Premotor and Posterior Parietal Cortex Activity is Increased for Slow, as well as Fast Walking Poststroke: An fNIRS Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose. The ability to change gait speeds is important for interacting with the surrounding environment. Gait speed modulation poststroke is often impaired and is related to decreased walking independence after stroke. Assessment of brain activation during walking at different speeds can provide insight into important regions for facilitating gait recovery. The purpose is to determine: (1) the symmetry of brain activation as individuals increase or decrease their gait speed, (2) the activation levels in frontal to parietal brain regions during walking at different speeds, and (3) the relationship between an individual’s stroke impairment or their ability to modulate their gait speed and change in their brain activation. Methods. Twenty individuals in the chronic stage of stroke walked: (1) at their normal pace, (2) slower than normal, and (3) as fast as possible. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy was used to assess bilateral prefrontal, premotor, sensorimotor, and posterior parietal cortices during walking. Results. No significant differences in laterality were observed between walking speeds. The ipsilesional prefrontal cortex was overall more active than the contralesional prefrontal cortex. Premotor and posterior parietal cortex activity were larger during slow and fast walking compared to normal-paced walking with no differences between slow and fast walking. Greater increases in brain activation in the ipsilesional prefrontal cortex during fast compared to normal-paced walking related to greater gait speed modulation. Conclusions. Brain activation is not linearly related to gait speed. Ipsilesional prefrontal cortex, bilateral premotor, and bilateral posterior parietal cortices are important areas for gait speed modulation and could be an area of interest for neurostimulation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".