Development and Evaluation of a Novel Music-based Therapeutic Device for Upper Extremity Movement Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Restoration of upper limb motor function and patient functional independence are crucial treatment targets for neurologic recovery. Growing evidence indicates that music-based intervention is a promising therapeutic approach for the restoration of upper extremity functional abilities in neurologic conditions. In this context, music technology may be particularly useful to increase the availability and accessibility of music-based therapy and assist therapists in the implementation and assessment of targeted therapeutic goals. In the present study, we describe and evaluate a novel music-based therapeutic device (SONATA) for upper limb extremity movement training. Methods The device consists of a graphical user interface generated by a single-board computer displayed on a 32” touchscreen with build-in sound speakers controlled wirelessly by a computer tablet. The system includes two operational modes that allow users to play musical melodies on a virtual keyboard or draw figures/shapes whereby every action input results in controllable sensory feedback. Four functional tests were performed with 21 healthy individuals (12 males, age 26.4 ± 3.5 years) to evaluate the device’s operational modes and main features, such as presenting sequences of audiovisual stimuli at a pre-defined order (Tasks 1–3), displaying different shapes (Task 4), and collecting response and movement data (e.g., reaction time, correct/incorrect responses, and timing data). Results The results indicate feasibility and ease of use of the device, as shown by the participants’ performance accuracy in all tasks. The findings also demonstrate the reliability of the data acquired automatically by the system as we replicated the results of previous research showing a decrease in reaction time in sequences repeatedly presented in relation to random sequences, and that sequence length, rate and complexity affect accuracy of newly learned action sequences. Conclusions This device is a feasible tool for upper limb extremity movement training and opens new avenues for the the systematic evaluation of the benefits of music technologies in clinical research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".