Correction: Statistical measures of motor, sensory and cognitive performance across repeated robot-based testing

Simmatis, Leif; Early, Spencer; Moore, Kimberly D.; Appaqaq, Simone; Scott, Stephen H.

doi:10.1186/s12984-022-01120-5

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When we examined individual participant performance, however, we found evidence that VGR task scores commonly changed from 12- to 26-weeks post-stroke, with some participants improving, and others deteriorating. Established thresholds for the VGR task [ 25 ] revealed that over 10% of all individual participant z-score changes between 12- and 26-weeks post-stroke were significant for several parameters (reaction time, initial direction error, movement time, see Additional file 4 : Table S3). We confirmed that these results were not due to chance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Task parameters were transformed into standardized z-units using a model of neurological healthy control participants [ 25 ] (For details, see https://kinarm.com/kinarm-products/kinarm-standard-tests ). The distribution of task parameter values from these control individuals were transformed into a standard normal distribution (mean = 0, standard deviation = 1) using Box-Cox equations with linear regressions to consider the influence of sex, handedness, and age on performance.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To quantify overall performance on the VGR task, a z-Task Score was also calculated for each participant at every time point using 9 parameters captured by the Kinarm (see Additional file 1 : Methods for the 6 parameter descriptions not listed above). A description of this mathematical process has been described previously [ 25 ] (For details, see https://kinarm.com/kinarm-products/kinarm-standard-tests ). These z-Task Scores used a model derived from neurologically healthy individuals (n = 321, aged 18–84 years old) to transform the root-sum squares of these nine task parameter values into a standard normal distribution.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, we had only a few participants with severe stroke, and only 6 left-handed participants. Also, the individual significant change thresholds used were established through repeat testing of healthy controls [ 25 ], and higher variance between repeated testing may be present in stroke survivors. We did not collect the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, which has been used in many of the previous studies on the ipsilesional arm.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Impairments of the ipsilesional upper-extremity in the first 6-months post-stroke

Smith

Scott

Semrau

et al. 2023

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Ipsilesional motor impairments of the arm are common after stroke. Previous studies have suggested that severity of contralesional arm impairment and/or hemisphere of lesion may predict the severity of ipsilesional arm impairments. Historically, these impairments have been assessed using clinical scales, which are less sensitive than robot-based measures of sensorimotor performance. Therefore, the objective of this study was to characterize progression of ipsilesional arm motor impairments using a robot-based assessment of motor function over the first 6-months post-stroke and quantify their relationship to (1) contralesional arm impairment severity and (2) stroke-lesioned hemisphere. Methods A total of 106 participants with first-time, unilateral stroke completed a unilateral assessment of arm motor impairment (visually guided reaching task) using the Kinarm Exoskeleton. Participants completed the assessment along with a battery of clinical measures with both ipsilesional and contralesional arms at 1-, 6-, 12-, and 26-weeks post-stroke. Results Robotic assessment of arm motor function revealed a higher incidence of ipsilesional arm impairment than clinical measures immediately post-stroke. The incidence of ipsilesional arm impairments decreased from 47 to 14% across the study period. Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests revealed that ipsilesional arm impairment severity, as measured by our task, was not related to which hemisphere was lesioned. The severity of ipsilesional arm impairments was variable but displayed moderate significant relationships to contralesional arm impairment severity with some robot-based parameters. Conclusions Ipsilesional arm impairments were variable. They displayed relationships of varying strength with contralesional impairments and were not well predicted by lesioned hemisphere. With standard clinical care, 86% of ipsilesional impairments recovered by 6-months post-stroke.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations