Variability in movement is critical for performance under dynamic conditions. Stroke causes focal injury to the motor system, disrupts voluntary motor control, and leads to less smooth and more variable upper extremity movements. Few studies have characterized trial-by-trial variation in upper extremity movement smoothness and its clinical and neuroanatomic correlates in the first week post-stroke.
Objective
To evaluate trial-by-trial variation in upper extremity movement smoothness during planar reaching and relate it to clinical outcomes and neuroanatomical injury after acute stroke.
Methods
Twenty-two patients (4.4 ± 1.7 days post-stroke) and 22 able-bodied adults completed a planar center-out reaching task. Smoothness was quantified with spectral arc length (SPARC). Median and interquartile range (IQR, a quantification of trial-by-trial variation) of SPARC values were assessed. Patients completed a clinical assessment battery acutely and at 90 days post-stroke. MRI-derived stroke lesions were analyzed to estimate basal ganglia, motor cortex, and corticospinal tract injury. Intraclass correlation, Spearman’s correlation, and multivariate regression evaluated trial-by-trial variation and its relation to clinical assessments, outcomes, and neuroanatomical injury.
Results
Post-stroke reaching was less smooth and more variable (larger IQR) compared to able-bodied adults. Variability in post-stroke smoothness was primarily driven by within-subject, trial-by-trial variation. More variable smoothness, even after controlling for median smoothness, related to worse performance on clinical assessments and 90-day outcomes. More variable smoothness related to greater corticospinal tract injury (ρ = 0.537, P = .011), but not to basal ganglia or motor cortex injury.
Conclusion
Trial-by-trial variation of movement is valuable for understanding sensorimotor control post-stroke and has implications for targeted neurorehabilitation.
BernsteinNA.The Co-ordination and Regulation of Movements. Pergamon Press; 1967.
2.
SteinRBGossenERJonesKE.Neuronal variability: noise or part of the signal?Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005;6(5):389-397. doi:10.1038/nrn1668
3.
FaisalAASelenLPJWolpertDM.Noise in the nervous system. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9(4):292-303. doi:10.1038/nrn2258
4.
TodorovE.Optimality principles in sensorimotor control. Nat Neurosci. 2004;7(9):907-915. doi:10.1038/nn1309
5.
ShannonCE.A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J. 1948;27(3):379-423.
6.
HarrisCMWolpertDM.Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature. 20 1998;394(6695):780-784. doi:10.1038/29528
7.
TodorovEJordanMI.Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nat Neurosci. 2002;5(11):1226-1235. doi:10.1038/nn963
8.
SternadD.It’s not (only) the mean that matters: variability, noise and exploration in skill learning. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2018;20:183-195. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.01.004
9.
DhawaleAKSmithMAOlveczkyBP.The role of variability in motor learning. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2017;40:479-498. doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-072116-031548
10.
HerzfeldDJShadmehrR.Motor variability is not noise, but grist for the learning mill. Nat Neurosci. 2014;17:2. doi:10.1038/nn.3633
11.
KonradJDLohseKRMarrusNLangCE.Trial-to-trial motor behavior during a reinforcement learning task in children ages 6 to 12. Hum Mov Sci. 2025;99:103317 doi:10.1016/j.humov.2024.103317
12.
RileyMATurveyMT.Variability and determinism in motor behavior. J Motor Behav. 2002;34(2):99-125. doi:10.1080/00222890209601934
13.
RanganathanRLeeM-HNewellKM.Repetition without repetition: challenges in understanding behavioral flexibility in motor skill. Front Psychol. 2020;11:2018. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02018
14.
RanganathanRLinMCareySLokeshRLeeM-HKrishnanC.Motor variability prior to learning does not facilitate the ability to adopt new movement solutions. Neuroscience. 2021;479:157-168. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2021.10.021
15.
AbeMOSternadD.Directionality in distribution and temporal structure of variability in skill acquisition. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:225. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00225
16.
ChurchlandMMAfsharAShenoyKV.A central source of movement variability. Neuron. 2006;52(6):1085-1096. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2006.10.034
17.
