The use of brain-machine interface, motor imagery, and action observation in the rehabilitation of individuals with Parkinson’s disease: A protocol study for a randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative condition that impacts motor planning and control of the upper limbs (UL) and leads to cognitive impairments. Rehabilitation approaches, including motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO), along with the use of brain-machine interfaces (BMI), are essential in the PD population to enhance neuroplasticity and mitigate symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To provide a description of a rehabilitation protocol for evaluating the effects of isolated and combined applications of MI and action observation (AO), along with BMI, on upper limb (UL) motor changes and cognitive function in PD. METHODS: This study provides a detailed protocol for a single-blinded, randomized clinical trial. After selection, participants will be randomly assigned to one of five experimental groups. Each participant will be assessed at three points: pre-intervention, post-intervention, and at a follow-up four weeks after the intervention ends. The intervention consists of 10 sessions, each lasting approximately 60 minutes. EXPECTED RESULTS: The primary outcome expected is an improvement in the Test d'Évaluation des Membres Supérieurs de Personnes Âgées score, accompanied by a reduction in task execution time. Secondary outcomes include motor symptoms in the upper limbs, assessed via the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale - Part III and the 9-Hole Peg Test; cognitive function, assessed with the PD Cognitive Rating Scale; and occupational performance, assessed with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. DISCUSSION: This study protocol is notable for its intensive daily sessions. Both MI and AO are low-cost, enabling personalized interventions that physiotherapists and occupational therapists can readily replicate in practice. While BMI use does require professionals to acquire an exoskeleton, the protocol ensures the distinctiveness of the interventions and, to our knowledge, is the first to involve individuals with PD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05696925.
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 | 0.043 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".