ReviewFrontiers in neurology
A narrative review of AI-driven stroke rehabilitation systems through the lens of human motor learning.
Review in Frontiers in neurology. 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
Introduction: Stroke represents a leading global cause of disability, often causing motor impairments that diminish quality of life. Neurorehabilitation that leverages human motor learning (HML) theories is crucial for post-stroke recovery. Therapists guide repetitive practice that supports re-learning, and they adjust assistance to individual needs and progress. Robot-assisted rehabilitation has advanced this approach, and recent work shows AI-driven systems can improve adaptability to patient behavior beyond earlier technologies. However, notably few systems aim to explicitly replicate therapist assistance from the perspective that physical assistance is a motor skill in itself. Methodology: This narrative review examines advances in AI-driven stroke rehabilitation, analyzing how systems facilitate HML within patients and how their models approximate HML mechanisms. By breaking down the four core HML processes to their essentials, using Marr's tri-level hypothesis, we compare machine learning models used within rehabilitation systems to the HML processes. Results: Many of the reviewed systems appear to primarily facilitate use-dependent and sensory-prediction error-based learning, with limited facilitation of reinforcement learning or strategy-based learning. Explicit modeling of therapist HML within control frameworks appears relatively rare. Implicitly, many of the reviewed AI systems functionally represent one or two HML processes. Conclusion: Current research often considers HML primarily in patients, whereas therapists' own HML likely underpins the robustness and adaptability of clinical assistance. Interpreting the reviewed rehabilitation systems through this lens highlights opportunities for therapist-inspired multi-process controllers, improved benchmarking with clinical scales, longitudinal retention studies, and AI-driven closed-loop neuromodulation to enhance personalization, adaptability, and outcomes, and to support clinical translation into routine practice.
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.