KaoMHDoupeAJBrainardMS.Contributions of an avian basal ganglia-forebrain circuit to real-time modulation of song. Nature. 2005;433(7026):638-643. doi:10.1038/nature03127
18.
WoolleySCRajanRJoshuaMDoupeAJ.Emergence of context-dependent variability across a basal ganglia network. Neuron. 2014;82(1):208-223. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.01.039
19.
OlveczkyBPAndalmanASFeeMS.Vocal experimentation in the juvenile songbird requires a basal ganglia circuit. PLoS Biol. 2005;3(5):e153. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030153
20.
IzawaJShadmehrR.Learning from sensory and reward prediction errors during motor adaptation. PLoS Comput Biol. 2011;7(3):e1002012. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002012
21.
GaleaJMRugeDBuijinkABestmannSRothwellJC.Punishment-induced behavioral and neurophysiological variability reveals dopamine-dependent selection of kinematic movement parameters. J Neurosci. 2013;33(9):3981-3988. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1294-12.2013
22.
PeknySEIzawaJShadmehrR.Reward-dependent modulation of movement variability. J Neurosci. 2015;35(9):4015-4024. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3244-14.2015
23.
PorterRLemonR.Corticospinal Function and Voluntary Movement. Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press; 1995.
24.
RaoNParikhPJ.Fluctuations in human corticospinal activity prior to grasp. Front Syst Neurosci. 2019;13:77. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2019.00077
25.
Klein-FluggeMCNobbsDPitcherJBBestmannS.Variability of human corticospinal excitability tracks the state of action preparation. J Neurosci. 2013;33(13):5564-5572. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2448-12.2013
26.
ThiesSBTresadernPAKenneyLP, et al. Movement variability in stroke patients and controls performing two upper limb functional tasks: a new assessment methodology. J NeuroEng Rehabil. 2009;6(1):2. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-6-2
27.
SethiAPattersonTMcGuirkTPattenCRichardsLGStergiouN.Temporal structure of variability decreases in upper extremity movements post stroke. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2013;28(2):134-139. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2012.11.006
28.
HammerbeckUYousifNHoadDGreenwoodRDiedrichsenJRothwellJC.Chronic stroke survivors improve reaching accuracy by reducing movement variability at the trained movement speed. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(6):499-508. doi:10.1177/1545968317693112
29.
LiSFranciscoGERymerWZ.A new definition of poststroke spasticity and the interference of spasticity with motor recovery from acute to chronic stages. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2021;35(7):601-610. doi:10.1177/15459683211011214
30.
CirsteaMCLevinMF.Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain. 2000;123(5):940-953. doi:10.1093/brain/123.5.940
31.
JonesTA.Motor compensation and its effects on neural reorganization after stroke. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2017;18(5):267-228. doi:10.1038/nrn.2017.26
32.
KalichmanLRatmanskyM.Underlying pathology and associated factors of hemiplegic shoulder pain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;90(9):768-780. doi:10.1097/PHM.0b013e318214e976
33.
BernhardtJHaywardKSKwakkelG, et al. Agreed definitions and a shared vision for new standards in stroke recovery research: the stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable taskforce. Int J Stroke. 2017;12(5):444-450. doi:10.1177/1747493017711816
34.
KwakkelGLanninNABorschmannK, et al. Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: consensus-based core recommendations from the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(9):784-792. doi:10.1177/1545968317732662
35.
GangulyKKhannaPMorecraftRLinDJ.Modulation of neural co-firing to enhance network transmission and improve motor function after stroke. Neuron. 2022;110(15):2363-2385. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2022.06.024
36.
LinDJCloutierAMErlerKS, et al. Corticospinal tract injury estimated from acute stroke imaging predicts upper extremity motor recovery after stroke. Stroke. 2019;50(12):3569-3577. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.025898
37.
LinDJHardstoneRDiCarloJA, et al. Distinguishing Distinct Neural Systems for Proximal vs Distal Upper Extremity Motor Control After Acute Stroke. Neurology. 2023;101(4):e347–e357. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000207417
38.
KwakkelGWegenEEHvBurridgeJH, et al. Standardized measurement of quality of upper limb movement after stroke: consensus-based core recommendations from the second stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019;33(11):951-958. doi:10.1177/1545968319886477
39.
BalasubramanianSMelendez-CalderonARoby-BramiABurdetE.On the analysis of movement smoothness. J NeuroEng Rehabil. 2015;12(1):112. doi:10.1186/s12984-015-0090-9
40.
RohrerBFasoliSKrebsHI, et al. Movement smoothness changes during stroke recovery. J Neurosci. 2002;22(18): 8297-8304. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-18-08297.2002
41.
HoganNSternadD.Sensitivity of smoothness measures to movement duration, amplitude and arrests. J Motor Behav. 2009;41(6):529-534. doi:10.3200/35-09-004-RC
42.
van KordelaarJvan WegenEKwakkelG. Impact of time on quality of motor control of the paretic upper limb after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(2):338-344. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2013.10.006
43.
DokkumLvHauretIMottetDFrogerJMétrotJLaffontI.The contribution of kinematics in the assessment of upper limb motor recovery early after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;28(1):4-12. doi:10.1177/1545968313498514
44.
FrisoliAProcopioCChisariC, et al. Positive effects of robotic exoskeleton training of upper limb reaching movements after stroke. J NeuroEng Rehabil. 2012;9(1):36. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-9-36
45.
SaesMMohamed RefaiMIvan KordelaarJ, et al. Smoothness metric during reach-to-grasp after stroke: part 2. longitudinal association with motor impairment. J NeuroEng Rehabil. 2021;18(1):144. doi:10.1186/s12984-021-00937-w
46.
SeeJDodakianLChouC, et al. A standardized approach to the Fugl-Meyer Assessment and its implications for clinical trials. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27(8):732-741. doi:10.1177/1545968313491000
47.
Fugl-MeyerARJaaskoLLeymanIOlssonSSteglindS. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13-31.
48.
WoytowiczEJRietschelJCGoodmanRN, et al. Determining levels of upper extremity movement impairment by applying a cluster analysis to the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the upper extremity in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;98(3):456-462. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2016.06.023
49.
BoseckerCDipietroLVolpeBKrebsHI.Kinematic robot-based evaluation scales and clinical counterparts to measure upper limb motor performance in patients with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;24(1):62-69. doi:10.1177/1545968309343214
50.
KrebsHIKramsMAgrafiotisDK, et al. Robotic measurement of arm movements after stroke establishes biomarkers of motor recovery. Stroke. 2014;45(1):200-204. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.002296
51.
KrebsHIAisenMLVolpeBTHoganN.Quantization of continuous arm movements in humans with brain injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96(8):4645-4649. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.8.4645
52.
CortesJCGoldsmithJHarranMD, et al. A short and distinct time window for recovery of arm motor control early after stroke revealed with a global measure of trajectory kinematics. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(6):552-560. doi:10.1177/1545968317697034
53.
Mohamed RefaiMISaesMScheltingaBL, et al. Smoothness metrics for reaching performance after stroke. Part 1: which one to choose?J NeuroEng Rehabil. 2021;18(1):154. doi:10.1186/s12984-021-00949-6
54.
RousseeuwPJCrouxC.Alternatives to the median absolute deviation. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993;88(424):1273-1283. doi:10.1080/01621459.1993.10476408
55.
LinDJErlerKSSniderSB, et al. Cognitive demands influence upper extremity motor performance during recovery from acute stroke. Neurology. 2021;96(21):e2576-e2586. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000011992
56.
RordenCBonilhaLFridrikssonJBenderBKarnathH-O.Age-specific CT and MRI templates for spatial normalization. Neuroimage. 2012;61(4):957-965. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.020
57.
Tzourio-MazoyerNLandeauBPapathanassiouD, et al. Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain. NeuroImage. 2002;15(1):273-289. doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0978
58.
ZhuLLLindenbergRAlexanderMPSchlaugG.Lesion load of the corticospinal tract predicts motor impairment in chronic stroke. Stroke. 2010;41(5):910-915. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.577023
59.
EickhoffSPausTCaspersS, et al. Assignment of functional activations to probabilistic cytoarchitectonic areas revisited. NeuroImage. 2007;36(3):511-521. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.060
DhawaleAKMiyamotoYRSmithMAOlveczkyBP.Adaptive regulation of motor variability. Curr Biol. 2019;29(21):3551-3562.e7. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2019.08.052
63.
LamTKBinnsMAHonjoK, et al. Variability in stroke motor outcome is explained by structural and functional integrity of the motor system. Sci. Rep. 2018;8(1):9480. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-27541-8
64.
ChenYWLiaoWWChenCLWuCY.Kinematic descriptions of upper limb function using simulated tasks in activities of daily living after stroke. Hum Mov Sci. 2021;79:102834. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2021.102834
65.
MurphyMAHägerCK.Kinematic analysis of the upper extremity after stroke: how far have we reached and what have we grasped?Phys Ther Rev. 2015;20:137-155. doi:10.1179/1743288X15Y.0000000002
66.
SubramanianSKYamanakaJChilingaryanGLevinMF.Validity of movement pattern kinematics as measures of arm motor impairment poststroke. Stroke. 2010;41(10):2303-2308. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.593368
67.
CelikOO’MalleyMKBoakeCLevinHSYozbatiranNReistetterTA.Normalized movement quality measures for therapeutic robots strongly correlate with clinical motor impairment measures. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2010;18(4):433-444. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2010.2047600
68.
HadjiosifAMBranscheidtMAnayaMA, et al. Dissociation between abnormal motor synergies and impaired reaching dexterity after stroke. J Neurophysiol. 2022;127(4):856-868. doi:10.1152/jn.00447.2021
69.
TowerSS.Pyramidal lesion in the monkey. Brain. 1940;63(1):36-90. doi:10.1093/brain/63.1.36
70.
GauthierLVMarkVWTaubE, et al. Motor recovery from constraint induced movement therapy is not constrained by extent of tissue damage following stroke. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2014;32(6):755-765. doi:10.3233/RNN-130366
71.
MarkVTaubEPerkinsCGauthierLVUswatteG.MRI infarction load and CI therapy outcomes for chronic post-stroke hemiparesis. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2008;26(1):13-33. doi:10.3233/rnn-2008-00418
72.
PageSJGauthierLVWhiteS.Size doesn’t matter: cortical stroke lesion volume is not associated with upper extremity motor impairment and function in mild, chronic hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(5):817-821. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2013.01.010
73.
UeharaSYuasaAUshizawaK, et al. Direction-dependent differences in the quality and quantity of horizontal reaching in people after stroke. J Neurophysiol. 2023;130(4):861-870. doi:10.1152/jn.00455.2022
74.
PowellMPVermaNSorensenE, et al. Epidural stimulation of the cervical spinal cord for post-stroke upper-limb paresis. Nat Med. 2023;29(3):689-699. doi:10.1038/s41591-022-02202-6
75.
LiXBakerKBO’LaughlinK, et al. Paired DBS and TMS reveals dentato-cortical facilitation underlying upper extremity movement in chronic stroke survivors. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2024;38(2):109-121. doi:10.1177/15459683231219265
76.
LevyRMHarveyRLKisselaBM, et al. Epidural electrical stimulation for stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;30(2):107-119. doi:10.1177/1545968315575613
77.
VinkJJTLieshoutECCvOtteWM, et al. Continuous theta-burst stimulation of the contralesional primary motor cortex for promotion of upper limb recovery after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 2023;54(8):1962-1971. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.042924
78.
DawsonJLiuCYFranciscoGE, et al. Vagus nerve stimulation paired with rehabilitation for upper limb motor function after ischaemic stroke (VNS-REHAB): a randomised, blinded, pivotal, device trial. Lancet. 2021;397(10284):1545-1553. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00475-X
79.
BowlesSHickmanJPengX, et al. Vagus nerve stimulation drives selective circuit modulation through cholinergic reinforcement. Neuron. 2022;110(17):2867-2885.e7. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2022.06.017
80.
AvniIAracABinyamin-NetserRKramerSKrakauerJWShmuelofL.The kinematics of 3D arm movements in sub-acute stroke: impaired inter-joint coordination caused by both weakness and flexor synergy intrusion. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2024;38(9):646-658. doi:10.1101/2022.12.03.518692
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.
