Effects of Meaningful Action Observation Therapy on Occupational Performance, Upper Limb Function, and Corticospinal Excitability Poststroke: A Double-Blind Randomized Control Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Action observation therapy (AOT) is a mirror neuron-based approach that has been recently used in poststroke rehabilitation. The main goal of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of AOT of occupations and tasks that are meaningful for chronic stroke patients on occupational performance, upper-extremity function, and corticospinal changes. Method. A randomized control trial was designed to compare between experimental ( <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>n</a:mi> <a:mo>=</a:mo> <a:mn>13</a:mn> </a:math> ) and control groups ( <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mi>n</c:mi> <c:mo>=</c:mo> <c:mn>14</c:mn> </c:math> ). In both groups, the execution of meaningful tasks was practiced, but the videos of those tasks were just shown to the experiment group. Instead, patients in the control group watched nature videos as a placebo. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and Box-Block Test (BBT) on 3 occasions: baseline, post (at 4 weeks), and follow-up (at 8 weeks). The assessments of central motor conduction time (CMCT) for abductor policis brevis (APB) and extensor indicis (EI) were only recorded at baseline and posttreatment. Both assessors of clinical and neurophysiological outcomes were blinded to the allocation of subjects. Result. Finally, the results of outcomes in 24 patients who completed the study were analyzed. In both groups, significant improvements after treatment were seen for most outcomes ( <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>p</e:mi> <e:mo>≤</e:mo> <e:mn>0.05</e:mn> </e:math> ). These changes were persistent until follow-up. There were significant differences in COPM performance ( <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"> <g:mi>p</g:mi> <g:mo>=</g:mo> <g:mn>0.03</g:mn> </g:math> ) and satisfaction ( <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"> <i:mi>p</i:mi> <i:mo>=</i:mo> <i:mn>0.001</i:mn> </i:math> ) between the experimental and control groups. In contrast, other clinical assessments such as FMA, ARAT, and BBT did not show significant differences between the two treatments ( <k:math xmlns:k="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M6"> <k:mi>p</k:mi> <k:mo>≥</k:mo> <k:mn>0.05</k:mn> </k:math> ). The results of CMCT related to APB showed a more significant change in the experiment group compared to the control group ( <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M7"> <m:mi>p</m:mi> <m:mo>=</m:mo> <m:mn>0.022</m:mn> </m:math> ). There was no difference in change detected between the two groups for CMCT related to EI after treatments. Conclusion. Observation and execution of meaningful activities can enhance the effects of simply practicing those activities on occupational performance/satisfaction and corticospinal excitability poststroke.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".