The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A novel approach to stroke rehabilitation: Robot-aided sensorimotor stimulation
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In patients with stroke, the authors tested whether additional sensorimotor training of the paralyzed or paretic upper limb delivered by a robotic device enhanced motor outcome. METHODS: Fifty-six patients with stroke and hemiparesis or hemiplegia received standard poststroke multidisciplinary rehabilitation, and were randomly assigned either to receive robotic training (at least 25 hours) or exposure to the robotic device without training. Outcomes were assessed by the same masked raters, before treatment began and at the end of treatment, with the upper extremity component of the Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment, the Motor Status score, the Motor Power score, and Functional Independence Measurement. RESULT: The robot treatment and control group had comparable clinical characteristics, lesion size, and pretreatment impairment scores. By the end of treatment, the robot-trained group demonstrated improvement in motor outcome for the trained shoulder and elbow (Motor Power score, p < 0.001; Motor Status score, p < 0. 01) that did not generalize to untrained wrist and hand. The robot-treated group also demonstrated significantly improved functional outcome (Functional Independence Measurement-Motor, p < 0. 01). CONCLUSION: Robot-delivered quantitative and reproducible sensorimotor training enhanced the motor performance of the exercised shoulder and elbow. The robot-treated group also demonstrated improved functional outcome. When added to standard multidisciplinary rehabilitation, robotics provides novel therapeutic strategies that focus on impairment reduction and improved motor performance.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
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 2,319
Effects of Robot-Assisted Therapy on Upper Limb Recovery After Stroke: A Systematic Review
Kwakkel, G., Kollen, B. J., & Krebs, H. I. (2008) · Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair · doi:10.1177/1545968307305457 · Cited by 1,503
Self-citationWhat 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
Lum, P. S., Burgar, C. G., Shor, P. C., Majmundar, M., & Van der Loos, M. (2002) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1053/apmr.2001.33101 · Cited by 1,159
Virtual reality-enhanced stroke rehabilitation
Jack, D., Boian, R., Merians, A. S., Tremaine, M., Burdea, G. C., Adamovich, S. V., Recce, M., & Poizner, H. (2001) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · doi:10.1109/7333.948460 · Cited by 733
Metadata
- Authors
- Volpe, B. T., Krebs, H. I., Hogan, N., Edelstein, L., Diels, C., & Aisen, M.
- Venue
- Neurology
- Published
- 2000-05-23
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1938-1944
- ISSN
- 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-632X
- OpenAlex
- W2001274164
- Cited by
- 582
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 23.64
- 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: A novel approach to stroke rehabilitation: Robot-aided sensorimotor stimulation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/wnl.54.10.1938
- The paper
- Volpe, B. T., Krebs, H. I., Hogan, N., Edelstein, L., Diels, C., & Aisen, M. (2000). A novel approach to stroke rehabilitation: Robot-aided sensorimotor stimulation. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.54.10.1938
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.