ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2026
Characterizing visual compensation for proprioceptive impairments during the subacute phase of stroke.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProprioception, the sense of limb position and movement, is impaired in over 50% of stroke survivors. Proprioceptive impairments are known to impede motor recovery, yet proprioception is rarely a focus of stroke rehabilitation. One strategy aimed at facilitating proprioceptive recovery and/or compensation is to have patients look at their arms while performing tasks. We have previously shown that many stroke survivors cannot use vision to compensate for impaired proprioception at ~ 10 days post-stroke, but it is unknown if compensation occurs at later timepoints. We aimed to characterize performance of stroke survivors on a position sense task with and without vision of their limbs over the first 6 months post-stroke.
methodsWe used a robotic exoskeleton to assess 89 stroke survivors at 2, 6, 12, and 26 weeks post-stroke on an arm position matching task, first without and then with vision of the upper limb. Three measures of position sense (Variability, Contraction/Expansion, and Shift) were used to classify participants into one of five groups: normal (unimpaired in both conditions), full compensation (impaired without vision, unimpaired with vision), partial compensation (impaired in both conditions but significantly improved with vision), absent compensation (impaired in both conditions and did not significantly improve with vision), and maladaptive compensation (unimpaired without vision but impaired with vision).
resultsOver time, all measures of position sense improved at a group level in both no vision and vision conditions. While more participants were able to compensate over time for proprioceptive deficits using vision, up to 26% of participants displayed absent or maladaptive compensation at 2 weeks post-stroke, and up to 11% of participants displayed these behaviours at 26 weeks post-stroke. Notably, at 26 weeks post-stroke, up to 22% of participants still had impaired task performance in both the no vision and vision conditions.
conclusionsMany stroke survivors could not use vision to compensate for proprioceptive deficits during the first 6 months post-stroke. This may be due to visual problems or issues integrating visual and proprioceptive information. Greater understanding of vision, proprioception, and their integration during the subacute phase of stroke is needed to target treatments to improve stroke recovery.
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.