Wearable technology to capture arm use of stroke survivors in home and community settings: feasibility and early insights on motor performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: factors related to use of the paretic arm/hand. Methods: 30 chronic stroke survivors were monitored with wrist-worn wearable sensors during 12h/day for a 7-day period. Participants also completed standardized assessments to capture stroke severity, arm motor impairments, self-perceived arm use and self-efficacy. Usability of the wearable sensors was assessed using the adapted System Usability Scale and an exit interview. Associations between motor performance and capacity (arm/hand impairments and activity limitations) were assessed using Spearman's correlations. Results: Minimal technical issues or lack of adherence to the wearing schedule occurred, with 87.6% of days procuring valid data from both sensors. Average sensor wear time was 12.6 (standard deviation: 0.2) h/day. Three participants experienced discomfort with one of the wristbands and three other participants had unrelated adverse events. There were positive self-reported usability scores (mean: 85.4/100) and high user satisfaction. Significant correlations were observed for measures of motor capacity and self-efficacy with paretic arm use in the home and the community (Spearman's correlation ρs: 0.44-0.71). Conclusions: This work demonstrates the feasibility and usability of a consumer-grade wearable sensor to capture paretic arm activity outside the laboratory. It provides early insight into stroke survivors' everyday arm use and related factors such as motor capacity and self-efficacy. Impact: The integration of wearable technologies into clinical practice offers new possibilities to complement in-person clinical assessments and to better understand how each person is moving outside of therapy and throughout the recovery and reintegration phase. Insights gained from monitoring stroke survivors arm/hand use in the home and community is the first step towards informing future research with an emphasis on causal mechanisms with clinical relevance.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".