Impairments in Cognitive Control Using a Reverse Visually Guided Reaching Task Following Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive and motor function must work together quickly and seamlessly to allow us to interact with a complex world, but their integration is difficult to assess directly. Interactive technology provides opportunities to assess motor actions requiring cognitive control. OBJECTIVE: To adapt a reverse reaching task to an interactive robotic platform to quantify impairments in cognitive-motor integration following stroke. METHODS: Participants with subacute stroke (N=59) performed two tasks using the Kinarm: Reverse Visually Guided Reaching (RVGR) and Visually Guided Reaching (VGR). Tasks required subjects move a cursor "quickly and accurately" to virtual targets. In RVGR, cursor motion was reversed compared to finger motion (i.e., hand moves left, cursor moves right). Task parameters and Task Scores were calculated based on models developed from healthy controls, and accounted for the influence of age, sex, and handedness. RESULTS: Many stroke participants (86%) were impaired in RVGR with their affected arm (Task Score > 95% of controls). The most common impairment was increased movement time. Seventy-three percent were also impaired with their less affected arm. The most common impairment was larger initial direction angles of reach. Impairments in RVGR improved over time, but 71% of participants tested longitudinally were still impaired with the affected arm ∼6 months post-stroke. Importantly, although 57% were impaired with the less affected arm at 6 months, these individuals were not impaired in VGR. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with stroke were impaired in a reverse reaching task but many did not show similar impairments in a standard reaching task, highlighting selective impairment in cognitive-motor integration.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".