Back

Does visual error augmentation offer advantages during bimanual therapy in individuals post stroke? A randomized controlled trial.

Celian, C.; Puzzi, T.; Verardi, M.; Olavarria, E.; Porta, F.; Pedrocchi, A. L. G.; Patton, J. L.

2025-06-06 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.1101/2025.06.04.25328824
Show abstract

OBJECTIVEReaching training with error augmentation (EA) has recently shown great promise for enhancing bimanual therapeutic training, using both robotic forces feedback (haptics) and a visually distorted display elements (graphics) to amplify motor learning. METHODSHere in a two-arm, randomized controlled trial we explored the effect of visual EA alone by visually shifting the paretic limbs cursor in the direction of error. We invited 38 chronic (> 8 months post injury) stroke survivors to practice bimanual reaching for approximately 40 minutes, 3 days per week, for three weeks. RESULTSArm motor section of the Fugl-Meyer (AMFM; maximum score 66 points) increased an average of 2.2 and retained to a follow-up evaluation 7-9 weeks (about 2 months) later (average 1.5). Clinically meaningful increase for AMFM for chronic stroke survivors is 5.2 points. No superiority was detected due to the EA treatment, but other measures on the composite abilities (range of motion, bimanual symmetry, and movement time) showed improvements favoring EA. CONCLUSIONSWhile removing robot forces led to smaller gains than previous work, such touch-free bimanual therapy may still prove to be an effective inexpensive automated rehabilitation tool for wider accessibility in therapy interventions. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID#NCT03300141).

Matching journals

1
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 14 published papers
#1
147× avg
2
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
SAGE Publications · based on 11 published papers
#1
124× avg
3
Frontiers in Neurology
Frontiers Media SA · based on 74 published papers
Top 0.8%
21× avg
4
PLOS ONE
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 1737 published papers
Top 46%
11.2%
5
Stroke
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) · based on 29 published papers
Top 1%
27× avg
6
Gait & Posture
Elsevier BV · based on 11 published papers
Top 0.5%
49× avg
7
NeuroImage: Clinical
Elsevier BV · based on 77 published papers
Top 4%
6.2× avg
8
npj Digital Medicine
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 85 published papers
Top 9%
2.2× avg
9
Scientific Reports
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 701 published papers
Top 70%
1.7%
10
Trials
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 24 published papers
Top 2%
11× avg
11
Journal of Neural Engineering
IOP Publishing · based on 19 published papers
Top 1%
14× avg
12
F1000Research
F1000 Research Ltd · based on 28 published papers
Top 2%
7.9× avg
13
Nature Communications
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 483 published papers
Top 35%
1.3%
14
BMJ Open
BMJ · based on 553 published papers
Top 45%
1.3%
15
Human Brain Mapping
Wiley · based on 53 published papers
Top 6%
2.7× avg
16
Brain Stimulation
Elsevier BV · based on 27 published papers
Top 2%
7.3× avg
17
Neurology
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) · based on 38 published papers
Top 6%
2.7× avg
18
Scientific Data
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 30 published papers
Top 4%
4.9× avg
19
Clinical Neurophysiology
Elsevier BV · based on 19 published papers
Top 2%
7.5× avg