ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2025
Responses and reliability of candidate intensity measures to different mental and motor load levels of an upper limb exergame in children and adolescents with neurological diagnoses.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-intensity therapy improves outcomes in (pediatric) neurorehabilitation, yet standardized intensity measures accounting for motor and/or mental demands remain scarce. Objectives: To evaluate the responses and test-retest reliability of heart rate variability (HRV), skin conductance (SC), activity counts and movement repetitions normalized for the maximal capacity (%ACmax and %MOVmax, respectively), and the NASA-TLX across personalized motor and mental load levels in children and adolescents with neurological diagnoses using upper limb exergames. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, participants engaged in two custom exergames at three intensity levels ("very easy," "challenging," "very difficult"), each lasting 3 min. Responses of the candidate intensity measures were analyzed across conditions, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) assessed reliability across two consecutive sessions. Results: 30 children and adolescents with neurological diagnoses aged 9-19 years participated in the study. %MOVmax and NASA-TLX (overall, effort, mental) responded to both mental and motor intensity increases. HRV, %ACmax, and NASA-TLX physical subscale responded to motor load only. SC showed no consistent response. HRV and %ACmax demonstrated the highest reliability (ICC > 0.75), especially under motor conditions. NASA-TLX effort showed potential as a simplified surrogate for the full scale, though with variable reliability. Conclusion: Changes in motor intensity were better captured than changes in mental intensity. Combining HRV, %ACmax, and NASA-TLX effort could offer a multidimensional approach to quantify therapy intensity. However, many measures lacked sufficient reliability or feasibility for clinical implementation. Further research is needed to validate these measures in real-world therapeutic settings and clarify their relationship to individual capacity.
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.