↓ Skip to main content

The effects of error-augmentation versus error-reduction paradigms in robotic therapy to enhance upper extremity performance and recovery post-stroke: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 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
The effects of error-augmentation versus error-reduction paradigms in robotic therapy to enhance upper extremity performance and recovery post-stroke: a systematic review
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12984-018-0408-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Le Yu Liu, Youlin Li, Anouk Lamontagne

Abstract

Despite upper extremity function playing a crucial role in maintaining one's independence in activities of daily living, upper extremity impairments remain one of the most prevalent post-stroke deficits. To enhance the upper extremity motor recovery and performance among stroke survivors, two training paradigms in the fields of robotics therapy involving modifying haptic feedback were proposed: the error-augmentation (EA) and error-reduction (ER) paradigms. There is a lack of consensus, however, as to which of the two paradigms yields superior training effects. This systematic review aimed to determine (i) whether EA is more effective than conventional repetitive practice; (ii) whether ER is more effective than conventional repetitive practice and; (iii) whether EA is more effective than ER in improving post-stroke upper extremity motor recovery and performance. The study search and selection process as well as the ratings of methodological quality of the articles were conducted by two authors separately, and the results were then compared and discussed among the two reviewers. Findings were analyzed and synthesized using the level of evidence. By August 1st 2017, 269 articles were found after searching 6 databases, and 13 were selected based on criteria such as sample size, type of participants recruited, type of interventions used, etc. Results suggest, with a moderate level of evidence, that EA is overall more effective than conventional repetitive practice (motor recovery and performance) and ER (motor performance only), while ER appears to be no more effective than conventional repetitive practice. However, intervention effects as measured using clinical outcomes were under most instance not 'clinically meaningful' and effect sizes were modest. While stronger evidence is required to further support the efficacy of error modification therapies, the influence of factors related to the delivery of the intervention (such as intensity, duration) and personal factors (such as stroke severity and time of stroke onset) deserves further investigations as well.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users 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 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 188 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 15%
Student > Master 26 14%
Researcher 21 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Other 8 4%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 53 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 37 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 10%
Neuroscience 12 6%
Computer Science 5 3%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 63 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 July 2018.
All research outputs
#7,256,451
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#459
of 1,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,187
of 328,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#11
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,294 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 328,026 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.