small sample of individuals in an active 14-week rehabilitation program. Longitudinal performances of CNN and ResNet were evaluated through comparison with standard Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) scores of upper extremity collected in the assessment sessions. The results showed good accuracy and robustness with both proposed networks (average difference: 1.22 points for CNN, 1.03 points for ResNet), providing preliminary evidence for the proposed method in objective evaluation of motor function of upper extremity in long-term clinical applications.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".