ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2021
Walking with robot-generated haptic forces in a virtual environment: a new approach to analyze lower limb coordination.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWalking with a haptic tensile force applied to the hand in a virtual environment (VE) can induce adaptation effects in both chronic stroke and non-stroke individuals. These effects are reflected in spatiotemporal outcomes such as gait speed. However, the concurrent kinematic changes occurring in bilateral lower limb coordination have yet to be explored.
methodsChronic stroke participants were stratified based on overground gait speed into lower functioning (LF < 0.8 m/s, N = 7) and higher functioning (HF ≥ 0.8 m/s, N = 7) subgroups. These subgroups and an age-matched control group (N = 14, CG) walked on a self-paced treadmill in a VE with either robot-generated haptic leash forces delivered to the hand and then released or with an instrumented cane. Walking in both leash (10 and 15 N) and cane conditions were compared to pre-force baseline values to evaluate changes in lower limb coordination outcomes.
resultsAll groups showed some kinematic changes in thigh, leg and foot segments when gait speed increased during force and post-force leash as well as cane walking. These changes were also reflected in intersegmental coordination and 3D phase diagrams, which illustrated increased intersegmental trajectory areas (p < 0.05) and angular velocity. These increases could also be observed when the paretic leg transitions from stance to swing phases while walking with the haptic leash. The Sobolev norm values accounted for both angular position and angular velocity, providing a single value for potentially quantifying bilateral (i.e. non-paretic vs paretic) coordination during walking. These values tended to increase (p < 0.05) proportionally for both limbs during force and post-force epochs as gait speed tended to increase.
conclusionsIndividuals with chronic stroke who increased their gait speed when walking with tensile haptic forces and immediately after force removal, also displayed moderate concurrent changes in lower limb intersegmental coordination patterns in terms of angular displacement and velocity. Similar results were also seen with cane walking. Although symmetry was less affected, these findings appear favourable to the functional recovery of gait. Both the use of 3D phase diagrams and assigning Sobolev norm values are potentially effective for detecting and quantifying these coordination changes.
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.