ReviewInternational journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation2026
How deep is your recovery? Rethinking true motor recovery versus compensation in neurorehabilitation.
Review in International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Attempts to make a sharp distinction between ‘true’ recovery and compensation create ambiguity about the nature of motor improvement in neurological rehabilitation. This paper proposes a new framework to resolve this dichotomy: a stratified model where recovery is not a binary concept but is instead defined by its depth across the motor system’s multiple layers, from neurons to task performance. Our model frames the motor system as a hierarchy of causally linked strata, ranging from inner physiological layers (e.g. synaptic plasticity) to outer behavioural ones (e.g. task accomplishment). This framework allows motor improvement to be defined as a phenomenon that can occur at different layers, manifesting as a compensation–recovery gradient that propagates from inner-to-outer strata. The model’s central thesis is that the key question is not whether recovery is ‘true’, but how deep it is. We posit that a deeper recovery – one in which improvements in behavioural performance are underpinned by positive changes in inner physiological strata – constitutes a more complete and desirable clinical outcome. When comparing treatments with equivalent behavioural outcomes, those that also result in recovery in deeper physiological strata are superior and should be preferred. Therefore, this model directs neurorehabilitation research and practice toward interventions that also maximise recovery depth rather than focussing solely on behavioural outcomes. Assessing and demonstrating recovery depth requires that clinical psychometrics are complemented by quantitative metrics from instrumented movement analysis and neurophysiology, which can directly probe the inner, physiological strata of the motor system.
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.