Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 399

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Robotic techniques for upper limb evaluation and rehabilitation of stroke patients

Colombo, R., Pisano, F., Micera, S., Mazzone, A., Delconte, C., Carrozza, M.C., Dario, P., Minuco, G.·2005·IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering

Abstract

This paper presents two robot devices for use in the rehabilitation of upper limb movements and reports the quantitative parameters obtained to characterize the rate of improvement, thus allowing a precise monitoring of patient's recovery. A one degree of freedom (DoF) wrist manipulator and a two-DoF elbow-shoulder manipulator were designed using an admittance control strategy; if the patient could not move the handle, the devices completed the motor task. Two groups of chronic post-stroke patients (G1 n = 7, and G2 n = 9) were enrolled in a three week rehabilitation program including standard physical therapy (45 min daily) plus treatment by means of robot devices, respectively, for wrist and elbow-shoulder movements (40 min, twice daily). Both groups were evaluated by means of standard clinical assessment scales and a new robot measured evaluation metrics that included an active movement index quantifying the patient's ability to execute the assigned motor task without robot assistance, the mean velocity, and a movement accuracy index measuring the distance of the executed path from the theoretic one. After treatment, both groups improved their motor deficit and disability. In G1, there was a significant change in the clinical scale values (p < 0.05) and range of motion wrist extension (p < 0.02). G2 showed a significant change in clinical scales (p < 0.01), in strength (p < 0.05) and in the robot measured parameters (p < 0.01). The relationship between robot measured parameters and the clinical assessment scales showed a moderate and significant correlation (r > 0.53 p < 0.03). Our findings suggest that robot-aided neurorehabilitation may improve the motor outcome and disability of chronic post-stroke patients. The new robot measured parameters may provide useful information about the course of treatment and its effectiveness at discharge.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tnsre.2005.848352

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 399

Metadata

Authors
Colombo, R., Pisano, F., Micera, S., Mazzone, A., Delconte, C., Carrozza, M. C., Dario, P., & Minuco, G.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
Published
2005-09
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
311-324
ISSN
  • 1534-4320 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-0210
OpenAlex
W2110171919
Cited by
399
References
3
FWCI
12.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Robotic techniques for upper limb evaluation and rehabilitation of stroke patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tnsre.2005.848352
The paper
Colombo, R., Pisano, F., Micera, S., Mazzone, A., Delconte, C., Carrozza, M. C., Dario, P., & Minuco, G. (2005). Robotic techniques for upper limb evaluation and rehabilitation of stroke patients. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tnsre.2005.848352

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.