An Initial Investigation of the Responsiveness of Temporal Gait Asymmetry to Rhythmic Auditory Stimulation and the Relationship to Rhythm Ability Following Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporal gait asymmetry (TGA) is a persistent post-stroke gait deficit. Compared to conventional gait training techniques, rhythmic auditory stimulation (RAS; i.e., walking to a metronome) has demonstrated positive effects on post-stroke TGA. Responsiveness of TGA to RAS may be related to several factors including motor impairment, time post-stroke, and individual rhythm abilities. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between rhythm abilities and responsiveness of TGA when walking to RAS. Assessed using behavioral tests of beat perception and production, participants with post-stroke TGA (measured as single limb support time ratio) were categorized according to rhythm ability (as strong or weak beat perceivers/producers). We assessed change in TGA between walking without cues (baseline) and walking while synchronizing footsteps with metronome cues. Most individuals with stroke were able to maintain or improve TGA with a single session of RAS. Within-group analyses revealed a difference between strong and weak rhythm ability groups. Strong beat perceivers and producers showed significant reduction (improvement) in TGA with the metronome. Those with weak ability did not and exhibited high variability in the TGA response to metronome. Moreover, individuals who worsened in TGA when walking to metronome had poorer beat production scores than those who did not change in TGA. However, no interaction between TGA improvement when walking to metronome and rhythm perception or production ability was found. While responsiveness of TGA to RAS did not significantly differ based on strength of rhythm abilities, these preliminary findings highlight rhythm ability as a potential consideration when treating post-stroke individuals with rhythm-based treatments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".