To systematically appraise motion capture technologies used for clinical assessment of upper limb function in adults post stroke, focusing on applicability, strengths, limitations, and research gaps.
Data Sources
A systematic scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and IEEE Xplore were searched for studies published between January 2014 and December 2025.
Review Methods
Eligible studies quantitatively evaluated motion capture systems in adult stroke populations. Data extracted included technology type, technical specifications, outcomes, and reported strengths and limitations.
Results
From 3217 screened studies, 204 were included. Inertial measurement units were most common (71) followed by markerless optical motion capture (43), electromyography (39), marker-based optical motion capture (33), fusion systems (10), and smart devices (8). Marker-based systems provided high precision but were costly and complex. Markerless systems reduced setup requirements and supported clinical use but were prone to tracking errors. Inertial measurement units enabled portable monitoring, though accuracy decreased for slow or fine movements. Electromyography offered insights into neuromuscular activity but was expensive and sensitive to placement. Fusion systems allowed multidimensional assessment but were resource intensive. Smart devices provided accessible options but lacked precision. Most studies focused on chronic stroke, with limited evaluation in acute or home contexts. Reporting of stroke severity was inconsistent, and protocols were rarely standardised.
Conclusion
Motion capture technologies show promise for upper limb assessment after stroke but face challenges of cost, accessibility, and standardisation. Research in acute and home settings, along with predictive modelling, is needed to support clinical translation.
CouparFPollockARoweP, et al.Predictors of upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil2011; 26: 291–313.
2.
Royal College of Physicians. National clinical guideline for stroke. 4th ed.London: Royal College of Physicians, 2012.
3.
HebertDLindsayMPMcIntyreA, et al.Canadian stroke best practice recommendations: stroke rehabilitation practice guidelines, update 2015. Int J Stroke2016; 11: 459–484.
4.
SantistebanLTérémetzMBletonJ, et al.Upper limb outcome measures used in stroke rehabilitation studies: a systematic literature review. PLoS One2016; 11: 1–16.
5.
SchwarzAKanzlerCMLambercyO, et al.Systematic review on kinematic assessments of upper limb movements after stroke. Stroke2019; 50: 718–727.
6.
ChenHMChenCCHsuehIP, et al.Test-retest reproducibility and smallest real difference of 5 hand function tests in patients with stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2009; 23: 435–440.
7.
LinKCChuangLLWuCY, et al.Responsiveness and validity of three dexterous function measures in stroke rehabilitation. J Rehabil Res Dev2010; 47: 563–571.
8.
KwakkelGLanninNABorschmannK, et al.Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. Int J Stroke2017; 12: 451–461.
9.
van DokkumLHauretIMottetD, et al.The contribution of kinematics in the assessment of upper limb motor recovery early after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2014; 28: 4–12.
10.
OzturkATartarAErsoz HuseyinsinogluB, et al.A clinically feasible kinematic assessment method of upper extremity motor function impairment after stroke. Measurement (Mahwah N J)2016; 80: 207–216.
11.
KimKSongWKLeeJ, et al.Kinematic analysis of upper extremity movement during drinking in hemiplegic subjects. Clin Biomech2014; 29: 248–256.
12.
MurphyMAWillénCSunnerhagenKS. Kinematic variables quantifying upper extremity performance after stroke during reaching and drinking from a glass. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2011; 25: 71–80.
13.
FisherJLanninNAAndersonCS, et al.Protocol for a systematic and scoping review of emergent motion capture technology for upper extremity assessment in stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis2025; 54(6): 952–958. DOI: 10.1159/000543914
14.
TriccoACLillieEZarinW, et al.PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med2018; 169: 467–473.
15.
LefebvreCGlanvilleJBriscoeS, et al.Chapter 4: searching for and selecting studies. In: HigginsJPThomasJChandlerJ, et al. (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 6.4. London: Cochrane, 2023. https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
16.
Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia, https://www.covidence.org.
AbidinSBZWan JusohWNIBengGK. Kinematic analysis on reaching activity for hemiparetic stroke subjects using simplified video processing method. Malays J Fundam Appl Sci2018; 14: 386–390.
19.
ZhiYXLukasikMLiMH, et al.Automatic detection of compensation during robotic stroke rehabilitation therapy. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med2018; 6.
20.
Gutiérrez ZúñigaRAlonso de LeciñanaMDíezA, et al.A new software for quantifying motor deficit after stroke: a case-control feasibility pilot study. J Healthc Eng2021; 12.
21.
