Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Augmented reality for upper limb rehabilitation: real-time kinematic feedback with HoloLens 2

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read AR feedback lowers hand-path error in rehab reaching

desk verdict Genuinely novel AR rehab feedback system with a likely real kinematic effect, but the paper never isolates the real-time feedback from the tunnel visualization, so the central causal claim is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06596 v1 pith:YZKUBSK4 submitted 2024-12-09 cs.HC

Beatrice Luciani , Alessandra Pedrocchi , Peppino Tropea , Agnese Seregni , Francesco Braghin , Marta Gandolla This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords augmentedrealityupperlimbrehabilitationkinematicfeedbackhandtrackingHoloLens2exoskeletonusabilitytechnologyacceptance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that an augmented-reality app can make upper-limb rehabilitation exercises more precise by showing the user a 3D trajectory tunnel and updating its color live as the hand deviates from the path. The application runs on the HoloLens 2 headset, tracks the hand directly, and is meant to be used together with exoskeleton robots like AGREE, which currently give support but little feedback. In a test with 15 healthy adults performing four reaching exercises, trajectory error in end-effector space fell from $2.28 \pm 0.45$ cm without feedback to $2.06 \pm 0.57$ cm with the widest tunnel, a statistically significant difference, and similar reductions appeared in joint space. Twelve clinicians rated the system acceptable on usability and high on willingness to use. If these results hold in patients with neurological disorders, the same exoskeleton hardware could deliver the real-time corrective feedback that therapists currently lack.

What carries the argument

The central object is the trajectory tunnel: a 3D holographic tube made of spheres that represents the path the user should follow, with three selectable confidence intervals ($10$ cm, $6.5$ cm, and $3$ cm diameters) that set how much deviation is tolerated before the feedback turns red. The feedback loop is driven by the Euclidean distance between the HoloLens 2 hand-tracking centroid and the closest via-point of the tunnel; the spheres shrink and darken in green as the distance decreases, and the path actually followed is drawn as a thin line after the task. The AGREE exoskeleton supplies the independent kinematic measurement: its joint encoders run at 5 kHz, and its forward-kinematics model gives the end-effector position used to compute the reported root-mean-square error. The tunnels can be generated from stored trajectory databases or from therapist demonstrations recorded with the headset cameras.

What would settle it

A time-synchronized comparison of the HoloLens 2 hand centroid against the AGREE end-effector position during the same reaching movements would settle it: if the tracking error or latency is comparable to the tunnel's tolerance (1.5 to 5 cm from center), the color feedback could be directing users toward the wrong place.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that giving users concurrent, color-coded 3D feedback on hand-path error improves kinematic precision during exoskeleton-assisted arm exercises. The application projects a custom trajectory as a tunnel of spheres with three selectable diameters ($10$ cm, $6.5$ cm, $3$ cm), corresponding to increasingly strict confidence intervals. During execution, HoloLens 2 computes the Euclidean distance between the tracked hand centroid and the nearest via-point of the trajectory, and the spheres shrink and turn green as the error decreases. The measured effect, averaged over four exercises and five repetitions per subject, is a drop in end-effector error from $2.28 \pm 0.45$ cm in the no-HoloLens condition to $2.06 \pm 0.57$ cm in the widest-interval condition, with statistically significant differences in both end-effector and joint space. The authors interpret this as evidence that the AR feedback improves accuracy of movement execution, which matters because accurate execution is thought to prevent maladaptive plasticity.

