Therapeutic Instrumental Music Training and Motor Imagery in Post-Stroke Upper-Extremity Rehabilitation: A Randomized-Controlled Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the potential benefits of 3 therapeutic instrumental music performance (TIMP)-based interventions in rehabilitation of the affected upper-extremity (UE) for adults with chronic poststroke hemiparesis. Randomized-controlled pilot study. University research facility. Community-dwelling volunteers (N=30; 16 men, 14 women; age range, 33-76 years; mean age, 55.9 years) began and completed the protocol. All participants had sustained a unilateral stroke more than 6 months before enrollment (mean time poststroke, 66.9 months). Two baseline assessments, a minimum of 1 week apart; 9 intervention sessions (3 times/week for 3 weeks), in which rhythmically cued, functional arm movements were mapped onto musical instruments; and 1 post-test following the final intervention. Participants were block-randomized to 1 of 3 conditions: group 1 (45 minutes TIMP), group 2 (30 minutes TIMP, 15 minutes metronome-cued motor imagery [TIMP+cMI]), and group 3 (30 minutes TIMP, 15 minutes motor imagery without cues [TIMP+MI]). Assessors and investigators were blinded to group assignment. Fugl-Meyer Upper-Extremity (FM-UE) and Wolf Motor Function Test- Functional Ability Scale (WMFT-FAS). Secondary measures were motor activity log (MAL)–amount of use scale and trunk impairment scale. All groups made statistically significant gains on the FM-UE (TIMP, P=.005, r=.63; TIMP+cMI, P=.007, r=.63; TIMP+MI, P=.007, r=.61) and the WMFT-FAS (TIMP, P=.024, r=.53; TIMP+cMI, P=.008, r=.60; TIMP+MI, P=.008, r=.63). Comparing between-group percent change differences, on the FM-UE, TIMP scored significantly higher than TIMP+cMI (P=.032, r=.57), but not TIMP+MI. There were no differences in improvement on WMFT-FAS across conditions. On the MAL, gains were significant for TIMP (P=.030, r=.54) and TIMP+MI (P=.007, r=.63). TIMP-based techniques, with and without MI, led to significant improvements in paretic arm control on primary outcomes. Replacing a physical training segment with imagery-based training resulted in similar improvements; however, synchronizing internal and external cues during auditory-cMI may pose additional sensorimotor integration challenges.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".