Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35939495›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

The effects of robotic assistance on upper limb spatial muscle synergies in healthy people during planar upper-limb training.

Adriana Cancrini, Paolo Baitelli, Matteo Lavit Nicora, Matteo Malosio, Alessandra Pedrocchi, Alessandro Scano

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Muscle synergies in upper limb stroke rehabilitation: a scoping review.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Adriana CancriniDepartment of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Neuroengineering and Medical Robotics Laboratory, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Paolo BaitelliDepartment of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Neuroengineering and Medical Robotics Laboratory, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Matteo Lavit NicoraUOS STIIMA Lecco - Human-Centered, Smart & Safe, Living Environment, Italian National Research Council (CNR), Lecco, Italy.
Matteo MalosioUOS STIIMA Lecco - Human-Centered, Smart & Safe, Living Environment, Italian National Research Council (CNR), Lecco, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4961-376X
Alessandra PedrocchiDepartment of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Neuroengineering and Medical Robotics Laboratory, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Alessandro ScanoUOS STIIMA Lecco - Human-Centered, Smart & Safe, Living Environment, Italian National Research Council (CNR), Lecco, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1896-9325
National Research Council · ITPolitecnico di Milano · ITFondazione Santa Lucia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic rehabilitation is a commonly adopted technique used to restore motor functionality of neurological patients. However, despite promising results were achieved, the effects of human-robot interaction on human motor control and the recovery mechanisms induced with robot assistance can be further investigated even on healthy subjects before translating to clinical practice. In this study, we adopt a standard paradigm for upper-limb rehabilitation (a planar device with assistive control) with linear and challenging curvilinear trajectories to investigate the effect of the assistance in human-robot interaction in healthy people.

methodsTen healthy subjects were instructed to perform a large set of radial and curvilinear movements in two interaction modes: 1) free movement (subjects hold the robot handle with no assistance) and 2) assisted movement (with a force tunnel assistance paradigm). Kinematics and EMGs from representative upper-limb muscles were recorded to extract phasic muscle synergies. The free and assisted interaction modes were compared assessing the level of assistance, error, and muscle synergy comparison between the two interaction modes.

resultsIt was found that in free movement error magnitude is higher than with assistance, proving that task complexity required assistance also on healthy controls. Moreover, curvilinear tasks require more assistance than standard radial paths and error is higher. Interestingly, while assistance improved task performance, we found only a slight modification of phasic synergies when comparing assisted and free movement.

conclusionsWe found that on healthy people, the effect of assistance was significant on task performance, but limited on muscle synergies. The findings of this study can find applications for assessing human-robot interaction and to design training to maximize motor recovery.

Indexed as

Exercise TherapyRoboticsBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansMovementMusclesUpper Extremity

Identifiers

PMID35939495
PMCPMC9359610
OpenAlexW4290724193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.