The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Chronic stroke motor recovery: duration of active neuromuscular stimulation
Abstract
Active neuromuscular stimulation is an effective behavioral intervention for motor recovery improvements after a stroke. However, the most effective active neuromuscular stimulation durations have not been determined. The present experiment investigated active stimulation durations (0, 5, and 10 s) coupled with bilateral movements on progress toward motor recovery in wrist and finger extension. Twenty-six stroke survivors with chronic hemiparesis were randomly assigned to the stimulation duration groups, and subjects completed 4 days of rehabilitation training over a 2-week period. Mixed design analyses of variance on the Box and Block scores, chronometric reaction times, and force modulation of the sustained muscle contraction task revealed distinct motor recovery improvements for both the 5 and 10 s stimulation duration groups in comparison to the 0 s duration control group. Further, the number of blocks moved by the 10-s duration group exceeded those moved by the 5-s duration group. In conclusion, the 5 and 10 s duration active stimulation/bilateral movement groups decreased residual motor dysfunctions that persisted beyond 12 months post stroke.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Besides, doctors and therapists are overwhelmed with the workload with sessions lasting more than half an hour -on average -with a cadence of many sessions per week [27].”
From Wearable sensors and machine learning in post-stroke rehabilitation assessment: A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [27]
Citations
Cites
(1982) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/0166-2236(82)90076-5 · Cited by 9,150
The co-ordination and regulation of movements
Bernshteĭn, N. A. (1969) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/0006-8993(69)90278-9 · Cited by 5,087
Adult Norms for the Box and Block Test of Manual Dexterity
Mathiowetz, V. G., Volland, G., Kashman, N., & Weber, K. (1985) · American Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.5014/ajot.39.6.386 · Cited by 2,105
Dynamic Pattern Generation in Behavioral and Neural Systems
Schöner, G., & Kelso, J. A. S. (1988) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3281253 · Cited by 1,237
Motor Development in Children: Aspects of Coordination and Control
(1986) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-009-4460-2 · Cited by 775
Principles of Neural Science, 4th ed.
Schultz, S. K. (2001) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.158.4.662 · Cited by 752
Whitall, J., Waller, S. M., Silver, K. H. C., & Macko, R. F. (2000) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.31.10.2390 · Cited by 622
On the Nature of Human Interlimb Coordination
Kelso, J. A. S., Southard, D. L., & Goodman, D. (1979) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.424729 · Cited by 541
Defining post-stroke recovery: implications for design and interpretation of drug trials
Duncan, P. W., Lai, S. M., & Keighley, J. D. (2000) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/s0028-3908(00)00003-4 · Cited by 417
Plasticity of the human motor cortex and recovery from stroke
Hallett, M. (2001) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0165-0173(01)00092-3 · Cited by 368
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
What Is the Evidence for Physical Therapy Poststroke? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Veerbeek, J. M., van Wegen, E., van Peppen, R., van der Wees, P. J., Hendriks, E., Rietberg, M., & Kwakkel, G. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087987 · Cited by 1,203
Wearable sensors and machine learning in post-stroke rehabilitation assessment: A systematic review
Boukhennoufa, I., Zhai, X., Utti, V., Jackson, J., & McDonald-Maier, K. D. (2022) · Biomedical Signal Processing and Control · doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2021.103197 · Cited by 180
“Besides, doctors and therapists are overwhelmed with the workload with sessions lasting more than half an hour - on average - with a cadence of many sessions per week [27].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Cauraugh, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cauraugh, J
- ORCID
- Cauraugh, J
- Venue
- Journal of the Neurological Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-11-15
- Volume
- 215
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 13-19
- ISSN
- 0022-510X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2030270392
- Cited by
- 111
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 5.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the Neurological Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
- Keywords
- chronic stroke, motor recovery, stimulation duration, hemiparesis, bilateral movement, stroke rehabilitation, Box and Block Test, reaction time
- MeSH terms
- Stroke Rehabilitation, Aged, Analysis of Variance, Chronic Disease, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuromuscular Junction, Paresis, Motor Skills Disorders, Recovery of Function, Stroke
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