ForemanMHEngsbergJR. A virtual reality tool for measuring and shaping trunk compensation for persons with stroke: design and initial feasibility testing. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng2019; 6: 1–14.
22.
LópezDCasado-FernándezLFernándezF, et al.Neurodata tracker: software for computational assessment of hand motor skills based on optical motion capture in a virtual environment. Digital Health2023; 9: 1–13.
23.
ShengBChenXChengJ, et al.A novel scoring approach for the Wolf Motor Function Test in stroke survivors using motion-sensing technology and machine learning: a preliminary study. Comput Methods Programs Biomed2024; 243: 1–17.
24.
ScanoAMolteniFMolinari TosattiL. Low-cost tracking systems allow fine biomechanical evaluation of upper-limb daily-life gestures in healthy people and post-stroke patients. Sensors (Basel)2019; 19(5): 1–19.
25.
OkuyamaKKawakamiMTsuchimotoS, et al.Depth sensor-based assessment of reachable work space for visualizing and quantifying paretic upper extremity motor function in people with stroke. PhysicalTherapy2020; 100(5): 870–879.
26.
MontJohnsonACronceAQiuQ, et al.Laboratory-based examination of the reliability and validity of kinematic measures of wrist and finger function collected by a telerehabilitation system in persons with chronic stroke. Sensors2023; 23: 1–24.
27.
ScanoAChiavennaAMalosioM, et al.Kinect V2 implementation and testing of the reaching performance scale for motor evaluation of patients with neurological impairment. Med Eng Phys2018; 56: 54–58.
28.
PashleyGLKahnMBWilliamsG, et al.Assessment of upper limb abnormalities using the Kinect: reliability, validity and detection accuracy in people living with acquired brain injury. J Biomech2021; 129: 1–7.
29.
AdamsRJLichterMDKrepkovichET, et al.Assessing upper extremity motor function in practice of virtual activities of daily living. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2015; 23(2): 287–296.
NayeemRSohnWJDiCarloJA, et al.Novel platform for quantitative assessment of functional object interactions after stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2023; 31: 426–436.
32.
ProffittRMabMSkubicM. Novel clinically-relevant assessment of upper extremity movement using depth sensors. Top Stroke Rehabil2023; 30(1): 11–20.
33.
Rubio BallesterBAntenucciFMaierM, et al.Estimating upper-extremity function from kinematics in stroke patients following goal-oriented computer-based training. J Neuroeng Rehabil2021; 18: 186.
34.
Cornella-BarbaGFarrensAJJohnsonCA, et al.Using a webcam to assess upper extremity proprioception: experimental validation and application to persons post-stroke. Sensors (Basel)2024; 24(23): 1–20.
35.
Boudreault-MoralesGEMarquez-ChinCLiuX, et al.The effect of depth data and upper limb impairment on lightweight monocular RGB human pose estimation models. Biomed Eng Online2025; 24: 12.
36.
UngerTKuhnisBSauerzopfL, et al.Using deep learning to detect upper limb compensation in individuals post stroke using consumer grade webcams: a feasibility study. Front Med (Lausanne)2025; 12: 1645369.
37.
FangQMahmoudSSGuX, et al.A novel multistandard compliant hand function assessment method using an infrared imaging device. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform2019; 23(2): 758–765.
38.
TsaiMFWangRHZariffaJ. Identifying hand use and hand roles after stroke using egocentric video. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med2021; 9: 1–10.
39.
DuYShiYMaH, et al.Application of multi-dimensional intelligent visual quantitative assessment system to evaluate hand function rehabilitation in stroke patients. Brain Sci2022; 12(12): 1698.
40.
BonnechèreBSholukhaVOmelinaL, et al.3D analysis of upper limbs motion during rehabilitation exercises using the Kinect sensor: development, laboratory validation and clinical application. Sensors (Basel)2018; 18(7): 2216.
41.
LeeYMLeeSUhmKE, et al.Upper limb three-dimensional reachable workspace analysis using the Kinect sensor in hemiplegic stroke patients: a cross-sectional observational study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil2020; 99(5): 397–403.
42.
LeeSHHwangYJLeeHJ, et al.Proof-of-concept of a sensor-based evaluation method for better sensitivity of upper-extremity motor function assessment. Sensors (Basel)2021; 21(17): 5926.
43.
JatesiktatPLimGMKuahCWK, et al.Autonomous modeling of repetitive movement for rehabilitation exercise monitoring. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak2022; 22: 175.
44.
ChanVLeeSALeeJM, et al.Sensor-acquired reachable workspace (RWS) correlates with activities of daily living (ADL) function in stroke as measured by functional independence measure (FIM) self-care. Sensors2024; 24(21): 6786.