Load-bearing premise

The feedback loop assumes the HoloLens 2's hand tracking gives an accurate, low-latency estimate of where the hand actually is, and the paper does not directly compare the headset's tracked position with the AGREE encoder position during the same movement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, exoskeleton-based rehabilitation can gain a real-time visual channel that shows both patient and therapist how far the hand is from the prescribed path, without altering the robot's hardware.
  • Because the error reduction was consistent across four different exercises and did not show an exercise-condition interaction, the feedback should generalize to a variety of reaching and drawing tasks rather than one specific movement.
  • The joint-space results suggest that following the holographic tunnel improves or preserves shoulder and elbow coordination instead of trading hand accuracy for worse posture.
  • The reported SUS score of 67.7 is just below the standard 'acceptable' threshold of 68, so usability improvements would be needed before broad clinical rollout, but the clinicians' willingness-to-use score of 4.38/5 indicates the core value is recognized.
  • The authors' stated expectation is that patients with neurological disorders, who rely more on extrinsic feedback, may show larger gains than healthy subjects; that is the natural next test.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not isolate learning from guidance; without a retention test after feedback is removed, the improved error could reflect following a visible guide rather than a durable change in motor control. A reasonable next experiment is to re-measure the same exercises with feedback switched off after a training block.
  • The paper says the HoloLens 2 hand-tracking centroid is compared with the nearest via-point, but it does not directly validate that centroid against the AGREE encoders; a sample-by-sample comparison would either close that gap or reveal a bias that could make the tunnel teach a shifted path.
  • The clinician questionnaire suggests that perceived ease of use, not perceived usefulness, is the main barrier to adoption; the ease-of-use score was the lowest category (3.50/5) and it had the weakest correlation with willingness to use, so future work should focus on simplifying interaction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an augmented reality (AR) rehabilitation system built on the HoloLens 2 that projects custom 3D tunnel trajectories and provides real-time, colour- and size-coded feedback based on the HoloLens hand-tracking centroid. The authors report a study with 15 healthy participants who performed four upper-limb exercises while wearing the AGREE exoskeleton, comparing kinematic error in three HoloLens conditions (three confidence intervals, C1-C3) against a no-HoloLens baseline. They also report a usability and acceptability evaluation with 12 clinicians, yielding a SUS score of 67.7 and a TAM 'Willingness to Use' score of 4.4/5. The central claim is that the AR application improves kinematic precision, supported by a significant decrease in end-effector error from 2.28 ± 0.45 cm without HoloLens to 2.06 ± 0.57 cm with HoloLens C1, and by corresponding improvements in joint space.

