$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Baseline
From October 2021 to June 2023, we recruited 35 patients, 32 of whom ultimately completed the study; no patients experienced any adverse events during the trial.
Regarding the clinical symptoms of the two groups of patients (Table 1), the average ages of the EG and the CG were 53.19 ± 10.72 and 55.88 ± 12.32 years (P = 0.515), respectively. There were no significant differences in gender, disease type, FMA-UL scores, or MBI scores (P > 0.05). Before the intervention, the FMA-WH scores of all patients in both groups were 0 points.
FMA-UL has high clinical significance and can effectively and reliably assess upper limb involvement in patients with brain injury. The FMA-UL has a total of 33 upper limb assessment items, and each unidirectional score is assigned as 2 points for full completion, 1 point for partial completion, and 0 points for no completion. The total possible upper limb movement score is 66 points. As a subcategory of the FMA-UL, the wrist-hand scale (FMA-WH) has 12 items, with a total possible score of 24 points.
The results of repeated measures analysis of variance showed that the main effect of the group on FMA-UL score was significant, F = 5.564, p = 0.030, ɳ2p = 0.214; the main effect of time was significant, F = 34.716, p < 0.001, ɳ2p = 0.831; the interaction effect of group and time was significant, F = 5.554, p = 0.030, ɳ2p = 0.256. (Table 2)
The main effect of the group on the FMA-WH score was significant, F = 8.817, p = 0.006, ɳ2p = 0.227; the main effect of time was significant, F =13.357, p = 0.001, ɳ2p = 0.308; The interaction effect between time and group was significant, F = 8.817, p = 0.006, ɳ2p = 0.227. (Table 2).
The modified Barthel index is widely used to assess the ability to perform daily activities and measures a person's ability to perform ten such basic activities. The total possible score on the Barthel index is 100 points, and the higher the score is, the stronger the patient's ability to perform activities of daily living.
The main effect of the group on the MBI score was significant, F = 8.512, p = 0.007, ɳ2p = 0.221; the main effect of time was significant, F = 588.559, p < 0.001, ɳ2p = 0.952; the interaction effect between group and time was significant, F = 10.425, p = 0.003, ɳ2p = 0.258. (Table 2).
The integral value is the integral of the blood oxygen signal during the execution of the task and reflects the magnitude of the hemodynamic response during the task. The centroid value is the time (s) shown by the vertical line of the center of the blood oxygen signal change area during the entire task period and is an indicator of time-course changes throughout the task, representing the speed of the hemodynamic response27.
There was no significant difference in the integral or centroid values between the two groups before (Figure 5A) the intervention (P > 0.05). After the intervention, the integral value of the right hemisphere of the subjects in the CG was 0.20 ± 0.32, the integral value of the right hemisphere of the subjects in the EG was -0.06 ± 0.24, and there was a significant difference in the overall means of the two groups (t=-2.489, d=0.92, P = 0.020, P < 0.025 is considered statistically significant) (Table 3). After the intervention, the integral value of the left hemisphere of the subjects in the CG was 0.18 ± 0.32, the integral value of the left hemisphere of the subjects in the EG group was -0.04±0.26, and there was no significant difference in the overall means of the two groups (t=-1.975, P=0.059, d=0.75). There were no significant differences in the centroid values between the two groups after the intervention (P > 0.025) (Figure 5B).

Figure 1: Recruitment flow chart. A total of 35 subjects were recruited, of which 2 subjects did not meet the requirements and 1 subject dropped out due to the epidemic, and 32 subjects were finally included. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Upper limb rehabilitation training with different movement modes. (A,B) EG performing active hand rehabilitation training. (C) CG performing passive hand rehabilitation training. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Arrangement and location of light beams. A red circle represents a light source, a blue circle represents a detector, and the path of the beam is shown between them. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Task paradigm. A rest (15 s)-task (30 s)-rest (15 s) was used as a test unit and repeated 5 times in total. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Scatter plots showing the distributions of the centroid values and integral values of the right hemisphere in the two groups of patients. (A) Before the intervention. (B) After the intervention. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| Variable | PM (n = 16) | AAM (n = 16) | p value |
| Gender (male/female) | 9/7 | 8/8 | 1 |
| Age in years (mean ± SD) | 53.19 ± 10.72 | 55.88 ± 12.32 | 0.515 |
| Type (hemorrhagic/ischemic) | 9/7 | 6/10 | 0.479 |
Table 1: Subject characteristics. FMA: Fugl-Meyer Assessment; MBI: Modified Barthel Index; PM: passive motion; AAM: assisted active movement; FOT: functional occupational therapy.
| Assessment Indicators | Main Effect (Group) | Main Effect (Time) | Interaction Effect (Group x Time) |
| F | P-values | η²p | F | P-values | η²p | F | P-values | η²p |
| FMA-UL | 5.564 | 0.03 | 0.214 | 34.716 | <0.001 | 0.831 | 5.554 | 0.03 | 0.256 |
| FMA-WH | 8.817 | 0.006 | 0.227 | 13.357 | 0.001 | 0.308 | 8.817 | 0.006 | 0.227 |
| MBI | 8.512 | 0.007 | 0.221 | 588.559 | <0.001 | 0.952 | 10.425 | 0.003 | 0.258 |
Table 2: Results of analysis of repeated two-way ANOVA conducted on GROUP, TIME, and interaction effect on FMA-UL, FMA-WH, and MBI.
| | Assisted Active Movement Group | Passive Movement Group | | | |
| | mean ± SD | mean ± SD | t value | P value | Cohen’s d |
| Integral value | Left | -0.04 ± 0.26 | 0.18 ± 0.32 | -1.975 | 0.059 | 0.75 |
| Right | -0.06 ± 0.24 | 0.20 ± 0.32 | -2.489 | 0.02 | 0.92 |
| Centoid value | Left | 13.03 ± 10.45 | 11.54 ± 9.13 | 0.396 | 0.695 | 0.15 |
| Right | 11.04 ± 12.00 | 12.58 ± 10.98 | -0.351 | 0.728 | 0.13 |
Table 3: Comparison of fNIRS data between the two groups after the intervention.