45.
AvniIAracABinyamin-NetserR, et al.The kinematics of 3D arm movements in sub-acute stroke: impaired inter-joint coordination is attributable to both weakness and flexor synergy intrusion. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2024; 38(9): 646–658.
46.
ScanoAGuanziroliEBrambillaC, et al.Kinematic instrumental assessment quantifies compensatory strategies in post stroke patients. Med Biol Eng Comput2025. DOI: 10.1007/s11517-025-03439-2.
47.
ChoSKimWSPaikNJ, et al.Upper-limb function assessment using VBBTs for stroke patients. IEEE Comput Graph Appl2016; 36(1): 70–78.
48.
SeoNJCrocherVSpahoE, et al.Capturing upper limb gross motor categories using the Kinect sensor. Am J Occup Ther2019; 73(4): 1–10.
49.
MeiATsaiMFZariffaJ. Multivideo models for classifying hand impairment after stroke using egocentric wearable cameras. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2025; 33: 3303–3313.
50.
JiangYLiuZLiuT, et al.A serious game system for upper limb motor function assessment of hemiparetic stroke patients. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2023; 31: 2640–2653.
51.
KimWSChoSBaekD, et al.Upper extremity functional evaluation by Fugl-Meyer assessment scoring using depth-sensing camera in hemiplegic stroke patients. PLoS One2016; 11(7): e0164710.
52.
ItoDKawakamiMHosoiY, et al.Development of a quantitative assessment for abnormal flexor synergy index in patients with stroke: a validity and responsiveness study. J Neuroeng Rehabil2024; 21(1): 229.
53.
PogrzebaLNeumannTWackerM, et al.Analysis and quantification of repetitive motion in long term rehabilitation. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform2019; 23(3): 1075–1085.
54.
MiaoSLiuZWangD, et al.Applying hybrid deep learning models to assess upper limb rehabilitation. IEEE Access2024; 12: 154337–154348.
55.
ChoudhurySBainesASarkarS, et al.Association of a kinematic measure of upper limb reaching and StartReact in chronic hemiparetic stroke. Exp Brain Res2025; 243(6): 139–152.
56.
XieQShengBHuangJ, et al.A pilot study of compensatory strategies for reach-to-grasp-pen in patients with stroke. Appl Bionics Biomech2022; 2022: 1–13.
57.
ScanoAChiavennaAMalosioM, et al.Kinect V2 implementation and testing of the reaching performance scale for motor evaluation of patients with neurological impairment. Med Eng Phys2018; 56: 54–58.
58.
MobiniABehzadipourSSaadatM. Test–retest reliability of Kinect’s measurements for the evaluation of upper body recovery of stroke patients. Biomed Eng Online2015; 14: 75.
59.
TsaiMFWangRHZariffaJ. Validity of novel outcome measures for hand function performance after stroke using egocentric video. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2023; 37(2-3): 142–150.
60.
HsiehYWLiingRJLinKC, et al.Sequencing bilateral robot-assisted arm therapy and constraint-induced therapy improves reach-to-press and trunk kinematics in patients with stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil2016; 13: 31.
61.
Adans-DesterCFasoliSEFabaraE, et al.Can kinematic parameters of 3D reach-to-target movements be used as a proxy for clinical outcome measures in chronic stroke rehabilitation? An exploratory study. J Neuroeng Rehabil2020; 17: 106.
62.
VenkataramanVTuragaPBaranS, et al.Component-Level Tuning of Kinematic Features From Composite Therapist Impressions of Movement Quality. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2016; 20: 143–152.
63.
YangQYangYLuoJ, et al.Kinematic outcome measures using target-reaching arm movement in stroke. Ann Biomed Eng2017; 45(12): 2794–2803.
64.
JohanssonGMGripHLevinMF, et al.The added value of kinematic evaluation of the timed finger-to-nose test in persons post-stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil2017; 14: 11.
65.
ScanoAGuanziroliEMiraRM, et al.Biomechanical assessment of the ipsilesional upper limb in post-stroke patients during multi-joint reaching tasks: a quantitative study. Front Rehabil Sci2022; 3: 943397.
66.
HuangXLiaoOJiangS, et al.Kinematic analysis in post-stroke patients with moderate to severe upper limb paresis and non-disabled controls. Clin Biomech2024; 113: 106206.
67.
SimkinsMAl-RefaiAHRosenJ. Upper limb joint space modeling of stroke-induced synergies using isolated and voluntary arm perturbations. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2014; 22(3): 491–500.