Significance. If the causal claim survives scrutiny, this paper provides one of the few quantitative demonstrations that AR-based real-time kinematic feedback improves trajectory-tracking precision in upper-limb rehabilitation exercises. A key strength is that the outcome measure (AGREE encoder kinematics) is independent of the feedback device, so the central effect is not an artifact of the paper's own measurement definitions. The clinician evaluation is also informative for the acceptability of the system. However, the central 'real-time feedback' attribution is confounded with the presence of the static trajectory visualization, and the manuscript does not report the claimed hand-tracking validation. These issues are addressable with an additional control condition and a validation subsection, so the significance is conditional on that work.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Table 2, Abstract] The comparison in Table 2 contrasts a no-HoloLens condition in which participants see only start and end targets with HoloLens conditions in which they see both the full 3D tunnel and the dynamic colour/size feedback. Therefore the reported error reduction (from 2.28 ± 0.45 cm to 2.06 ± 0.57 cm) cannot be attributed to the real-time feedback channel; it is equally compatible with the static trajectory visualization being beneficial. To support the abstract's claim that the application's real-time kinematic feedback leads to improved performance, the authors need a control condition with HoloLens showing the tunnel but without the colour/size feedback, and that comparison should be reported explicitly.
  2. [§4.2] The protocol lists 'Without wearing the headset' as the first block and then states that the order of conditions was randomized. This is ambiguous. If the no-HoloLens condition always preceded the HoloLens conditions, practice or familiarization could explain part of the improvement. The authors should state exactly how the four conditions were randomized (e.g., Latin square, random permutation), report whether the no-HoloLens block could occur after a HoloLens block, and, if randomization was incomplete, include order as a covariate in the analysis.
  3. [§5.1, Table 2] The Wilcoxon signed-rank comparisons are reported only with significance stars, without multiple-comparison correction, exact p-values, effect sizes, or confidence intervals. With 15 comparisons per space (4 exercises plus global, each against three HoloLens conditions), the number of significant results at the 0.05 level in the end-effector rows is not overwhelming: for example, T1-C1, T2-C3, and T3-C1/C2 do not reach significance. The authors should report adjusted p-values (e.g., Bonferroni or FDR) and effect sizes or 95% confidence intervals for the key differences, and rephrase the claim that improvements are demonstrated across all four exercises.
  4. [§3.2 and §1 (Introduction)] The Introduction states that AGREE was used to validate the hand-tracking system, but the manuscript reports no direct comparison of HoloLens hand-centroid positions with AGREE end-effector positions. Since the real-time feedback is computed from the HoloLens tracker, a biased or delayed tracker could mislead the user and change the interpretation of the feedback effect. The authors should either add a dedicated validation subsection with the comparison data (e.g., tracking error over time, correlation, latency) or explicitly remove the claim of validation and discuss the implications for the interpretation of the feedback results.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2] The SUS score is reported as 67.7 ± 12.1 and described as 'OK' and 'in line with' the 68 threshold; 67.7 is actually below 68, so the text should say the score is marginally below the acceptable-usability threshold, not that it reaches it.
  2. [§5.1, Table 3] The Discussion states 'The Comfort of the device was ranked 4.04 out of 5,' but Table 3 reports 4.45 ± 0.44 for Comfort and 4.04 ± 0.62 for Clarity of the calibration. Please correct this inconsistency.
  3. [§2.2, References] The reference to Burke et al. (2010) appears twice consecutively in the same sentence ('(Burke et al, 2010)(Burke et al, 2010)'). Consolidate the citation and check the reference list for other duplicate entries.
  4. [Figures 3 and 4] In Fig. 3 (RIGHT), the three confidence intervals are described as visibly distinct, but the printed figure does not clearly show the size differences or the green/red transitions; in Fig. 4, the 'thin coloured line' representing the user's path is difficult to see. Please provide higher-resolution or annotated screenshots.
  5. [§4.2 (Exercises execution)] Please report the exact number of repetitions per condition (the text says 'five times' only for the no-HoloLens condition; for consistency, state whether the HoloLens conditions also used five repetitions, and how the repetitions were segmented for the temporal normalization in Eq. (2)).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: kinematic outcomes come from AGREE encoders, which are external to the HoloLens feedback being evaluated; self-citations are background and instrumentation only.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim is that trajectory-tracking error decreases when users receive the HoloLens AR feedback. The outcome metric is not defined by the feedback loop: the 'Error evaluation' paragraph in §4.2 states that AGREE 'records the real-time joint positions of the four joints and, from them, the end-effector position is computed,' and Eq. (1) computes RMSE from those encoder-derived positions against a desired trajectory 'stored in the trajectory generation system of AGREE.' This reference and the measurement device are independent of the HoloLens hand-tracking centroid used only to drive the in-app color/size feedback, so Table 2's comparison cannot be an identity or a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The cited AGREE papers (Dalla Gasperina et al., 2023; Gasperina et al., 2022) are by the same group, but they are used as physical instrumentation and task-store references, not as uniqueness theorems or derivation premises; the encoders are externally verifiable hardware. The Luciani et al. (2023) self-citation is background motivation for therapist acceptance and does not carry the kinematic claim. The authors' own caveats (healthy subjects only; hand-tracking reliability rated 3.57/5) concern external validity and device accuracy, not definitional closure. The absence of a HoloLens-with-feedback-disabled control is a genuine causal-attribution limitation, because the tunnel visualization is bundled with the real-time feedback, but that is an experimental-control concern, not a self-referential reduction, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the accuracy of the HoloLens hand tracking for feedback, the accuracy of the AGREE kinematic model for outcome measurement, and the correspondence between the displayed holographic trajectory and the stored desired trajectory. None of these are new invented entities; they are measurement assumptions from existing hardware.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption HoloLens 2 hand-tracking centroid position is an accurate real-time proxy for the user's hand position during feedback.
    The feedback loop in 'Execution and Scoring' computes Euclidean distance between the hand centroid and trajectory via-points; if tracking is inaccurate, the color-coded feedback misleads the user. The paper says AGREE would validate this but does not report such a comparison.
  • domain assumption The AGREE exoskeleton's encoder-based kinematic model provides a valid ground truth for hand end-effector position in both conditions.
    Error evaluation uses AGREE joint encoders and its kinematic model; this is a physical measurement system, but its calibration and accuracy are not reported in this paper.
  • domain assumption The desired trajectories stored in AGREE and the holographic trajectories shown to users correspond to the same movement plan.
    The RMSE comparison to a 'desired trajectory' assumes both systems reference the same path; discrepancies would bias the error metric.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Augmented reality for upper limb rehabilitation: real-time kinematic feedback with HoloLens 2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YZKUBSK4

