Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 581

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rehabilitation of gait after stroke: a review towards a top-down approach

Open access
Belda-Lois, Juan-Manuel, Mena-del Horno, Silvia, Bermejo-Bosch, Ignacio, Moreno, Juan C, Pons, José L, Farina, Dario, Iosa, Marco, Molinari, Marco, Tamburella, Federica, Ramos, Ander, Caria, Andrea, Solis-Escalante, Teodoro, Brunner, Clemens, Rea, Massimiliano·2011·Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

Abstract

This document provides a review of the techniques and therapies used in gait rehabilitation after stroke. It also examines the possible benefits of including assistive robotic devices and brain-computer interfaces in this field, according to a top-down approach, in which rehabilitation is driven by neural plasticity.The methods reviewed comprise classical gait rehabilitation techniques (neurophysiological and motor learning approaches), functional electrical stimulation (FES), robotic devices, and brain-computer interfaces (BCI).From the analysis of these approaches, we can draw the following conclusions. Regarding classical rehabilitation techniques, there is insufficient evidence to state that a particular approach is more effective in promoting gait recovery than other. Combination of different rehabilitation strategies seems to be more effective than over-ground gait training alone. Robotic devices need further research to show their suitability for walking training and their effects on over-ground gait. The use of FES combined with different walking retraining strategies has shown to result in improvements in hemiplegic gait. Reports on non-invasive BCIs for stroke recovery are limited to the rehabilitation of upper limbs; however, some works suggest that there might be a common mechanism which influences upper and lower limb recovery simultaneously, independently of the limb chosen for the rehabilitation therapy. Functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) enables researchers to detect signals from specific regions of the cortex during performance of motor activities for the development of future BCIs. Future research would make possible to analyze the impact of rehabilitation on brain plasticity, in order to adapt treatment resources to meet the needs of each patient and to optimize the recovery process.

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 · 10.1186/1743-0003-8-66

Cites

17 of 17 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 17 references

Cited by

See all 581

Metadata

Authors
Belda-Lois, J.-M., Mena-del Horno, S., Bermejo-Bosch, I., Moreno, J. C., Pons, J. L., Farina, D., Iosa, M., Molinari, M., Tamburella, F., Ramos, A., Caria, A., Solis-Escalante, T., Brunner, C., & Rea, M.
Venue
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Published
2011
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
66
ISSN
1743-0003 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2126185017
Cited by
581
References
17
FWCI
26.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Rehabilitation of gait after stroke: a review towards a top-down approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1743-0003-8-66
The paper
Belda-Lois, J.-M., Mena-del Horno, S., Bermejo-Bosch, I., Moreno, J. C., Pons, J. L., Farina, D., Iosa, M., Molinari, M., Tamburella, F., Ramos, A., Caria, A., Solis-Escalante, T., Brunner, C., & Rea, M. (2011). Rehabilitation of gait after stroke: a review towards a top-down approach. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-8-66

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.