Cited by 12Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionGait Recognition and Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Identification of Subtypes of Post-Stroke and Neurotypical Gait Behaviors Using Neural Network Analysis of Gait Cycle Kinematics

Open access
Kuch, Andrian, Schweighofer, Nicolas, Finley, James M., McKenzie, Alison, Wen, Yuxin, Sánchez, Natalia·2025·IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Heterogeneous types of gait impairment are common post-stroke. Studies used supervised and unsupervised machine learning on discrete biomechanical features to summarize the gait cycle and identify common patterns of gait behaviors. However, discrete features cannot account for temporal variations that occur during gait. Here, we propose a novel machine-learning pipeline to identify subgroups of gait behaviors post-stroke using kinematic time series data. Methods: We analyzed ankle and knee kinematic data during treadmill walking data in 39 individuals post-stroke and 28 neurotypical controls. The data were first input into a supervised dual-stage Convolutional Neural Network-Temporal Convolutional Network, trained to extract temporal and spatial gait features. Then, we used these features to find clusters of different gait behaviors using unsupervised time series k-means. We repeated the clustering process using 10,000 bootstrap training data samples and a Gaussian Mixture Model to identify stable clusters representative of our dataset. Finally, we assessed the kinematic differences between the identified clusters using 1D statistical parametric mapping ANOVA. We then compared gait spatiotemporal and clinical characteristics between clusters using one-way ANOVA. Results: We obtained five clusters: two clusters of neurotypical individuals (C1 and C2) and three clusters of individuals post-stroke (S1, S2, S3). C1 had kinematics that resembled the normative gait pattern. Individuals in C2 had a shorter stride time than C1. Individuals in S1 had mild impairment and walked with increased bilateral knee flexion during the loading response. Individuals in S2 had moderate impairment, were the slowest among the clusters, took shorter steps, had increased knee flexion during stance bilaterally and reduced paretic knee flexion during swing. Individuals in S3 had mild impairment, asymmetric swing time, had increased ankle abduction during the gait cycle and reduced dorsiflexion bilaterally during loading response and stance. Every individual was assigned to a cluster with a cluster membership likelihood above 93%. Conclusions: Our results indicate that joint kinematics in individuals post-stroke are distinct from controls, even in those individuals with mild impairment. The three subgroups post-stroke showed distinct kinematic impairments during specific phases in the gait cycle, providing additional information to clinicians for gait retraining interventions.

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.2025.3568325

Cites

2 of 2 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. 10.1093/brain/102.2.405 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/S0966-6362(02)00165-0 · DOI
  3. 10.1161/01.STR.26.6.982 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1161/str.0000000000000098 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1177/15459683231212864 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/0966-6362(96)01063-6 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2022.03.007 · DOI
  8. 10.1080/03091902.2020.1822940 · DOI
  9. 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2811415 · DOI
  10. 10.1371/journal.pone.0304558 · DOI
  11. 10.1098/rsif.2022.0402 · DOI
  12. 10.1007/978-3-031-46005-0_24 · DOI
  13. 10.1038/s41598-019-38748-8 · DOI
  14. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011556 · DOI
  15. 10.1371/journal.pone.0192345 · DOI
  16. 10.32614/RJ-2019-023 · DOI
  17. Hastie, 2009, The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, 2, 1
  18. 10.1177/15459683211019346 · DOI
  19. 10.3389/fneur.2022.1032417 · DOI
  20. 10.3138/ptc.41.6.304 · DOI
  21. 10.1080/09638280400008982 · DOI
  22. 10.2340/1650197771331 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.589739 · DOI
  24. 10.2307/1419876 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2004.06.009 · DOI
  26. 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00251 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.10.002 · DOI
  28. 10.1242/jeb.149450 · DOI
  29. 10.1152/jn.00416.2020 · DOI
  30. 10.1371/journal.pone.0254319 · DOI
  31. Kuch, 2024, Code Repository
  32. 10.1109/TNSRE.2020.2977049 · DOI
  33. Bai, 2018, An empirical evaluation of generic convolutional and recurrent networks for sequence modeling, arXiv:1803.01271 · arXiv
  34. 10.1109/18.119724 · DOI
  35. 10.1088/1757-899X/336/1/012017 · DOI
  36. 10.7717/peerj.2652 · DOI
  37. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.03.008 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1007/BF01908075 · DOI · Paper page
  39. 10.7717/peerj.4640 · DOI
  40. 10.1186/s13643-019-1063-z · DOI
  41. 10.1016/j.pmrj.2013.12.017 · DOI
  42. 10.1016/j.neucli.2015.09.005 · DOI
  43. 10.3389/fneur.2018.00564 · DOI
  44. 10.1310/JB16-V04F-JAL5-H1UV · DOI
  45. 10.1177/0269215506070315 · DOI
  46. 10.3389/fnhum.2021.762223 · DOI
  47. 10.1155/2018/2321045 · DOI
  48. 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2012.08.005 · DOI
  49. 10.1016/j.expneurol.2012.08.031 · DOI
  50. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.08.014 · DOI
  51. 10.1109/TNSRE.2013.2265887 · DOI
  52. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2022.111049 · DOI
  53. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.03.189 · DOI
  54. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011462 · DOI
  55. 10.1177/0269215513486497 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Kuch, A., Schweighofer, N., Finley, J. M., McKenzie, A., Wen, Y., & Sánchez, N.
Affiliations
  • Chapman University (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Sánchez, Natalia
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
Published
2025
Volume
33
Pages
1927-1938
ISSN
  • 1534-4320 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-0210
OpenAlex
W4410204317
Cited by
12
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 4
FWCI
4.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Chapman University Digital Commons (Chapman University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
NIH (NCMRR R03HD107630, NCATS R03TR004248, KL2TR001854)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Gait Recognition and Analysis
Keywords
post-stroke gait, knee flexion, ankle dorsiflexion, stride time, paretic limb, non-paretic limb, convolutional neural network feature extraction, temporal convolutional network

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