ArticleExperimental brain research2017
Examining impairment of adaptive compensation for stabilizing motor repetitions in stroke survivors.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technology-Based Compensation Assessment and Detection of Upper Extremity Activities of Stroke Survivors: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- Technical development of transcutaneous electrical nerve inhibition using medium-frequency alternating current.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2018Trial
- Greater Reliance on Cerebral Palsy-Specific Muscle Synergies During Gait Relates to Poorer Temporal-Spatial Performance Measures.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The hand, one of the most versatile but mechanically redundant parts of the human body, suffers more and longer than other body parts after stroke. One of the rehabilitation paradigms, task-oriented rehabilitation, encourages motor repeatability, the ability to produce similar motor performance over repetitions through compensatory strategies while taking advantage of the motor system's redundancy. The previous studies showed that stroke survivors inconsistently performed a given motor task with limited motor solutions. We hypothesized that stroke survivors would exhibit deficits in motor repeatability and adaptive compensation compared to healthy controls in during repetitive force-pulse (RFP) production tasks using multiple fingers. Seventeen hemiparetic stroke survivors and seven healthy controls were asked to repeatedly press force sensors as fast as possible using the four fingers of each hand. The hierarchical variability decomposition model was employed to compute motor repeatability and adaptive compensation across finger-force impulses, respectively. Stroke survivors showed decreased repeatability and adaptive compensation of force impulses between individual fingers as compared to the control (p < 0.05). The stroke survivors also showed decreased pulse frequency and greater peak-to-peak time variance than the control (p < 0.05). Force-related variables, such as mean peak force and peak force interval variability, demonstrated no significant difference between groups. Our findings indicate that stroke-induced brain injury negatively affects their ability to exploit their redundant or abundant motor system in an RFP task.
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.