@misc{pith2026241206596,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Augmented reality for upper limb rehabilitation: real-time kinematic feedback with HoloLens 2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YZKUBSK4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06596}
}
read the original abstract

Exoskeletons for rehabilitation can help enhance motor recovery in individuals suffering from neurological disorders. Precision in movement execution, especially in arm rehabilitation, is crucial to prevent maladaptive plasticity. However, current exoskeletons, while providing arm support, often lack the necessary 3D feedback capabilities to show how well rehabilitation exercises are being performed. This reduces therapist acceptance and patients' performance. Augmented Reality technologies offer promising solutions for feedback and gaming systems in rehabilitation. In this work, we leverage HoloLens 2 with its advanced hand-tracking system to develop an application for personalized rehabilitation. Our application generates custom holographic trajectories based on existing databases or therapists' demonstrations, represented as 3D tunnels. Such trajectories can be superimposed on the real training environment. They serve as a guide to the users and, thanks to colour-coded real-time feedback, indicate their performance. To assess the efficacy of the application in improving kinematic precision, we tested it with 15 healthy subjects. Comparing user tracking capabilities with and without the use of our feedback system in executing 4 different exercises, we observed significant differences, demonstrating that our application leads to improved kinematic performance. 12 clinicians tested our system and positively evaluated its usability (System Usability Scale score of 67.7) and acceptability (4.4 out of 5 in the 'Willingness to Use' category in the relative Technology Acceptance Model). The results from the tests on healthy participants and the feedback from clinicians encourage further exploration of our framework, to verify its potential in supporting arm rehabilitation for individuals with neurological disorders.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 59(10):2554--2563

    Alamri A, Cha J, El Saddik A (2010) AR-REHAB: An Augmented Reality Framework for Poststroke-Patient Rehabilitation . IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 59(10):2554--2563. doi:10.1109/TIM.2010.2057750

    work page arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

    Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology pp 1--8

    Assis GAd, Corr \^ e a AGD, Martins MBR, et al (2014) An augmented reality system for upper-limb post-stroke motor rehabilitation: a feasibility study . Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology pp 1--8. doi:10.3109/17483107.2014.979330

    work page arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 24(6):574--594

    Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT (2008) An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale . International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 24(6):574--594. doi:10.1080/10447310802205776

    doi:10.1080/10447310802205776 2008

  4. [4]

    Journal of Medical Systems 42(12):246

    Bank PJM, Cidota MA, Ouwehand PW, et al (2018) Patient-Tailored Augmented Reality Games for Assessing Upper Extremity Motor Impairments in Parkinson’s Disease and Stroke . Journal of Medical Systems 42(12):246. doi:10.1007/s10916-018-1100-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10916-018-1100-9 2018

  5. [5]

    In: 2010 Second International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications, pp 75--78, doi:10.1109/VS-GAMES.2010.21

    Burke J, McNeill M, Charles D, et al (2010) Augmented reality games for upper-limb stroke rehabilitation. In: 2010 Second International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications, pp 75--78, doi:10.1109/VS-GAMES.2010.21

    work page doi:10.1109/vs-games.2010.21 2010

  6. [6]

    Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 20(1):105

    de Crignis AC, Ruhnau ST, H \" o sl M, et al (2023) Robotic arm training in neurorehabilitation enhanced by augmented reality – a usability and feasibility study . Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 20(1):105. doi:10.1186/s12984-023-01225-5

    work page doi:10.1186/s12984-023-01225-5 2023

  7. [7]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics 5(1):143--154

    Dalla Gasperina S, Gandolla M, Longatelli V, et al (2023) AGREE: A Compliant-Controlled Upper-Limb Exoskeleton for Physical Rehabilitation of Neurological Patients . IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics 5(1):143--154. doi:10.1109/TMRB.2023.3239888

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Virtual Reality 28

    Escalada-Hernández P, Soto N, Ballesteros-Egüés T, et al (2024) Usability and user expectations of a hololens-based augmented reality application for learning clinical technical skills. Virtual Reality 28. doi:10.1007/s10055-024-00984-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s10055-024-00984-3 2024

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    In: 2022 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), pp 1--6, doi:10.1109/ICORR55369.2022.9896569

    Gasperina SD, Longatelli V, Panzenbeck M, et al (2022) Agree: an upper-limb robotic platform for personalized rehabilitation, concept and clinical study design. In: 2022 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), pp 1--6, doi:10.1109/ICORR55369.2022.9896569

    2022

  2. [10]

    doi:10.3389/frvir.2021.679902, ://www.frontiersin.org/journals/virtual-reality/articles/10.3389/frvir.2021.679902

    Genay A, Lécuyer A, Hachet M (2021) Virtual, real or mixed: How surrounding objects influence the sense of embodiment in optical see-through experiences? Frontiers in Virtual Reality 2. doi:10.3389/frvir.2021.679902, ://www.frontiersin.org/journals/virtual-reality/articles/10....

    2021

  3. [11]

    Gerontechnology 19(4):1--7

    Hsieh KL, Sun R, Sosnoff JJ (2020) Usability of self-guided mixed reality fall risk assessment for older adults . Gerontechnology 19(4):1--7. doi:10.4017/gt.2020.19.04.405

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    doi:10.5772/25954

    Jordan K, King M (2011) Augmented reality - some emerging application areas. doi:10.5772/25954

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    Vision 7(4):75

    Kim H, Lee E, Jung J, et al (2023) Utilization of Mirror Visual Feedback for Upper Limb Function in Poststroke Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis . Vision 7(4):75. doi:10.3390/vision7040075

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 18(1):181

    Laparidou D, Curtis F, Akanuwe J, et al (2021) Patient, carer, and staff perceptions of robotics in motor rehabilitation: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis . Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 18(1):181. doi:10.1186/s12984-021-00976-3

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Sensors 23(3):1721

    Luciani B, Braghin F, Pedrocchi ALG, et al (2023) Technology Acceptance Model for Exoskeletons for Rehabilitation of the Upper Limbs from Therapists’ Perspectives . Sensors 23(3):1721. doi:10.3390/s23031721

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Universal Access in the Information Society 14(1):81--95

    Maranguni \' c N, Grani \' c A (2015) Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013 . Universal Access in the Information Society 14(1):81--95. doi:10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    Journal of Motor Behavior 41(1):45--54

    Maslovat D, Brunke KM, Chua R, et al (2009) Feedback Effects on Learning a Novel Bimanual Coordination Pattern: Support for the Guidance Hypothesis . Journal of Motor Behavior 41(1):45--54. doi:10.1080/00222895.2009.10125923

    2009

  10. [18]

    https://www.microsoft.com/it-it/hololens/hardware, accessed: 2024-04-24

    Microsoft (2024) Microsoft hololens 2.0. https://www.microsoft.com/it-it/hololens/hardware, accessed: 2024-04-24

    2024

  11. [19]

    Artificial Organs 43(7):694--698

    Moosburner S, Remde C, Tang P, et al (2019) Real world usability analysis of two augmented reality headsets in visceral surgery . Artificial Organs 43(7):694--698. doi:10.1111/aor.13396

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Applied Sciences 12(4):1848

    Phan HL, Le TH, Lim JM, et al (2022) Effectiveness of Augmented Reality in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Meta-Analysis . Applied Sciences 12(4):1848. doi:10.3390/app12041848

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    IEEE Access 10:131567--131578

