Trial Outcomes & Findings for Fast Arm Motor Skill Training in Chronic Stroke Survivors (NCT NCT05013762)

Results Overview

Average movement time for 30 planar reaching movements to targets arrayed on a planar workspace. Negative changes indicate that participants moved faster to the targets following the intervention.

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Study phase

NA

Target enrollment

44 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days

Results posted on

2026-06-26

Participant Flow

Participant milestones

Participant milestones
Measure	Speed-biased Complex Motor Skill Training 21 participants performed 520 complex movements per day over 4 days over a one-week period. The task required participants to navigate their hand through a "track" projected on the surface of a table with a width of 5cm. Participants received adaptive score based on their movement time. Fast intervention: This intervention was based on recent body of evidence that high-speed movements during training were effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke. Participants were rewarded for movements performed within a short amount of time.	Accuracy-biased Complex Motor Skill Training The accuracy-biased group (21 participants) received a dose equivalent intervention with a emphasize on accuracy. The width of the track projected on the table was narrower (1.25cm) and the adaptive scores received were based on their accuracy to stay within the boundary of the track. Active Monitoring: This is an observation-only group. The training received in this group will be dose equivalent to the active group.
Overall Study STARTED	22	22
Overall Study COMPLETED	21	21
Overall Study NOT COMPLETED	1	1

Reasons for withdrawal

Withdrawal data not reported

Baseline Characteristics

Fast Arm Motor Skill Training in Chronic Stroke Survivors

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Baseline characteristics by cohort
Measure	Speed-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=21 Participants 21 participants performed 520 complex movements per day over 4 days over a one-week period. The task required participants to navigate their hand through a "track" projected on the surface of a table with a width of 5cm. Participants received adaptive score based on their movement time. Fast intervention: This intervention was based on recent body of evidence that high-speed movements during training were effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke. Participants were rewarded for movements performed within a short amount of time.	Accuracy-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=21 Participants The accuracy-biased group (21 participants) received a dose equivalent intervention with a emphasize on accuracy. The width of the track projected on the table was narrower (1.25cm) and the adaptive scores received were based on their accuracy to stay within the boundary of the track. Active Monitoring: This is an observation-only group. The training received in this group will be dose equivalent to the active group.	Total n=42 Participants Total of all reporting groups
Age, Categorical <=18 years	0 Participants n=20 Participants	0 Participants n=20 Participants	0 Participants n=40 Participants
Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years	15 Participants n=20 Participants	11 Participants n=20 Participants	26 Participants n=40 Participants
Age, Categorical >=65 years	6 Participants n=20 Participants	10 Participants n=20 Participants	16 Participants n=40 Participants
Sex: Female, Male Female	9 Participants n=20 Participants	9 Participants n=20 Participants	18 Participants n=40 Participants
Sex: Female, Male Male	12 Participants n=20 Participants	12 Participants n=20 Participants	24 Participants n=40 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino	8 Participants n=20 Participants	8 Participants n=20 Participants	16 Participants n=40 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino	13 Participants n=20 Participants	13 Participants n=20 Participants	26 Participants n=40 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported	0 Participants n=20 Participants	0 Participants n=20 Participants	0 Participants n=40 Participants
Region of Enrollment United States	21 participants n=20 Participants	21 participants n=20 Participants	42 participants n=40 Participants
Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFM)	42 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.1 • n=20 Participants	43 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.6 • n=20 Participants	42.9 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.3 • n=40 Participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days

Population: Here, we compared 30 planar reaching movements performed by each of the 21 participants before and after the intervention, representing a total of 1,260 movements per group.

