↓ Skip to main content

Functional impacts of exoskeleton-based rehabilitation in chronic stroke: multi-joint versus single-joint robotic training

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Functional impacts of exoskeleton-based rehabilitation in chronic stroke: multi-joint versus single-joint robotic training
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/1743-0003-10-113
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giuliana Grimaldi, Mario Manto

Abstract

Stroke is a major cause of disability in the world. The activities of upper limb segments are often compromised following a stroke, impairing most daily tasks. Robotic training is now considered amongst the rehabilitation methods applied to promote functional recovery. However, the implementation of robotic devices remains a major challenge for the bioengineering and clinical community. Latest exoskeletons with multiple degrees of freedom (DOF) may become particularly attractive, because of their low apparent inertia, the multiple actuators generating large torques, and the fact that patients can move the arm in the normal wide workspace. A recent study published in JNER by Milot and colleagues underlines that training with a 6-DOF exoskeleton impacts positively on motor function in patients being in stable phase of recovery after a stroke. Also, multi-joint robotic training was not found to be superior to single-joint robotic training. Although it is often considered that rehabilitation should start from simple movements to complex functional movements as the recovery evolves, this study challenges this widespread notion whose scientific basis has remained uncertain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
India 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Taiwan 1 1%
Unknown 78 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 20%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Researcher 5 6%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 22 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 12%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 22 26%
Unknown 13 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 February 2015.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#1,044
of 1,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,617
of 320,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,499 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.