ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
Effective unilateral/bilateral robot-assisted training for upper limb motor function rehabilitation: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The therapeutic effect of robot-assisted training is still indecisive due to the lack of patient-tailored protocols and dose-matched training strategies when compared to traditional treatment. The objective of this study was to investigate the optimal robot-assisted training strategies for the upper limb functional recovery in hemiparetic stroke patients. Approach: A bilateral upper limb rehabilitation robot was employed to execute unilateral and bilateral training. Eighteen able-bodied subjects were recruited to test the effective of robot-assisted training strategies before transferring them to stroke patients. We compared unilateral passive training (UPT), bilateral passive training (BPT), and unilateral active training (UAT) with various feedback types (visual, force, and visual-force, none). These trainings were performed on three kinds of virtually-guided (straight-line, circular, S-shaped) tasks. Tracking error (TE), interactive force (IF) and target muscle activation level were quantified to characterize the motion capability and active participation of subjects. Main results: Results revealed that BPT-visual (0.63 ± 0.26) significantly increased muscle activation level when compared to those of BPT-none (0.45 ± 0.27) and UPT-visual (0.24 ± 0.05) ( Significance: The current outcomes provide valuable guidelines for designing individualized robot-assisted training protocols, potentially promoting the clinical rehabilitation effect.
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.