Trial reportExperimental brain research2016
Retention of the spacing effect with mental practice in hemiparetic stroke.
Trial report in Experimental brain research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Motor Imagery and Mental Practice in the Subacute and Chronic Phases in Upper Limb Rehabilitation after Stroke: A Systematic Review.Occupational therapy international · 2023Pooled it
- Mental practice for treating upper extremity deficits in individuals with hemiparesis after stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Exploring Methodological Issues in Mental Practice for Upper-Extremity Function Following Stroke-Related Paralysis: A Scoping Review.Brain sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mental practice (MP) is a promising adjuvant to physical practice that involves many of the same mechanisms and takes on many of the same properties as physical practice. This study compared efficacy of a "massed" MP regimen versus a "distributed" MP regimen on upper extremity (UE) motor impairment and functional limitation. Twenty-seven chronic stroke survivors were administered the UE section of the Fugl-Meyer (FM) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), followed by standardized physical practice and MP regimens. One group was administered "massed" MP (60 min of MP during a single daily session) and a second group administered distributed MP (20 min of MP occurring three times/day). After intervention, changes in FM and ARAT scores of subjects in the distributed condition were significantly higher than those of subjects in the massed condition (FM 3.65, 95 % CI 0.82-6.49, p value = 0.01; ARAT 3.95, 95 % CI 1.24-6.67, p value = 0.006). Likewise, at POST 3, subjects in the distributed group showed significantly higher change in ARAT scores (ARAT 4.90, 95 % CI 0.57-9.22, p value = 0.03); the change in FM scores at POST 3 was 3.18 points higher among subjects in the distributed condition, but only approached significance (95 % CI -1.27 to 7.63, p value = 0.15). Results suggest that a distributed MP schedule is more efficacious in bringing about paretic UE changes than a massed practice schedule, especially in terms of reducing UE functional limitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.