Insights into motor performance deficits after stroke: an automated and refined analysis of the lower-extremity motor coordination test (LEMOCOT).
Shirley Handelzalts, Yogev Koren, Noy Goldhamer and 4 others
PMID 34702299WHAT IT FOUND
Automated analysis of the lower-extremity motor coordination test reveals that people with stroke show greater error and variability than controls.
These refined measures detect deficits in the non-paretic leg that the traditional touch-count score misses, offering a more detailed picture of motor control.
Key findings
01Persons with stroke demonstrated greater endpoint and center-of-pressure errors and variability compared to healthy controls.
02Error parameters provided information independent of the traditional in-target touch count, revealing deficits in the non-paretic leg that the count score did not capture.
03The automated algorithm correlated strongly with manual counts but showed a bias where the tester's count was consistently higher, especially at faster movement speeds.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The control group was not age-matched to the stroke group, and age is a predictor of LEMOCOT performance, so some group differences may be due to aging rather than stroke. The study assumed the intended touch location was where force was closest to the target center, which may overestimate participants' true abilities. The sample size was small (n=40 total), limiting the generalizability of the findings. The algorithm showed a bias compared to manual counts, meaning automated scores may not be directly interchangeable with traditional clinical counts without adjustment.
Declared interests
No conflicts of interest were declared in the provided text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the automated score is identical to the manual clinical score. The algorithm showed a consistent bias where manual counts were higher, especially at faster speeds. Furthermore, do not attribute the observed deficits solely to the paretic leg; the non-paretic leg also showed significant motor control errors that the traditional score failed to capture.