ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2026
Towards routine biomechanical data collection in stroke rehabilitation: a usability comparison of IMU and markerless motion capture systems for functional upper-limb assessments.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective measurement of upper-limb movement quality based on biomechanical data collected in clinical routine has the potential to enable precision neurorehabilitation at scale. However, integrating biomechanical data collection into daily clinical workflows remains challenging. In this exploratory study, we evaluated the usability of two technologies for routine kinematic data collection: an IMU-based version of the instrumented Action Research Arm Test (iARAT-IMU) and a MMC markerless motion capture (MMC) system. First, five physiotherapists independently operated the iARAT-IMU across seven clinical routine assessment sessions at a rehabilitation clinic in Switzerland to quantify learning curves, setup times, and usability. Second, we conducted a preference study in which the same therapists used both, the IMU- and MMC-system, during a standardized drinking task and completed quantitative and qualitative usability assessments focusing on system preference and underlying reasons. Results show that therapists rapidly learned to operate the tablet application for scoring the iARAT; however, the IMU system added approximately 11 min of setup time and sometimes required assistance. In contrast, the MMC workflow required approximately 2 min of additional time - well within the 5-minute maximum indicated a priori by therapists as acceptable for clinical routine and received consistently higher usability ratings. Most therapists preferred this approach due to greater efficiency and reduced patient burden. These findings highlight important design considerations for future digital assessment tools and indicate that MMC systems may offer a more feasible pathway toward routine biomechanical data collection for upper-limb assessments in clinical neurorehabilitation.
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.