ArticleFrontiers in neurology2024
Brain-computer interface on wrist training with or without neurofeedback in subacute stroke: a study protocol for a double-blinded, randomized control pilot trial.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrating Brain-Computer Interface Systems into Occupational Therapy for Enhanced Independence of Stroke Patients: An Observational Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: After a stroke, damage to the part of the brain that controls movement results in the loss of motor function. Brain-computer interface (BCI)-based stroke rehabilitation involves patients imagining movement without physically moving while the system measures the perceptual-motor rhythm in the motor cortex. Visual feedback through virtual reality and functional electrical stimulation is provided simultaneously. The superiority of real BCI over sham BCI in the subacute phase of stroke remains unclear. Therefore, we aim to compare the effects of real and sham BCI on motor function and brain activity among patients with subacute stroke with weak wrist extensor strength. Methods: This is a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Patients with stroke will be categorized into real BCI and sham BCI groups. The BCI task involves wrist extension for 60 min/day, 5 times/week for 4 weeks. Twenty sessions will be conducted. The evaluation will be conducted four times, as follows: before the intervention, 2 weeks after the start of the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and 4 weeks after the intervention. The assessments include a clinical evaluation, electroencephalography, and electromyography using motor-evoked potentials. Discussion: Patients will be categorized into two groups, as follows: those who will be receiving neurofeedback and those who will not receive this feedback during the BCI rehabilitation training. We will examine the importance of motor imaging feedback, and the effect of patients' continuous participation in the training rather than their being passive.
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.