ArticleBrain sciences2021
Changes in Sensorimotor Cortical Activation in Children Using Prostheses and Prosthetic Simulators.
Article in Brain sciences, 2021. 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.
- Exploring Imagined Movement for Brain-Computer Interface Control: An fNIRS and EEG Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- A multiarticulate pediatric prosthetic hand for clinical and research applications.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2022Article
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
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the neural responses of children using prostheses and prosthetic simulators to better elucidate the emulation abilities of the simulators. We utilized functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to evaluate the neural response in five children with a congenital upper limb reduction (ULR) using a body-powered prosthesis to complete a 60 s gross motor dexterity task. The ULR group was matched with five typically developing children (TD) using their non-preferred hand and a prosthetic simulator on the same hand. The ULR group had lower activation within the primary motor cortex (M1) and supplementary motor area (SMA) compared to the TD group, but nonsignificant differences in the primary somatosensory area (S1). Compared to using their non-preferred hand, the TD group exhibited significantly higher action in S1 when using the simulator, but nonsignificant differences in M1 and SMA. The non-significant differences in S1 activation between groups and the increased activation evoked by the simulator's use may suggest rapid changes in feedback prioritization during tool use. We suggest that prosthetic simulators may elicit increased reliance on proprioceptive and tactile feedback during motor tasks. This knowledge may help to develop future prosthesis rehabilitative training or the improvement of tool-based skills.
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.