Table 1.
Information relevant to participants with stroke.
Provided are demographic and clinical information for each participant with stroke. Additionally, provided is the minimum and maximum active range-of-motion for the participant’s paretic arm, along with the minimum and maximum angles at which the participant actively matched and mirrored the reference target location using their paretic arm. Using this information, we verified that the ability of our participants with stroke to match and mirror positions was not compromised due to a limited active range-of-motion.
Fig 1.
Participants performed a (Left) single-arm position-matching task when using their right arm and their left arm and (Right) between-arms position-mirroring task when referencing their right arm and their left arm. The participant’s goal was to identify a reference target location with their reference forearm and then to return to that location with their same or opposite forearm. Angles to which the participant’s forearm rotated for each reference target location are indicated in the table at the bottom of the figure. The individuals shown in this figure provided written informed consent, as outlined in the PLOS consent form, to publish their photos. Images are adapted from Gurari et al., 2018 [48].
Fig 2.
Single-arm position-matching results for each participant across all tested conditions.
Shown are the robotic assessment results on the single-arm position-matching task for the controls and participants with stroke. Each participant’s (Top) constant error, (Middle) absolute error, and (Bottom) variable error are given as a function of the reference arm and reference target location. (Dom: dominant, Non-Dom: non-dominant, Non-Par: non-paretic, Par: paretic).
Fig 3.
Single-arm position-matching results across all tested conditions.
Shown are the robotic assessment results on the single-arm position-matching task for the controls and participants with stroke. Mean (bar height) and standard error (error bars) of the (Top) constant error, (Middle) absolute error, and (Bottom) variable error are given as a function of the reference arm and reference target location for each classified group of participants. The gray dashed horizontal line indicates the deficit threshold of 10.7°. No significant effects were found. (Dom: dominant, Non-Dom: non-dominant, Non-Par: non-paretic, Par: paretic).
Fig 4.
Single-arm position-matching results as a function of group classification.
Shown are the robotic assessment results for the single-arm position-matching task based on our classification of participants. Mean (bar height) and standard error (error bars) of (Top) constant error, (Middle) absolute error, and (Bottom) variable error are given as a function of the reference arm and reference target location for each classified group of participants. The gray dashed horizontal line indicates the deficit threshold of 10.7°. No significant effects were found. (Dom: dominant, Non-Dom: non-dominant, Non-Par: non-paretic, Par: paretic).
Fig 5.
Between-arms position-mirroring results for each participant across all tested conditions.
Shown are the robotic assessment results on the between-arms position-mirroring task for the controls and participants with stroke. Each participant’s (Top) constant error, (Middle) absolute error, and (Bottom) variable error are given as a function of the reference arm and reference target location. The controls’ data are reproduced from [48] to permit comparison of the between-arms position-mirroring ability of our participants with stroke to that of individuals without neurological impairments. (Dom: dominant, Non-Dom: non-dominant, Non-Par: non-paretic, Par: paretic).
Fig 6.
Between-arms position-mirroring results across all conditions.
Shown are the robotic assessment results on the between-arms position-mirroring task for the controls and participants with stroke. Mean (bar height) and standard error (error bars) of the (Top) constant error, (Middle) absolute error, and (Bottom) variable error are given as a function of the reference arm and reference target location for each classified group of participants. The gray dashed horizontal line indicates the deficit threshold of 10.1°. No significant effects were found. The controls’ data are reproduced from [48] to permit comparison of the between-arms position-mirroring ability of our participants with stroke to that of individuals without neurological impairments. (Dom: dominant, Non-Dom: non-dominant, Non-Par: non-paretic, Par: paretic).
Fig 7.
Between-arms position-mirroring results as a function of group classification.
Shown are the robotic assessment results for the between-arms position-mirroring experiment based on our classification of participants. Mean (bar height) and standard error (error bars) of the (Top) constant error, (Middle) absolute error, and (Bottom) variable error are given as a function of the reference arm and reference target location for each classified group of participants. The gray dashed horizontal line indicates the deficit threshold of 10.1°. Black solid horizontal lines with a star above indicate significant effects. The controls’ data are reproduced from [48] to permit comparison of the between-arms position-mirroring ability of our participants with stroke to that of individuals without neurological impairments. (Dom: dominant, Non-Dom: non-dominant, Non-Par: non-paretic, Par: paretic).