Error Enhancement for Upper Limb Rehabilitation in the Chronic Phase after Stroke: A 5-Day Pre-Post Intervention Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large proportion of chronic stroke survivors still struggle with upper limb (UL) problems in daily activities, typically reaching tasks. During three-dimensional reaching movements, the deXtreme robot offers error enhancement forces. Error enhancement aims to improve the quality of movement. We investigated clinical and patient-reported outcomes and assessed the quality of movement before and after a 5 h error enhancement training with the deXtreme robot. This pilot study had a pre-post intervention design, recruiting 22 patients (mean age: 57 years, mean days post-stroke: 1571, male/female: 12/10) in the chronic phase post-stroke with UL motor impairments. Patients received 1 h robot treatment for five days and were assessed at baseline and after training, collecting (1) clinical, (2) patient-reported, and (3) kinematic (KINARM, BKIN Technologies Ltd., Kingston, ON, Canada) outcome measures. Our analysis revealed significant improvements (median improvement (Q1–Q3)) in (1) UL Fugl–Meyer assessment (1.0 (0.8–3.0), p < 0.001) and action research arm test (2.0 (0.8–2.0), p < 0.001); (2) motor activity log, amount of use (0.1 (0.0–0.3), p < 0.001) and quality of use (0.1 (0.1–0.5), p < 0.001) subscale; (3) KINARM-evaluated position sense (−0.45 (−0.81–0.09), p = 0.030) after training. These findings provide insight into clinical self-reported and kinematic improvements in UL functioning after five hours of error enhancement UL training.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".