Effects of a Combined Motor Imagery and Action Observation Intervention on Vascular Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify the effects of combined motor imagery and action observation therapy on vascular cognitive impairment. DESIGN: Thirty vascular cognitive impairment patients were randomly assigned into three groups. Cognitive training group was given conventional cognitive training, motor imagery + action observation group was treated with motor imagery and action observation therapy, and mixed therapy group was given conventional cognitive training and motor imagery + action observation therapy, for 8 wks continuously. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale, Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test, and event-related potential were used to evaluate the cognitive function at baseline, 4- and 8-wk posttreatment, and 1-mo follow-up. RESULTS: There were significant time × group interactions in Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (F6,4.20 = 8.38, P < 0.001), event-related potential latent period (F6,294.24 = 5.10, P < 0.001), event-related potential amplitude (F6,1.68 = 23.08, P < 0.001), and Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test (F6,312.61 = 5.42, P < 0.001). Intragroup comparisons showed that Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale and Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test scores and event-related potential amplitude increased significantly (P < 0.05), and event-related potential latency decreased significantly (P < 0.05) in all groups. Intergroup comparisons showed that the changes of all outcomes in mixed therapy group were greater than those in cognitive training and motor imagery + action observation group (P < 0.05) after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the combination of cognitive training with motor imagery and action observation therapy is an effective treatment on cognitive function in people with vascular cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".