Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT01565044

Automatic Versus Intentional Movement Exercises to Enhance Arm Functions After Stroke

Many patients retain upper-limb motor impairment following stroke. Most conventional rehabilitation techniques are aimed to improve motor intentional movement by repeated exercises. These techniques require attentional load and are responsible for significant fatigue that probably represents a limiting factor. Alternatively, the automatic control of action is now well documented. A rehabilitation method based on this principle could allow recovery of more natural movements.

Hypothesis: Stimulating automatic motricity improves upper-limb motor skills compared with a rehabilitation technique based on intentional movements.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Stroke Brain Diseases Cardiovascular Diseases Central Nervous System Diseases Cerebrovascular Disorders Hemiplegia Nervous System Diseases Neurologic Manifestations Paralysis Paresis Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms Signs and Symptoms Upper-limb Paresis Vascular Diseases

Age range

18 year–80 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Service de Médecine Physique et de Réadaptation et Plateforme 'Mouvement et Handicap', Hôpital Henry Gabrielle, HCL

Saint-Genis-Laval, 69235, France

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • All subjects must be between the ages of 18-80 and must not be pregnant
  • Patients volunteer to participate in the study, with a written informed consent signed
  • Affiliation to a national health insurance program
  • Hemiplegia after stroke
  • Stroke onset >6 weeks and <4 years prior to study enrollment
  • Patients able to perform the exercises on the automated table

Exclusion criteria

  • Pregnancy
  • Excessive pain in any joint of the paretic extremity (VAS>5)
  • Coexistent major neurological or psychiatric disease as to decrease number of confounders
  • Subjects with global aphasia and deficits of comprehension
  • Any substantial decrease in alertness, language reception, or attention that might interfere with understanding instructions for motor testing

Treatment and study plan

Motor training

Other

Subject will perform prehension exercises on an automated table. After the initiation of the arm movement, the target to be grasped is programmed to move in order to stimulate automatic motricity.

Primary outcomes

  1. Fugl Meyer assessment (upper extremity) of motor recovery following stroke

    Time frame: 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)

    we are looking for a change in scores between the baseline session score (Day 1), and those collected during this follow-up session (Day 26).

Secondary outcomes

  1. Fugl Meyer assessment (upper extremity) of motor recovery following stroke

    Time frame: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12)

    we are looking for a change in scores between the baseline session score (Day 1), and those collected during each follow-up session

  2. modified Ashworth scale

    Time frame: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12) and 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)

    we are looking for a change in scores between the baseline session score (Day 1), and those collected during each follow-up session.

  3. Visual Analog Pain Scale

    Time frame: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12) and 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)

    we are looking for a change in scores between the baseline session score (Day 1), and those collected during each follow-up session.

  4. Box and block test

    Time frame: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12) and 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)

    we are looking for a change in scores between the baseline session score (Day 1), and those collected during each follow-up session

  5. Frenchey Arm Test

    Time frame: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12) and 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)

    we are looking for a change in scores between the baseline session score (Day 1), and those collected during each follow-up session.

  6. Motor Activity Log (MAL

    Time frame: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12) and 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)

    we are looking for a change in scores between the baseline session score (Day 1), and those collected during each follow-up session.

  7. Functional independence scale (MIF)

    Time frame: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12) and 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)

    we are looking for a change in scores between the baseline session score (Day 1), and those collected during each follow-up session

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Hospices Civils de Lyon

Other

Registry information

Acronym: AUTOTAB

Important dates

Study start
2012
Primary completion
2017
Study completion
2017
First posted
Mar 28, 2012
Registry last updated
Dec 19, 2025

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.