A Novel, Wearable Inertial Measurement Unit for Stroke Survivors: Validity, Acceptability, and Usability.

This was a single-session laboratory study, so it may not reflect everyday tasks and environmental constraints. Only 30 stroke survivors were recruited, and one had synchronization problems, so upper limb analysis used 29. Participants were recruited from a voluntary community stroke survivor database and were interested in research, which may make them more accepting of new technology than the wider stroke population. The mean participant age was 57 years, and pandemic precautions limited older participation, so acceptability may be too favorable. Upper limb tasks were done seated in the lab, and walking was on a level 25-meter path, so they may not represent everyday activity. The upper limb comparison depended on a specific definition of movement, and finger movements were not captured. Inertial sensors cannot tell purposeful from nonpurposeful movement, task type, or task context. Stance symmetry was less valid for participants who needed supervision to walk (FAC 3).

The supplied text lists NIH extramural and non-U.S. government research support. It does not include a conflicts-of-interest declaration or sponsor role statement.

Do not conclude that MiGo improves stroke recovery or that it should replace clinical assessment. This was a single-session laboratory measurement study in 30 stroke survivors, with no treatment comparison and no follow-up patient outcomes, so it reports sensor agreement and acceptability only.