68.
LiKYLinKCChenCK, et al.Concurrent and predictive validity of arm kinematics with and without a trunk restraint during a reaching task in individuals with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2015; 96(6): 1666–1675.
69.
HansenGMKerstingUGPedersenAR, et al.Three-dimensional kinematics of shoulder function in stroke patients: Inter- and intra-rater reliability. J Electromyogr Kinesiol2019; 47: 35–42.
70.
ThraneGAlt MurphyMStibrant SunnerhagenK. Recovery of kinematic arm function in well-performing people with subacute stroke: a longitudinal cohort study. J Neuroeng Rehabil2018; 15(1): 67.
71.
ChenHLLinKCLiingRJ, et al.Kinematic measures of Arm-trunk movements during unilateral and bilateral reaching predict clinically important change in perceived arm use in daily activities after intensive stroke rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil2015; 12: 84.
72.
EftekharPLiMHSempleMJ, et al.Investigation of the Kinematic Upper Limb Movement Assessment KUMA a pilot study. Physiother Can2022; 74(3): 316–323.
73.
WuCYLiingRJChenHC, et al.Arm and trunk movement kinematics during seated reaching within and beyond arm's length in people with stroke: a validity study. Phys Ther2014; 94(6): 845–856.
74.
KimHKimJJoS, et al.Video augmented mirror therapy for upper extremity function in stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Neurol2023; 270(2): 831–842.
75.
JohanssonGMHägerCK. A modified standardized nine hole peg test for valid and reliable kinematic assessment of dexterity post-stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil2019; 16(1): 8.
76.
TanikawaHKagayaHInagakiK, et al.Quantitative assessment for flexed-elbow deformity during gait following botulinum toxin A treatment. Gait Posture2018; 62: 409–414.
77.
GrealyMAMeneillyLRollinsL-A, et al.A biomechanical analysis of the effectiveness of the Graded Repetitive Arm Supplementary Program (GRASP) for chronic stroke rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil2025: 1–13. DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2025.2530158.
78.
JoseMMunoz-NovoaMAlt MurphyM. A reliable and valid assessment of upper limb movement quality after stroke: the observational Drinking Task Assessment. J Rehabil Med2024; 56: jrm40362.
79.
FreireBSilvaLYGaidzinskiIM, et al.Upper limb movement analysis during the mug transportation task in post-stroke individuals and why efficiency matters. J Biomech2025; 190: 112841.
80.
De VliegerDDefourABar-OnL, et al.Speed-dependent changes in the arm swing during independent walking in individuals after stroke. PLoS One2025; 20: e0315332.
81.
SantosGLRussoTLNieuwenhuysA, et al.Kinematic analysis of a drinking task in chronic hemiparetic patients using features analysis and statistical parametric mapping. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2018; 99(3): 501–511.
82.
ZaidiKFHarris-LoveM. Upper extremity kinematics: development of a quantitative measure of impairment severity and dissimilarity after stroke. PeerJ2023; 11: e16374.
83.
WolfSWinterLVElangovanN, et al.Compensatory proximal adjustments characterize effective reaching movements after stroke. Stroke2025; 56(8): 2245–2254.
84.
SchwarzABhagubaiMMCNies SHG, et al.Characterization of stroke-related upper limb motor impairments across various upper limb activities by use of kinematic core set measures. J Neuroeng Rehabil2022; 19: 2.
85.
LeeSIAdans-DesterCPGrimaldiM, et al.Enabling stroke rehabilitation in home and community settings: a wearable sensor-based approach for upper-limb motor training. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med2018; 6: 1–11.
86.
WadeEChenCWinsteinCJ. Spectral analyses of wrist motion in individuals poststroke: the development of a performance measure with promise for unsupervised settings. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2014; 28(2): 169–178.
87.
CoccoESPournajafSRomanoP, et al.Comparative analysis of upper body kinematics in stroke, Parkinson’s disease, and healthy subjects, an observational study using IMU based targeted Box and Block test. Gait Posture2024; 114: 69–77.
88.
ZhouYMRamanNProiettiT, et al.Estimating upper extremity Fugl Meyer Assessment scores from reaching motions using wearable sensors. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform2025; 29(6): 4134–4145.
89.
WangJLiCZhangB, et al.Automatic rehabilitation exercise task assessment of stroke patients based on wearable sensors with a lightweight multichannel 1D-CNN model. Sci Rep2024; 14: 19204.
90.
