ArticleExperimental brain research2022
Control of arm movements in Friedreich's ataxia patients: role of sensory feedback.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine Learning Aided Kinematic Profiling of Reaching Movements Separates Spinocerebellar Ataxia type 12 and Essential Tremor.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Article
- Impact of transradial amputation and brachial plexus injury on vibrotactile sensation capacity of the upper extremity.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Friedreich's ataxia (FA) is a hereditary system degeneration, which progressively affects sensory functions such as proprioceptive feedback, which causes progressive ataxia in FA patients. While major clinical features of movement disorders in FA patients have been identified, the underlying impaired neural control is not sufficiently understood. To elucidate the underlying control mechanism, we investigated single-joint movements of the upper limb in FA patients. Small, tolerable force perturbations were induced during voluntary single-joint arm movements to examine the compensatory reaction of the FA patient's motor system. Movement kinematics were measured, and muscle torques were quantified. We first found that as in healthy subjects, unperturbed single-joint movements in FA patients preserved similar temporal profiles of hand velocity and muscle torques, however, scaled in duration and amplitude. In addition, the small perturbations were compensated for efficiently in both groups, with the endpoint error < 0.5° (maximum displacement of 5-15°). We further quantified the differences in movement time, torque response, and displacement between patients and controls. To distinguish whether these differences were caused by a malfunction of top-down control or a malfunction of feedback control, the responses were fitted with a detailed model of the stretch reflex. The model simulations revealed that the feedback delay, but not the feedback gain was affected in FA patients. They also showed that the descending control signal was scaled in time and amplitude and co-contraction was smaller in FA patients. Thus, our study explains how the motor deficits of FA patients result from pathological alterations of both top-down and feedback control.
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.