MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404754761 · doi:10.3390/neurosci5040041

Exploring Music-Based Interventions for Executive Functioning and Emotional Well-Being in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review

2024· review· en· W4404754761 on OpenAlexaff
Camila F. Pfeiffer, Wendy L. Magee, Rebecca Fülöp, Travis Nace, Candela Castro, Agustina Iturri, Gabriela Echauri, Liliana Gassull, María Julieta Russo

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroSci · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMusic Therapy and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionCINAHLPsycINFOObservational studyPsychologyMusic therapyAcquired brain injuryStroke (engine)RehabilitationClinical psychologyExecutive dysfunctionMEDLINEPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitionPsychotherapistMedicinePsychiatryNeuropsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability with life-long implications requiring assessment and treatment of several functional domains. This review identifies the results from research into music-based interventions (MBIs), including music therapy (MT), for executive functions (EFs) and emotional well-being (EWB) in adults with stroke and highlights opportunities for clinical practice and future research. METHODS: APA PsycInfo (EBSCOhost), and CINAHL (EBSCOhost) were searched, in addition to grey literature. RESULTS: A total of 49 studies were included and encompassed experimental, analytic, and descriptive observational studies, and case reports, involving a total of 1663 participants. In total, 32 studies included MT interventions, and 17 were MBIs. EFs were an outcome in 20.41%, and EWB in 61.22% of studies, for which active interventions were the most utilized. Overall, 73.47% of the studies reported positive results. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review indicates that music interventions can be beneficial for the improvement of different aspects of EFs and EWB at different stages of stroke recovery. Further research may benefit clinical practice by including standardized protocols, outcome and self-reported measures, and brain imaging data to determine the effects of interventions and support evidence-based decisions for treatment policies for 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.367
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.109 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroSciSame topicMusic Therapy and HealthFrench-language works237,207