SomvilleMRosselliZDucoffreE, et al.Use of accelerometers to monitor motor activity during HABIT ILE for chronic stroke: an exploratory study. Sensors (Basel)2025; 25(21): 6656.
91.
DaunoravičienėKLinkelAŽižienėJ, et al.Alternative method of upper extremity function assessment of stroke patients by angular kinematic parameters. J Mech Med Biol2017; 17(6): 1750080.
92.
SalazarAJSilvaASSilvaC, et al.Low-cost wearable data acquisition for stroke rehabilitation: a proof-of-concept study on accelerometry for functional task assessment. Top Stroke Rehabil2014; 21: 12–22.
93.
AdeelMPengCWLeeIJ, et al.Biomechanical evaluation of fingers repetitive voluntary tasks in chronic stroke survivors. IEEE Access2023; 11: 143649–143656.
94.
NguyenGMacleanJStirlingL. Quantification of compensatory torso motion in post-stroke patients using wearable inertial measurement units. IEEE Sens J2021; 21(13): 15349–15360.
95.
LiuMLuHYTongSF, et al.Estimation of Fugl Meyer Assessment upper extremity sub scores using a mixup augmented LSTM autoencoder and wearable sensor data. Sensors (Basel)2025; 25(21): 6663.
96.
OubreBLeeSI. Detection and assessment of point-to-point movements during functional activities using deep learning and kinematic analyses of the stroke-affected wrist. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform2024; 28(2): 1022–1030.
97.
LinBSHsiaoPCYangSY, et al.Data glove system embedded with inertial measurement units for hand function evaluation in stroke patients. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2017; 25(11): 2204–2213.
98.
MalesevicJKosticMKojicV, et al.BEAGLE – a kinematic sensory system for objective hand function assessment in technology-mediated rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2021; 29: 1817–1826.
99.
LemmensRJTimmermansAAJanssen-PottenYJ, et al.Accelerometry measuring the outcome of robot-supported upper limb training in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One2014; 9(5): e96414.
100.
WernerCSchönhammerJGSteitzMK, et al.Using wearable inertial sensors to estimate clinical scores of upper limb movement quality in stroke. Front Physiol2022; 13: 877563.
101.
KimJYParkGLeeSA, et al.Analysis of machine learning-based assessment for elbow spasticity using inertial sensors. Sensors (Basel)2020; 20(6): 1622.
102.
LucasAHermizJLabuzettaJ, et al.Use of accelerometry for long-term monitoring of stroke patients. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med2019; 7: 2100310.
103.
BiswasDSrinivasanBCoyleJL, et al.Low-complexity framework for movement classification using body-worn sensors. IEEE Trans Very Large Scale Integr (VLSI) Syst2017; 25(4): 1537–1548.
104.
UkeyJRogersCUhlrichS, et al.Enhancing stroke recovery assessment: a machine learning approach to real-world hand function analysis. Int J Med Inform2025; 204: 106077.
105.
MacphersonCEBlandMDGordonC, et al.Replication of sensor-based categorization of upper-limb performance in daily life in people post stroke and generalizability to other populations. Sensors (Basel)2025; 25(15): 4618.
106.
OkitaSde LucenaDSReinkensmeyerDJ. Movement diversity and complexity increase as arm impairment decreases after stroke: quality of movement experience as a possible target for wearable feedback. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2024; 32: 2961–2970.
107.
ZhouWFuDDuanZ, et al.Achieving precision assessment of functional clinical scores for upper extremity using IMU-based wearable devices and deep learning methods. J Neuroeng Rehabil2025; 22: 84.
108.
DattaSKarmakarCKRaoAS, et al.Automated scoring of hemiparesis in acute stroke from measures of upper limb coordination using wearable accelerometry. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2020; 28(4): 805–816.
109.
SkvortsovDLobunkoDLobunkoA, et al.Wrist function test and its use to assess treatment efficacy in ischemic stroke survivors – a pilot study. Diagnostics2025; 15(7): 840.
110.
ParkEChangHJNamHS. Use of machine learning classifiers and sensor data to detect neurological deficit in stroke patients. J Med Internet Res2017; 19(4): e120.
111.
OkitaSYakuninRKorrapatiJ, et al.Counting finger and wrist movements using only a wrist-worn, inertial measurement unit: toward practical wearable sensing for hand-related healthcare applications. Sensors (Basel)2023; 23(12): 5690.
112.
LeeSIAdans-DesterCPO'BrienAT, et al.Predicting and monitoring upper-limb rehabilitation outcomes using clinical and wearable sensor data in brain injury survivors. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2021; 68(6): 1871–1881.
