Enhancing upper-limb neurorehabilitation in chronic stroke survivors using combined action observation and motor imagery therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: For people who have had a stroke, recovering upper-limb function is a barrier to independence. When movement is difficult, mental practice can be used to complement physical therapy. In this within-participants study we investigated the effects of combined action observation and motor imagery (AO + MI) therapy on upper-limb recovery in chronic stroke survivors. Methods: = 10) performed 16 mental practice trials under each condition. Each trial displayed a 1st person perspective of a cup-stacking task performed by an experienced model. For AO, participants watched each video and responded to an occasional color cue. For MI, participants imagined the effort and sensation of performing the action; cued by a series of still-images. For combined AO + MI, participants observed a video of the action while they simultaneously imagined performing the same action in real-time. At three time points (baseline; post-test; two-week retention test) participants physically executed the three mentally practiced cup-stacking tasks, plus a fourth unpractised sequence (Control), as quickly and accurately as possible. Results: Mean movement execution times were significantly reduced overall in the post-test and the retention test compared to baseline. At retention, movement execution times were significantly shorter for combined AO + MI compared to both MI and the Control. Individual participants reported clinically important changes in quality of life (Stroke Impact Scale) and positive qualitative experiences of AO + MI (social validation). Discussion: These results indicate that when physical practice is unsuitable, combined AO + MI therapy could offer an effective adjunct for neurorehabilitation in chronic stroke survivors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".