The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke
Abstract
Objective To compare the effects of robot-assisted movement training with conventional techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke.Design Randomized controlled trial, 6-month follow-up.Setting A Department of Veterans Affairs rehabilitation research and development center.Participants Consecutive sample of 27 subjects with chronic hemiparesis (>6mo after cerebrovascular accident) randomly allocated to group.Interventions All subjects received twenty-four 1-hour sessions over 2 months. Subjects in the robot group practiced shoulder and elbow movements while assisted by a robot manipulator. Subjects in the control group received neurodevelopmental therapy (targeting proximal upper limb function) and 5 minutes of exposure to the robot in each session.Main outcome measures Fugl-Meyer assessment of motor impairment, FIMtrade mark instrument, and biomechanic measures of strength and reaching kinematics. Clinical evaluations were performed by a therapist blinded to group assignments.Results Compared with the control group, the robot group had larger improvements in the proximal movement portion of the Fugl-Meyer test after 1 month of treatment (P<.05) and also after 2 months of treatment (P<.05). The robot group had larger gains in strength (P<.02) and larger increases in reach extent (P<.01) after 2 months of treatment. At the 6-month follow-up, the groups no longer differed in terms of the Fugl-Meyer test (P>.30); however, the robot group had larger improvements in the FIM (P<.04).Conclusions Compared with conventional treatment, robot-assisted movements had advantages in terms of clinical and biomechanical measures. Further research into the use of robotic manipulation for motor rehabilitation is justified.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences
Guitton, H., & Siegel, S. (1958) · Revue économique · doi:10.2307/3498751 · Cited by 35,279
Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.
Whitfield, J. W., & Siegel, S. (1957) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2342828 · Cited by 8,017
Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data
Booth, D. E., & Schafer, J. L. (2000) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1271466 · Cited by 5,627
The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance
Fugl-Meyer, A., Jääskö, L., Leyman, I., Olsson, S., & Steglind, S. (1975) · Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.2340/1650197771331 · Cited by 5,564
Understanding motor events: a neurophysiological study
di Pellegrino, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (1992) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/bf00230027 · Cited by 3,539
Nonparametric Statistics : for the Behavioral Sciences
Siegel, S. (1956) · UCLA - Biblioteca de Ciencias y Tecnologia Felix Morales Bueno · Cited by 3,314
Nudo, R. J., Wise, B. M., SiFuentes, F., & Milliken, G. W. (1996) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.272.5269.1791 · Cited by 1,911
The Barthel ADL Index: A standard measure of physical disability?
Wade, D. T., & Collin, C. (1988) · International Disability Studies · doi:10.3109/09638288809164105 · Cited by 1,587
Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke.
Taub, E., Miller, N. E., Novack, T. A., Cook, E. W., Fleming, W. C., Nepomuceno, C., Connell, J., & Crago, J. E. (1993) · PubMed · Cited by 1,557
Treatment-Induced Cortical Reorganization After Stroke in Humans
Liepert, J., Bauder, H., Miltner, W. H. R., Taub, E., & Weiller, C. (2000) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.31.6.1210 · Cited by 1,406
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Burgar, 1999, Rehabilitation of upper limb dysfunction in chronic hemiplegia: robot-assisted movements vs. conventional therapy [abstract], Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 80, 1121
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review
Langhorne, P., Coupar, F., & Pollock, A. (2009) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(09)70150-4 · Cited by 2,343
Human–Robot Interaction: A Survey
Goodrich, M. A., & Schultz, A. C. (2008) · Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1561/1100000005 · Cited by 1,541
Effects of Robot-Assisted Therapy on Upper Limb Recovery After Stroke: A Systematic Review
Kwakkel, G., Kollen, B. J., & Krebs, H. I. (2007) · Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · doi:10.1177/1545968307305457 · Cited by 1,503
“The robot enables the bilateral practice of a 3-DoF shoulder-elbow movement, whereby the nonparetic arm guides the paretic arm.(12) The InMotion(2) Shoulder-Elbow Robot, which is the commercial version of MIT-MANUS, has 2 DoF and provides shoulderelbow training in the horizontal plane with a supported forearm.”
BackgroundRobot-Assisted Therapy for Long-Term Upper-Limb Impairment after Stroke
Lo, A. C., Guarino, P. D., Richards, L. G., Haselkorn, J. K., Wittenberg, G. F., Federman, D. G., Ringer, R. J., Wagner, T. H., Krebs, H. I., Volpe, B. T., et al. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0911341 · Cited by 1,397
“Sleep disorder 9 (18) 12 (24) 11 (39) Glaucoma or cataract 16 (33) 10 (20) 4 (14) Myocardial infarction 9 (18) 8 (16) 8 (29) Congestive heart failure 9 (18) 7 (14) 6 (21) Cancer 8 (16) 7 (14) 5 (18) Peripheral vascular disease 5 (10) 3 (6) 5 (18) Chronic pain syndrome 3 (6) 4 (8) 6 (21) Angina 2 (4) 3 (6) 3 (11) Chron…”
InfluentialMotor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation
Krakauer, J. W. (2006) · Current Opinion in Neurology · doi:10.1097/01.wco.0000200544.29915.cc · Cited by 1,282
Metadata
- Authors
- Lum, P. S., Burgar, C. G., Shor, P. C., Majmundar, M., & Van der Loos, M.
- Affiliations
- Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
- ORCID
- Lum, Peter S.
- Venue
- Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-07
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 952-959
- ISSN
- 0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2113585314
- Cited by
- 1,159
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 57 · 2018: 67 · 2017: 61 · 2016: 81 · 2015: 58 · 2014: 62 · 2013: 68 · 2012: 55
- FWCI
- 28.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Keywords
- stroke rehabilitation, upper limb motor function, hemiparesis, neurodevelopmental treatment, Fugl-Meyer Assessment, FIM, arm muscle strength, reaching kinematics, chronic stroke
- MeSH terms
- Stroke Rehabilitation, Aged, Analysis of Variance, Arm, Biomechanical Phenomena, Chronic Disease, Feedback, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Muscle Contraction, Paresis, Robotics, Stress, Mechanical, Motion Therapy, Continuous Passive, Range of Motion, Articular, Treatment Outcome, Sample Size, 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