113.
Schwerz de LucenaDRoweJChanV, et al.Magnetically counting hand movements: validation of a calibration-free algorithm and application to testing the threshold hypothesis of real-world hand use after stroke. Sensors (Basel)2021; 21(4): 1502.
114.
BhagubaiMMCWolterinkGSchwarzA, et al.Quantifying pathological synergies in the upper extremity of stroke subjects with the use of inertial measurement units: a pilot study. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med2020; 9: 2100211.
115.
OubreBDaneaultJFJungHT, et al.Estimating upper-limb impairment level in stroke survivors using wearable inertial sensors and a minimally-burdensome motor task. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2020; 28(3): 601–611.
116.
BarthJLohseKRKonradJD, et al.Sensor-based categorization of upper limb performance in daily life of persons with and without neurological upper limb deficits. Front Rehabil Sci2021; 2: 741393.
117.
OhYChoiSAShinY, et al.Investigating activity recognition for hemiparetic stroke patients using wearable sensors: a deep learning approach with data augmentation. Sensors (Basel)2023; 24: 210.
118.
YuLXiongDGuoL, et al.A compressed sensing-based wearable sensor network for quantitative assessment of stroke patients. Sensors (Basel)2016; 16(2): 202.
119.
HughesCMLBayeMGordon-MurerC, et al.Quantitative assessment of upper limb motor function in Ethiopian acquired brain injured patients using a low-cost wearable sensor. Front Neurol2019; 10: 1323.
120.
Le HeronCFangKGubbiJ, et al.Wireless accelerometry is feasible in acute monitoring of upper limb motor recovery after ischemic stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis2014; 37(5): 336–341.
121.
SeoNJCouplandKFinettoC, et al.Wearable sensor to monitor quality of upper limb task practice for stroke survivors at home. Sensors (Basel)2024; 24(2): 554.
122.
DavidAReethaJanetSurekaSGayathriS, et al.Quantification of the relative arm use in patients with hemiparesis using inertial measurement units. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng2021; 8: 20556683211019694.
123.
ZhangXWeiZRenX, et al.Complex neuromuscular changes post-stroke revealed by clustering index analysis of surface electromyogram. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2017; 25(11): 2105–2112.
124.
LiXShinHZhouP, et al.Power spectral analysis of surface electromyography (EMG) at matched contraction levels of the first dorsal interosseous muscle in stroke survivors. Clin Neurophysiol2014; 125(5): 988–994.
125.
CarvalhoAASilva FilhoEMNascimentoRS, et al.Analysis of muscle activation during reaching movement in active, active-assisted, and self-assisted conditions in post-stroke patients. Fisioter Pesqui2019; 26: 31–36.
126.
RasoolGAfsharipourBSureshNL, et al.Spatial analysis of multichannel surface EMG in hemiplegic stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2017; 25(10): 1802–1811.
127.
Ramos-MurguialdayAGarcía-CossioEWalterA, et al.Decoding upper limb residual muscle activity in severe chronic stroke. Ann Clin Transl Neurol2015; 2: 1–11.
128.
LeeJAHwangPWKimEJ. Upper extremity muscle activation during drinking from a glass in subjects with chronic stroke. J Phys Ther Sci2015; 27(3): 701–703.
129.
ZhaoKHeCXiangW, et al.Evidence of synergy coordination patterns of upper-limb motor control in stroke patients with mild and moderate impairment. Front Physiol2023; 14: 1214995.
130.
ZhouYZengJJiangH, et al.Upper-limb functional assessment after stroke using mirror contraction: a pilot study. Artif Intell Med2020; 106: 101877.
131.
Hesam-ShariatiNTrinhTThompson-ButelAG, et al.A longitudinal electromyography study of complex movements in poststroke therapy. 2: changes in coordinated muscle activation. Front Neurol2017; 8: 277.
132.
AngelovaSRibaginSRaikovaR, et al.Power frequency spectrum analysis of surface EMG signals of upper limb muscles during elbow flexion: a comparison between healthy subjects and stroke survivors. J Electromyogr Kinesiol2018; 38: 7–16.
133.
ZadniaAKobraviHRSheikhM, et al.Generating the visual biofeedback signals applicable to reduction of wrist spasticity: a pilot study on stroke patients. Basic Clin Neurosci2018; 9: 15–26.
134.
MaYShiCXuJ, et al.A novel muscle synergy extraction method used for motor function evaluation of stroke patients: a pilot study. Sensors (Basel)2021; 21(11): 3833.
135.
