ArticleExperimental brain research2020
Performance of discrete, reciprocal, and cyclic movements of the ipsilesional upper limb in individuals after stroke.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ipsilesional Handgrip Strength and Functional Outcomes After Stroke: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- High-Frequency Ipsilesional versus Low-Frequency Contralesional Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation after Stroke: Differential Effects on Ipsilesional Upper Extremity Motor Recovery.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aiming movements of the upper limbs can be classified either as discrete, or reciprocal, or cyclic. The control of these movements after a stroke can be affected. The aim of this experimental, cross-sectional study was to characterize the performance of these movements after the right and left hemisphere chronic stroke. Thirty-six individuals aged between 40 and 70 years, right-handed, were allocated into three groups (control, right stroke, and left stroke). Participants were asked to perform aiming movements on a tablet. Individuals after stroke performed the tasks only with their ipsilesional limb, while the control group performed movements with both limbs. The reaction and movement times, peak velocity, and the variability and error of the endpoint were analyzed. Individuals after stroke presented a worse performance in all movement classes as expected, but differently depending on the damaged hemisphere. Participants with right hemisphere damage showed larger endpoint errors, while those with left hemisphere damage had longer reaction and movement times. Both differences were seen consistently in discrete and reciprocal, but not in cyclic movements. Cyclic movements presented shorter latencies, were faster, and showed greater endpoint errors when compared to discrete and reciprocal movements. These results suggest that stroke affects differently the performance of discrete and reciprocal movements according to the hemisphere lesion side, but not in cyclic movements. Different levels of motor control among the three classes of movements by the nervous system may justify these results.
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.