    Quintana D, Rodriguez A, Boada I (2022) Authoring Tools for Procedural Modeling of Virtual Reality-Based Rehabilitation Exercises . IEEE Access 10:131567--131578. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3229210

    2022

  14. [22]

    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 14

    Saredakis D, Szpak A, Birckhead B, et al (2020) Factors Associated With Virtual Reality Sickness in Head-Mounted Displays: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis . Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 14. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2020.00096

    2020

  15. [23]

    Informatics in Medicine Unlocked 13:41--50

    Semblantes PA, Andaluz VH, Lagla J, et al (2018) Visual feedback framework for rehabilitation of stroke patients . Informatics in Medicine Unlocked 13:41--50. doi:10.1016/j.imu.2018.10.002

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    https://www.shapr3d.com/product/3d-modeling, accessed: 2024-04-24

    Shapr3D (2024) Shapr3d - product | 3d modeling. https://www.shapr3d.com/product/3d-modeling, accessed: 2024-04-24

    2024

  17. [25]

    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 20(1):21--53

    Sigrist R, Rauter G, Riener R, et al (2013) Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review . Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 20(1):21--53. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0333-8

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing 55(11):1927--1935

    Simonsen D, Popovic MB, Spaich EG, et al (2017) Design and test of a Microsoft Kinect-based system for delivering adaptive visual feedback to stroke patients during training of upper limb movement . Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing 55(11):1927--1935. doi:10.1007/s1...

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    Manual Therapy 15(1):19--25

    Snodgrass SJ, Rivett DA, Robertson VJ, et al (2010) Real-time feedback improves accuracy of manually applied forces during cervical spine mobilisation . Manual Therapy 15(1):19--25. doi:10.1016/j.math.2009.05.011

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    DIGITAL HEALTH 9:20552076231218841

    Stark AL, Krayter S, Dockweiler C (2023) Competencies required by patients and health professionals regarding telerehabilitation: A scoping review. DIGITAL HEALTH 9:20552076231218841. doi:10.1177/20552076231218841

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Stroke Research and Treatment 2013:1--13

    Takeuchi N, Izumi SI (2013) Rehabilitation with Poststroke Motor Recovery: A Review with a Focus on Neural Plasticity . Stroke Research and Treatment 2013:1--13. doi:10.1155/2013/128641

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    Trials 13(1):163

    Thikey H, Grealy M, van Wijck F, et al (2012) Augmented visual feedback of movement performance to enhance walking recovery after stroke: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial . Trials 13(1):163. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-163

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    Journal of Motor Behavior 29(2):147--158

    Todorov E, Shadmehr R, Bizzi E (1997) Augmented Feedback Presented in a Virtual Environment Accelerates Learning of a Difficult Motor Task . Journal of Motor Behavior 29(2):147--158. doi:10.1080/00222899709600829

    1997 doi

  24. [32]

    https://unity.com/, accessed: 2024-04-24

    Unity (2024) Unity real-time development platform | 3d, 2d, vr & ar engine. https://unity.com/, accessed: 2024-04-24

    2024

  25. [33]

    https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/tools/modeling/tuberenderer-3281, accessed: 2024-04-24

    Unity Asset Store (2024) Tuberenderer. https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/tools/modeling/tuberenderer-3281, accessed: 2024-04-24

    2024

  26. [34]

    In: 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp 3945--3948, doi:10.1109/EMBC.2015.7319257

    Urra O, Casals A, Jane R (2015) The impact of visual feedback on the motor control of the upper-limb . In: 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp 3945--3948, doi:10.1109/EMBC.2015.7319257

    2015

  27. [35]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution journal key keywords month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year archivePrefix primaryClass adsurl adsnote version label extra.labe...

  28. [36]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION add.period duplicate empty 'skip "." * add.blank if FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap dupl...

  29. [37]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION string.to.integer 't := t text.length 'k := #1 'char.num := t char.num #1 substring 's := s is.num s "." = or char.num k = not and char.num #1 + 'char.num := while char.num #1 - 'char.num := t #1 char.num substring FUNCTI...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.