Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 3.

Individual participant characteristics (n = 9).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 1.

Implementation of the multimodal system during clinical spasticity assessment in the upper limb.

The physiotherapist is shown using the FSR-equipped sensorized glove and wears an IMU on the wrist, while the patient is instrumented with an IMU on the distal forearm and sEMG electrodes placed over the biceps brachii muscle.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Schematic sequence of the passive elbow evaluation protocol.

(A) Slow stretch (V1) from maximal flexion to determine R2. (B) Transition phase toward joint extension. (C) Fast stretch (V3) to elicit the spastic reflex and determine the R1 or “catch” angle. The system includes FSR sensors in the evaluator’s glove, an IMU on the forearm, and an sEMG system over the biceps brachii.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Temporal synchronization between the filtered sEMG signal of the biceps and the generalized force (Qj) during fast stretching.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Three-dimensional mapping of the generalized force(Qj), angular position (θ), and mean angular velocity (ω).

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 1.

Simple indicators for spasticity assessment.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 5.

Methodological framework for Composite Index (CI) construction.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 2.

P-values between simple indicators.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 6.

Three-dimensional representation of the principal component analysis (PCA) applied to the normalized indicators.

The three dimensions explain 83.85% of the total variance.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 4.

Factor loading matrix for the simple indicators.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 7.

Sensitivity coefficients for each simple indicator contributing to the CI: AUC Force (R2), AUC Force (R1), AUC sEMG (R2), AUC sEMG (R1), AUC Velocity (R2), and AUC Velocity (R1).

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Composite Index values for evaluated patients.

The suffix “s” denotes the contralateral non-spastic side.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Scatter plots between pairs of simple indicators (AUC values for force, velocity and sEMG) for the spastic limb.

Key findings from the analysis include.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Table 5.

One-way ANOVA results applied to the CI.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 10.

Descriptive comparison of composite performance (Id) across clinical levels of the MTS, considering only body regions affected by muscle tone abnormalities.

Each point indicates the mean for levels 2 (blue), 3 (gray), and 4 (red), with corresponding standard error of the mean (SEM).

More »

Fig 10 Expand