Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2026
Temporal synchrony promotes motor recovery and ipsilesional cortical reorganization in BCI-based stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report 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
backgroundThe therapeutic mechanisms of brain-computer interface (BCI) rehabilitation remain partially understood. Specifically, it is unclear whether functional gains are driven primarily by active neural engagement or strictly by the temporal contingency between motor intention and sensory feedback. This study aimed to deconstruct the BCI paradigm to isolate the specific contributions of these core components to functional recovery and cortical reorganization in subacute stroke.
methodsSeventy-seven subacute stroke patients were randomized into three intervention arms. Group C (synchronous) received robotic assistance strictly contingent on real-time detection of task engagement during motor imagery; Group B (asynchronous) performed identical motor imagery tasks but received temporally uncoupled robotic assistance; and Group A (sham) received sham motor imagery detection and preset passive robotic assistance. The intervention lasted for 3 weeks. The primary clinical outcome was Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) scores. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) was included as an exploratory neuroimaging measure to provide preliminary information on cortical responses associated with the intervention.
resultsSixty-eight participants were included in the final analysis. After adjustment for baseline values, Group C showed significantly higher post-intervention FMA-UE scores than both Group A (adjusted mean difference = 7.47, 95% CI [1.94, 13.00], P = 0.004) and Group B (adjusted mean difference = 9.72, 95% CI [4.14, 15.30], P < 0.001). Group C also showed significantly higher post-intervention MBI scores than both Group A (adjusted mean difference = 21.15, 95% CI [12.49, 29.81], P < 0.001) and Group B (adjusted mean difference = 21.27, 95% CI [12.42, 30.12], P < 0.001). Exploratory neuroimaging analyses showed that only the change in ipsilesional sensorimotor cortex laterality index during motor imagery was significantly correlated with motor improvement (ρ = 0.404, P = 0.002, q = 0.012), whereas no resting-state or task-related fNIRS group comparisons remained significant after false discovery rate correction.
conclusionsSynchronous BCI training was associated with superior clinical improvement compared with asynchronous and sham conditions in subacute stroke. The benefit was observed only when robotic assistance was contingent on real-time task performance, despite all three groups receiving comparable device exposure and motor imagery instruction. The neuroimaging results remain exploratory and should be confirmed in larger studies with prospectively defined imaging endpoints. Trial registration This trial was registered under the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2400091197) and was prospectively registered on October 21, 2024. Ethics Approval: Approved by the Ethics Committee of Xuzhou Rehabilitation Hospital (XK-LSW-20241017-009).
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.