YuSChenYCaiQ, et al.A novel quantitative spasticity evaluation method based on surface electromyogram signals and adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system. Front Neurosci2020; 14: 462.
136.
MerloACampaniniI. Automatic identification of involuntary muscle activity in subacute patients with upper motor neuron lesion at rest: a validation study. Sensors (Basel)2023; 23(2): 866.
137.
MeyersECGabrieliDTaccaN, et al.Decoding hand and wrist movement intention from chronic stroke survivors with hemiparesis using a user-friendly, wearable EMG-based neural interface. J Neuroeng Rehabil2024; 21(1): 7.
138.
KwokFTPanRLingS, et al.Can EMG-derived upper limb muscle synergies serve as markers for post-stroke motor assessment and prediction of rehabilitation outcome?Sensors (Basel)2025; 25(10): 3170.
139.
AnastasievAKadoneHMarushimaA, et al.Automated EMG based classification of upper extremity motor impairment levels in subacute stroke. Sensors (Basel)2025; 25(22): 6829.
140.
LiSZhuangCNiuCM, et al.Evaluation of functional correlation of task-specific muscle synergies with motor performance in patients poststroke. Front Neurol2017; 8: 337.
141.
IsraelySLeismanGMachlufCC, et al.Muscle synergies control during hand-reaching tasks in multiple directions post-stroke. Front Comput Neurosci2018; 12: 10.
142.
ConradMOQiuDHoffmannG, et al.Analysis of muscle fiber conduction velocity during finger flexion and extension after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil2017; 24(4): 262–268.
143.
LiXNongFZhangX, et al.Automated assessment of upper limb spasticity in stroke patients with fusion of multichannel surface electromyography features. J Rehabil Med2025; 57: jrm43745.
144.
LiYChenXZhangX, et al.Several practical issues toward implementing myoelectric pattern recognition for stroke rehabilitation. Med Eng Phys2014; 36(6): 754–760.
145.
HuBZhangXMuJ, et al.Spasticity assessment based on the Hilbert-Huang transform marginal spectrum entropy and the root mean square of surface electromyography signals: a preliminary study. Biomed Eng Online2018; 17: 27.
146.
KimYHKimSNamHS. Application of Smart Watch-Based Functional Evaluation for Upper Extremity Impairment: A Preliminary Study on Older Emirati Stroke Population. Sensors2025; 25(5): 1554.
147.
LiuYLiYZhangZ, et al.Quantitative evaluation of motion compensation in post-stroke rehabilitation training based on muscle synergy. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2024; 12: 1375277.
148.
ChenYTLiSMagatE, et al.Motor overflow and spasticity in chronic stroke share a common pathophysiological process: analysis of within-limb and between-limb EMG-EMG coherence. Front Neurol2018; 9: 795.
149.
ChanHLHungJWChangKC, et al.Myoelectric analysis of upper-extremity muscles during robot-assisted bilateral wrist flexion-extension in subjects with poststroke hemiplegia. Clin Biomech (Bristol)2021; 87: 105412.
150.
BandiniVCarpinellaIMarzeganA, et al.Surface-electromyography-based co-contraction index for monitoring upper limb improvements in post-stroke rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial secondary analysis. Sensors (Basel)2023; 23(17): 7320.
151.
ZhangXTangXZhuX, et al.A regression-based framework for quantitative assessment of muscle spasticity using combined EMG and inertial data from wearable sensors. Front Neurosci2019; 13: 398.
152.
RepnikEPuhUGoljarN, et al.Using inertial measurement units and electromyography to quantify movement during Action Research Arm Test execution. Sensors (Basel)2018; 18(9): 2767.
153.
ŠlajpahSČebašekEMunihM, et al.Time-based and path-based analysis of upper-limb movements during activities of daily living. Sensors (Basel)2023; 23(3): 1289.
154.
PanBHuangZJinT, et al.Motor function assessment of upper limb in stroke patients. J Healthc Eng2021; 2021: 6621950.
155.
Bertomeu-MotosAEzquerroSBariosJA, et al.Feasibility of an intelligent home-based neurorehabilitation system for upper extremity mobility assessment. IEEE Sens J2023; 23(24): 31117–31124.
156.
BaiJSongA. Development of a novel home-based multi-scene upper limb rehabilitation training and evaluation system for post-stroke patients. IEEE Access2019; 7: 9667–9677.
157.
MahmoudSSCaoZFuJ, et al.Occupational therapy assessment for upper limb rehabilitation: a multisensor-based approach. Front Digit Health2021; 3: 784120.
158.
