ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2019
Factors Influencing Manipulation of a Familiar Object in Patients With Limb Apraxia After Stroke.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Limb Apraxia in Quebec: Normative Study of the Brief Battery for the Evaluation of Praxis in Healthy French-Speaking Adults.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2026Article
- Competition between Tool and Hand Motion Impairs Movement Planning in Limb Apraxia.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- A preliminary study of white matter disconnections underlying deficits in praxis in left hemisphere stroke patients.Brain structure & function · 2024Article
- The Impact of Upper Limb Apraxia on General and Domain-Specific Self-Efficacy in Post-Stroke Patients.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that hand actions to visual objects are affected both by perceptual factors and by action goals. Our aim was to study how these processes affected hand actions in chronic stroke patients, based on whether they had limb apraxia. Twenty-two left hemisphere, chronic stroke patients were measured on neuropsychological tasks of limb apraxia, which was identified in a subgroup of 10 patients. All patients underwent testing on a separate task of making simple reach and grasp actions to a cup. Their performance was compared to a group of 18 healthy age-matched volunteers. Participants were instructed to grasp the top or bottom of a cup to either lift or turn it over so as to end with a hand position that was either comfortable or uncomfortable. This task tested the influence of the compatibility of hand-cup orientation, as well as goals driven by the end-state comfort of the hand, on action selection for object manipulation. Participants' performance was measured in terms of error rates, and speed of initiation and reaching (movement time) to the object. The patients' performance was significantly delayed, and error rates increased when reaching to grasp a cup under conditions of poor compatibility and end-state comfort. The subgroup of patients with apraxia showed a decreased influence of compatibility of hand interaction with the cup, with increased error rates and delayed response times, compared to patients with no apraxia and healthy volunteers. This is despite the fact they did not display significant deficits on neuropsychological tasks of real object use. The study shows that patients with apraxia have difficulties in selecting elements of object-directed actions, pertaining to both habitual and goal-directed factors.
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.