{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04609595484477893, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00940733772342427, 'mean_word_length': 4.689839572192513, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative Assessment of Two Robot-Assisted Therapies for the Upper Extremity in People With Chronic Stroke

OBJECTIVE. We investigated the effects on motor and daily function of robot-assisted therapies in people with chronic stroke using the Bi-Manu-Track (BMT) and InMotion 3.0 (IMT) compared with control treatment (CT). METHOD. In this comparative efficacy trial, 30 participants were randomized to receive BMT, IMT, or CT. Outcome measures included the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), Motor Activity Log (MAL), and Medical Research Council (MRC) scale. RESULTS. The IMT group improved more in FMA and proximal MAS scores than the BMT group (both ps < .01) and the CT group (p < .01 and p = .03, respectively). The IMT and BMT groups showed clinically relevant improvements after treatment on the MRC rather than the MAL. CONCLUSION. The results indicate that the IMT might improve motor function. The IMT and BMT groups showed similar benefits for muscle power but limited improvements in self-perceived use of the affected arm.