GeedSGraingerMLMitchellA, et al.Concurrent validity of machine learning-classified functional upper extremity use from accelerometry in chronic stroke. Front Physiol2023; 14: 1116878.
159.
NieJZNieJWHungNT, et al.Portable, open-source solutions for estimating wrist position during reaching in people with stroke. Sci Rep2021; 11(1): 22491.
160.
ZaminSATangKStevensEA, et al.Abnormal motION capture In aCute Stroke (BIONICS): a low-cost tele-evaluation tool for automated assessment of upper extremity function in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2023; 37(9): 591–602.
161.
GuldePVojtaHSchmidleS, et al.Outside the laboratory assessment of upper limb laterality in patients with stroke: a cross-sectional study. Stroke2024; 55: 146–155.
162.
SongXChenSJiaJ, et al.Cellphone-based automated Fugl-Meyer assessment to evaluate upper extremity motor function after stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2019; 27(10): 2186–2195.
163.
JayavelPSrinivasanHKKarthikV, et al.Human upper limb kinematics using a novel algorithm in post-stroke patients. Proc Inst Mech Eng H2025; 239: 48–55.
164.
LamWWTFongKNKChienCW. Upper limb kinematic measurement using markerless motion capturing (MMC) in stroke survivors: A cross-sectional experimental study. Digit Health2025; 11: 1–17.
165.
LinNCJHaywardKSD'CruzK, et al.Validity and reliability of a smartphone inclinometer app for measuring passive upper limb range of motion in a stroke population. Disabil Rehabil2020; 42(22): 3243–3249.
166.
Goizueta SNavarro MDCalvoG, et al.Touchscreen-based assessment of upper limb kinematics after stroke: reliability, validity and sensitivity to motor impairment. J Neuroeng Rehabil2025; 22(1): 27.
167.
SzczęsnaABłaszczyszynMKawala-SterniukA. Convolutional neural network in upper limb functional motion analysis after stroke. PeerJ2020; 8: e10124.
168.
Hesam-ShariatiNTrinhTThompson-ButelAG, et al.Improved kinematics and motor control in a longitudinal study of a complex therapy movement in chronic stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2019; 27(4): 682–691.
169.
LiHTHuangJJPanCW, et al.Inertial sensing-based assessment methods to quantify the effectiveness of post-stroke rehabilitation. Sensors (Basel)2015; 15(7): 16196–16209.
170.
TangXZhangXGaoX, et al.A novel interpretation of sample entropy in surface electromyographic examination of complex neuromuscular alternations in subacute and chronic stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2018; 26(9): 1878–1888.
171.
Hesam-ShariatiNTrinhTThompson-ButelAG, et al.A longitudinal electromyography study of complex movements in poststroke therapy. 1: heterogeneous changes despite consistent improvements in clinical assessments. Front Neurol2017; 8: 340.
172.
LiuHGaoYHuangW, et al.Inter-muscular coherence and functional coordination in the human upper extremity after stroke. Math Biosci Eng2022; 19(5): 4506–4525.
173.
TaccaNBaumgartISchlink BR, et al.Identifying alterations in hand movement coordination from chronic stroke survivors using a wearable high-density EMG sleeve. J Neural Eng2024; 21(4).
174.
PregnolatoGSeveriniGMaistrelloL, et al.Muscle synergy analysis for clinical characterization of upper limb motor recovery after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2025; 000: 1–9.
175.
LiXLiuJLiS, et al.Examination of hand muscle activation and motor unit indices derived from surface EMG in chronic stroke. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2014; 61(12): 2891–2898.
176.
Anastasiev AKadoneHMarushimaA, et al.A novel bilateral data fusion approach for EMG-driven deep learning in post-stroke paretic gesture recognition. Sensors (Basel)2025; 25(12): 3664.
177.
WangCPengLHouZG, et al.Quantitative assessment of upper-limb motor function for post-stroke rehabilitation based on motor synergy analysis and multi-modality fusion. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2020; 28(4): 943–952.
178.
SimpsonLBarclayRBayleyM, et al.A randomized controlled trial of a virtually delivered program for increasing upper limb activity after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2025; 39(3): 179–189.
179.
YangQYangYLuoJ, et al.Kinematic Outcome Measures using Target-Reaching Arm Movement in Stroke. Ann Biomed Eng2017; 45(12): 2794–2803.
180.
CarlyleJKMochizukiG. Influence of post-stroke spasticity on EMG-force coupling and force steadiness in biceps brachii. J Electromyogr Kinesiol2018; 38: 49–55.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