Average movement time for 30 planar reaching movements to targets arrayed on a planar workspace. Negative changes indicate that participants moved faster to the targets following the intervention.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Speed-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=1260 Planar reaching movements 21 participants performed 520 complex movements per day over 4 days over a one-week period. The task required participants to navigate their hand through a "track" projected on the surface of a table with a width of 5cm. Participants received adaptive score based on their movement time. Fast intervention: This intervention was based on recent body of evidence that high-speed movements during training were effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke. Participants were rewarded for movements performed within a short amount of time.	Accuracy-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=1260 Planar reaching movements The accuracy-biased group (21 participants) received a dose equivalent intervention with a emphasize on accuracy. The width of the track projected on the table was narrower (1.25cm) and the adaptive scores received were based on their accuracy to stay within the boundary of the track. Active Monitoring: This is an observation-only group. The training received in this group will be dose equivalent to the active group.
Change in Arm Reaching Movement Time.	-0.13 seconds Standard Error 0.001	0.07 seconds Standard Error 0.0004

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days

Population: Here, we compared 30 planar reaching movements performed by each of the 21 participants before and after the intervention, representing a total of 1,260 movements per group.

Average movement smoothness for 30 planar reaching movements to target arrayed on a planar workspace. Smoothness is computed by number of peaks in hand tangential velocity profiles of arm-reaching movements. Negative changes indicate that participants had smoother movement to the targets following the intervention.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Speed-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=1260 Planar reaching movements 21 participants performed 520 complex movements per day over 4 days over a one-week period. The task required participants to navigate their hand through a "track" projected on the surface of a table with a width of 5cm. Participants received adaptive score based on their movement time. Fast intervention: This intervention was based on recent body of evidence that high-speed movements during training were effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke. Participants were rewarded for movements performed within a short amount of time.	Accuracy-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=1260 Planar reaching movements The accuracy-biased group (21 participants) received a dose equivalent intervention with a emphasize on accuracy. The width of the track projected on the table was narrower (1.25cm) and the adaptive scores received were based on their accuracy to stay within the boundary of the track. Active Monitoring: This is an observation-only group. The training received in this group will be dose equivalent to the active group.
Change in Movement Smoothness	-0.43 number of peaks Standard Error 0.008	-0.1 number of peaks Standard Error 0.005

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days

Population: Participants performed planar reaching movements to targets positioned at the midline, varying in distance (10, 20, and 25 cm) and diameter (2, 4, and 8 cm), resulting in nine unique target combinations. Each target was presented six times, totaling 54 reaching movements per participant per session. This yielded 2,268 movements in total. We assessed changes in the speed-accuracy trade-off following the intervention.

The speed-accuracy trade-off of reaching movements was assessed as a linear relationship between movement time and the Index of Difficulty : log ratio of the movement distance to target size. Negative changes indicate that participants are less affected by the index of difficulty, reflecting a better speed-accuracy trade-off.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Speed-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=2268 planar reaching movements 21 participants performed 520 complex movements per day over 4 days over a one-week period. The task required participants to navigate their hand through a "track" projected on the surface of a table with a width of 5cm. Participants received adaptive score based on their movement time. Fast intervention: This intervention was based on recent body of evidence that high-speed movements during training were effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke. Participants were rewarded for movements performed within a short amount of time.	Accuracy-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=2268 planar reaching movements The accuracy-biased group (21 participants) received a dose equivalent intervention with a emphasize on accuracy. The width of the track projected on the table was narrower (1.25cm) and the adaptive scores received were based on their accuracy to stay within the boundary of the track. Active Monitoring: This is an observation-only group. The training received in this group will be dose equivalent to the active group.
Change in Speed Accuracy Trade-off	-0.034 Fitts' slope (sec/index of difficulty) Standard Error 0.014	0.033 Fitts' slope (sec/index of difficulty) Standard Error 0.018

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: We evaluated the change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to one month post-intervention, representing an average interval of 40 days.

Average movement time for 30 planar reaching movements to targets arrayed on a planar workspace. Negative changes indicate that participants moved faster to the targets following the intervention.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Speed-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=1260 Planar reaching movements 21 participants performed 520 complex movements per day over 4 days over a one-week period. The task required participants to navigate their hand through a "track" projected on the surface of a table with a width of 5cm. Participants received adaptive score based on their movement time. Fast intervention: This intervention was based on recent body of evidence that high-speed movements during training were effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke. Participants were rewarded for movements performed within a short amount of time.	Accuracy-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=1260 Planar reaching movements The accuracy-biased group (21 participants) received a dose equivalent intervention with a emphasize on accuracy. The width of the track projected on the table was narrower (1.25cm) and the adaptive scores received were based on their accuracy to stay within the boundary of the track. Active Monitoring: This is an observation-only group. The training received in this group will be dose equivalent to the active group.
Change in Arm Reaching Movement Time.	-0.04 seconds Standard Error 0.004	0.016 seconds Standard Error 0.003

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: We evaluated the change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to one month post-intervention, representing an average interval of 40 days.

Population: Here, we compared 30 planar reaching movements performed by each of the 21 participants before and after the intervention, representing a total of 1,260 movements per group.

Average movement smoothness for 30 planar reaching movements to target arrayed on a planar workspace. Smoothness is computed by number of peaks in hand tangential velocity profiles of arm-reaching movements. Negative changes indicate that participants had smoother movement to the targets following the intervention.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Speed-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=1260 planar reaching movements 21 participants performed 520 complex movements per day over 4 days over a one-week period. The task required participants to navigate their hand through a "track" projected on the surface of a table with a width of 5cm. Participants received adaptive score based on their movement time. Fast intervention: This intervention was based on recent body of evidence that high-speed movements during training were effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke. Participants were rewarded for movements performed within a short amount of time.	Accuracy-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=1260 planar reaching movements The accuracy-biased group (21 participants) received a dose equivalent intervention with a emphasize on accuracy. The width of the track projected on the table was narrower (1.25cm) and the adaptive scores received were based on their accuracy to stay within the boundary of the track. Active Monitoring: This is an observation-only group. The training received in this group will be dose equivalent to the active group.
Change in Movement Smoothness	-0.27 number of peaks Standard Error 0.016	-0.05 number of peaks Standard Error 0.01

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: We evaluated the change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to one month post-intervention, representing an average interval of 40 days.

Population: Participants performed planar reaching movements to targets positioned at the midline, varying in distance (10, 20, and 25 cm) and diameter (2, 4, and 8 cm), resulting in nine unique target combinations. Each target was presented six times, totaling 54 reaching movements per participant per session. This yielded 2,268 movements in total. We assessed changes in the speed-accuracy trade-off following the intervention.

The speed-accuracy trade-off of reaching movements was assessed as a linear relationship between movement time and the Index of Difficulty : log ratio of the movement distance to target size. Negative changes indicate that participants are less affected by the index of difficulty, reflecting a better speed-accuracy trade-off.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Speed-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=2268 planar reaching movements 21 participants performed 520 complex movements per day over 4 days over a one-week period. The task required participants to navigate their hand through a "track" projected on the surface of a table with a width of 5cm. Participants received adaptive score based on their movement time. Fast intervention: This intervention was based on recent body of evidence that high-speed movements during training were effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke. Participants were rewarded for movements performed within a short amount of time.	Accuracy-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=2268 planar reaching movements The accuracy-biased group (21 participants) received a dose equivalent intervention with a emphasize on accuracy. The width of the track projected on the table was narrower (1.25cm) and the adaptive scores received were based on their accuracy to stay within the boundary of the track. Active Monitoring: This is an observation-only group. The training received in this group will be dose equivalent to the active group.
Change in Speed Accuracy Trade-off	-0.012 Fitts' slope (sec/index of difficulty) Standard Error 0.01	0.014 Fitts' slope (sec/index of difficulty) Standard Error 0.018

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days

Population: Here, we compared ARAT scores obtained by each of the 21 participants before and after the intervention, representing a total of 42 assessments per group.

The ARAT assesses specific changes in upper limb function among individuals who have sustained a stroke.The test consists of performing functional reaching tasks, with each sub-task scored on a scale from 0 to 3, where a score of 3 indicates the movement was performed normally. Scores range from 0 to 57, with higher scores indicating better performance. Positive changes reflect improvements in limb function.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Speed-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=42 ARAT test 21 participants performed 520 complex movements per day over 4 days over a one-week period. The task required participants to navigate their hand through a "track" projected on the surface of a table with a width of 5cm. Participants received adaptive score based on their movement time. Fast intervention: This intervention was based on recent body of evidence that high-speed movements during training were effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke. Participants were rewarded for movements performed within a short amount of time.	Accuracy-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=42 ARAT test The accuracy-biased group (21 participants) received a dose equivalent intervention with a emphasize on accuracy. The width of the track projected on the table was narrower (1.25cm) and the adaptive scores received were based on their accuracy to stay within the boundary of the track. Active Monitoring: This is an observation-only group. The training received in this group will be dose equivalent to the active group.
Change in Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)	2.3 Scores on a scale Standard Error 2	1.7 Scores on a scale Standard Error 1.1

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days

Population: Here, we compared UEFM scores obtained by each of the 21 participants before and after the intervention, for a total of 42 assessments per group.

The UEFM is a test used to assess sensorimotor impairments in the upper extremity most affected by stroke. The test consists of performing specific upper extremity movements, with each sub-task scored on a scale from 0 to 2, where a score of 2 indicates normal performance. Scores range from 0 to 66, with higher scores indicating better performance. Positive changes reflect improvements in motor function.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Speed-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=42 UEFM test 21 participants performed 520 complex movements per day over 4 days over a one-week period. The task required participants to navigate their hand through a "track" projected on the surface of a table with a width of 5cm. Participants received adaptive score based on their movement time. Fast intervention: This intervention was based on recent body of evidence that high-speed movements during training were effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke. Participants were rewarded for movements performed within a short amount of time.	Accuracy-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=42 UEFM test The accuracy-biased group (21 participants) received a dose equivalent intervention with a emphasize on accuracy. The width of the track projected on the table was narrower (1.25cm) and the adaptive scores received were based on their accuracy to stay within the boundary of the track. Active Monitoring: This is an observation-only group. The training received in this group will be dose equivalent to the active group.
Change in Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFM)	3.9 Scores on a scale Standard Error 1.8	2.6 Scores on a scale Standard Error 1.1

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days

Population: Here, we compared BBT scores obtained by each of the 21 participants before and after the intervention, for a total of 42 assessments per group.

The Box and Block Test (BBT) measures unilateral gross manual dexterity. The test involves moving, one by one, as many blocks as possible from one compartment of a box to an adjacent, identical compartment within 60 seconds. Scores range from 0 to 150, with higher scores indicating better performance. Positive changes reflect improvements in upper limb function.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Speed-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=42 BBT test 21 participants performed 520 complex movements per day over 4 days over a one-week period. The task required participants to navigate their hand through a "track" projected on the surface of a table with a width of 5cm. Participants received adaptive score based on their movement time. Fast intervention: This intervention was based on recent body of evidence that high-speed movements during training were effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke. Participants were rewarded for movements performed within a short amount of time.	Accuracy-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=42 BBT test The accuracy-biased group (21 participants) received a dose equivalent intervention with a emphasize on accuracy. The width of the track projected on the table was narrower (1.25cm) and the adaptive scores received were based on their accuracy to stay within the boundary of the track. Active Monitoring: This is an observation-only group. The training received in this group will be dose equivalent to the active group.
Change in Box and Block Test Score (BBT)	2.7 Number of blocks Standard Error 1.6	2.6 Number of blocks Standard Error 0.9

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: We evaluated the change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to one month post-intervention, representing an average interval of 40 days.

Population: Here, we compared ARAT scores obtained by each of the 21 participants before and after the intervention, representing a total of 42 assessments per group.

The ARAT assesses specific changes in upper limb function among individuals who have sustained a stroke. The test consists of performing functional reaching tasks, with each sub-task scored on a scale from 0 to 3, where a score of 3 indicates the movement was performed normally. Scores range from 0 to 57, with higher scores indicating better performance. Positive changes reflect improvements in limb function.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Speed-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=42 ARAT test 21 participants performed 520 complex movements per day over 4 days over a one-week period. The task required participants to navigate their hand through a "track" projected on the surface of a table with a width of 5cm. Participants received adaptive score based on their movement time. Fast intervention: This intervention was based on recent body of evidence that high-speed movements during training were effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke. Participants were rewarded for movements performed within a short amount of time.	Accuracy-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=42 ARAT test The accuracy-biased group (21 participants) received a dose equivalent intervention with a emphasize on accuracy. The width of the track projected on the table was narrower (1.25cm) and the adaptive scores received were based on their accuracy to stay within the boundary of the track. Active Monitoring: This is an observation-only group. The training received in this group will be dose equivalent to the active group.
Change in Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)	3.6 Scores on a scale Standard Error 2	4.6 Scores on a scale Standard Error 1.2

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: We evaluated the change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to one month post-intervention, representing an average interval of 40 days.

Population: Here, we compared UEFM scores obtained by each of the 21 participants before and after the intervention, for a total of 42 assessments.

The UEFM is a test used to assess sensorimotor impairments in the upper extremity most affected by stroke. The test consists of performing specific upper extremity movements, with each sub-task scored on a scale from 0 to 2, where a score of 2 indicates normal performance. Scores range from 0 to 66, with higher scores indicating better performance. Positive changes reflect improvements in motor function.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Speed-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=42 UEFM test 21 participants performed 520 complex movements per day over 4 days over a one-week period. The task required participants to navigate their hand through a "track" projected on the surface of a table with a width of 5cm. Participants received adaptive score based on their movement time. Fast intervention: This intervention was based on recent body of evidence that high-speed movements during training were effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke. Participants were rewarded for movements performed within a short amount of time.	Accuracy-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=42 UEFM test The accuracy-biased group (21 participants) received a dose equivalent intervention with a emphasize on accuracy. The width of the track projected on the table was narrower (1.25cm) and the adaptive scores received were based on their accuracy to stay within the boundary of the track. Active Monitoring: This is an observation-only group. The training received in this group will be dose equivalent to the active group.
Change in Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFM)	4.6 Scores on a scale Standard Error 1.8	1.2 Scores on a scale Standard Error 1.1

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: We evaluated the change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to one month post-intervention, representing an average interval of 40 days.

Population: Here, we compared BBT scores obtained by each of the 21 participants before and after the intervention, for a total of 42 assessments per group.

The Box and Block Test (BBT) measures unilateral gross manual dexterity.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure	Speed-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=42 BBT test 21 participants performed 520 complex movements per day over 4 days over a one-week period. The task required participants to navigate their hand through a "track" projected on the surface of a table with a width of 5cm. Participants received adaptive score based on their movement time. Fast intervention: This intervention was based on recent body of evidence that high-speed movements during training were effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke. Participants were rewarded for movements performed within a short amount of time.	Accuracy-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=42 BBT test The accuracy-biased group (21 participants) received a dose equivalent intervention with a emphasize on accuracy. The width of the track projected on the table was narrower (1.25cm) and the adaptive scores received were based on their accuracy to stay within the boundary of the track. Active Monitoring: This is an observation-only group. The training received in this group will be dose equivalent to the active group.
Change in Box and Block Test Score (BBT)	2.2 Number of blocks Standard Error 1.7	2.3 Number of blocks Standard Error 1

Adverse Events

Speed-biased Complex Motor Skill Training

Serious events: 0 serious events

Other events: 1 other events

Deaths: 0 deaths

Accuracy-biased Complex Motor Skill Training

Serious events: 0 serious events

Other events: 0 other events

Deaths: 0 deaths

Serious adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Other adverse events

Other adverse events
Measure	Speed-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=21 participants at risk 21 participants performed 520 complex movements per day over 4 days over a one-week period. The task required participants to navigate their hand through a "track" projected on the surface of a table with a width of 5cm. Participants received adaptive score based on their movement time. Fast intervention: This intervention was based on recent body of evidence that high-speed movements during training were effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke. Participants were rewarded for movements performed within a short amount of time.	Accuracy-biased Complex Motor Skill Training n=21 participants at risk The accuracy-biased group (21 participants) received a dose equivalent intervention with a emphasize on accuracy. The width of the track projected on the table was narrower (1.25cm) and the adaptive scores received were based on their accuracy to stay within the boundary of the track. Active Monitoring: This is an observation-only group. The training received in this group will be dose equivalent to the active group.
General disorders nausea	4.8% 1/21 • Number of events 1 • 1 month	0.00% 0/21 • 1 month

Additional Information

Dr. Nicolas Schweighofer

Division of Biokinesiology & Physical Therapy, University of Southern California

Phone: (323) 442-2900

Email: [email protected]

Results disclosure agreements

Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
Publication restrictions are in place