Trial reportThe Journal of international medical research2025
Does visual error augmentation offer advantages during bimanual therapy in individuals poststroke? A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in The Journal of international medical research, 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
ObjectiveReaching training with error augmentation has recently shown great promise for enhancing bimanual therapy training, using both robotic force feedback (haptics) and visually distorted display elements (graphics) to amplify motor learning.MethodsIn this two-arm, randomized controlled trial, we explored the effect of visual error augmentation alone by visually shifting the paretic limb's cursor in the direction of error. We invited 38 chronic (>8 months postinjury) stroke survivors to practice bimanual reaching for approximately 40 min, 3 days per week for 3 weeks.ResultsThe arm motor section of the Fugl-Meyer score (maximum score, 66 points) increased by an average of 2.2 and was retained at an average of 1.5 at a follow-up evaluation 7-9 weeks (approximately 2 months) later. For chronic stroke survivors, an improvement of ≥5.2 in the arm motor section of the Fugl-Meyer score is considered a clinically meaningful increase. No superiority was detected due to the error augmentation treatment, but other measures of composite abilities (range of motion, bimanual symmetry, and movement time) showed improvements favoring error augmentation.ConclusionsAlthough removing robotic forces led to smaller gains than those reported previously, such touch-free bimanual therapy may prove to be an effective inexpensive automated rehabilitation tool for wider accessibility in therapeutic interventions.
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.