StrokeAUTOTABNCT01565044
Automatic Versus Intentional Movement Exercises to Enhance Arm Functions After Stroke
A study testing motor training in people with Stroke and Upper-limb Paresis, run by Hospices Civils de Lyon at 1 site in France.
Trial summary
Many patients retain upper-limb motor impairment following stroke. Most conventional rehabilitation techniques are aimed to improve motor intentional movement by repeated exercises. These techniques require attentional load and are responsible for significant fatigue that probably represents a limiting factor. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Stroke, Upper-limb Paresis
- What is being tested?
- motor training
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 26 participants
- Where
- 1 siteFrance
- Study dates
- 27 Sep 2012to 3 Nov 2017
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- All subjects must be between the ages of 18-80 and must not be pregnant
- Patients volunteer to participate in the study, with a written informed consent signed
- Affiliation to a national health insurance program
- Hemiplegia after stroke
- Stroke onset >6 weeks and <4 years prior to study enrollment
- Patients able to perform the exercises on the automated table
Who cannot join
- Pregnancy
- Excessive pain in any joint of the paretic extremity (VAS>5)
- Coexistent major neurological or psychiatric disease as to decrease number of confounders
- Subjects with global aphasia and deficits of comprehension
- Any substantial decrease in alertness, language reception, or attention that might interfere with understanding instructions for motor testing
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
France1 site
Service de Médecine Physique et de Réadaptation et Plateforme 'Mouvement et Handicap', Hôpital Henry Gabrielle, HCL
Saint-Genis-Laval, 69235
About this study
Many patients retain upper-limb motor impairment following stroke. Most conventional rehabilitation techniques are aimed to improve motor intentional movement by repeated exercises. These techniques require attentional load and are responsible for significant fatigue that probably represents a limiting factor. Alternatively, the automatic control of action is now well documented. A rehabilitation method based on this principle could allow recovery of more natural movements.
Hypothesis: Stimulating automatic motricity improves upper-limb motor skills compared with a rehabilitation technique based on intentional movements.
- Conditions
- Stroke, Upper-limb Paresis
- Being tested
- motor training
- Keywords
- Stroke, hemiplegia, automatic pilot, upper-limb rehabilitation
- Medical subject headings
- Stroke, Paresis, Hemiplegia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
motor trainingOther
Subject will perform prehension exercises on an automated table. After the initiation of the arm movement, the target to be grasped is programmed to move in order to stimulate automatic motricity.
motor trainingOther
Subject will perform prehension exercises on an automated table. After the initiation of the arm movement, the target to be grasped will remain static in order to involve intentional motricity.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| " AUTO " Group | Experimental | Not described Receives: Other: motor training |
| " CONTROL " Group | Sham comparator | Not described Receives: Other: motor training |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Fugl Meyer assessment (upper extremity) of motor recovery following stroke
we are looking for a change in scores between the baseline session score (Day 1), and those collected during this follow-up session (Day 26).
Measured: 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)
Secondary outcomes (7)
Fugl Meyer assessment (upper extremity) of motor recovery following stroke
we are looking for a change in scores between the baseline session score (Day 1), and those collected during each follow-up session
Measured: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12)
modified Ashworth scale
we are looking for a change in scores between the baseline session score (Day 1), and those collected during each follow-up session.
Measured: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12) and 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)
Visual Analog Pain Scale
we are looking for a change in scores between the baseline session score (Day 1), and those collected during each follow-up session.
Measured: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12) and 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)
Box and block test
we are looking for a change in scores between the baseline session score (Day 1), and those collected during each follow-up session
Measured: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12) and 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)
Frenchey Arm Test
we are looking for a change in scores between the baseline session score (Day 1), and those collected during each follow-up session.
Measured: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12) and 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)
Motor Activity Log (MAL
we are looking for a change in scores between the baseline session score (Day 1), and those collected during each follow-up session.
Measured: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12) and 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)
Functional independence scale (MIF)
we are looking for a change in scores between the baseline session score (Day 1), and those collected during each follow-up session
Measured: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12) and 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted28 Mar 2012 (estimated)
- Study start27 Sep 2012
- Primary completion3 Nov 2017
- Study completion3 Nov 2017
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for StrokeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Hospices Civils de LyonThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 26 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Hospices Civils de Lyon
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01565044
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2011.675
- Acronym
- AUTOTAB
- Status last verified
- Dec 2025
- First submitted
- 26 Mar 2012
- Last updated
- 19 Dec 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 Dec 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Automatic Versus Intentional Movement Exercises to Enhance Arm Functions After Stroke
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01565044
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- AUTOTAB / 2011.675
- Conditions
- Stroke, Upper-limb Paresis
- Keywords
- Stroke, hemiplegia, automatic pilot, upper-limb rehabilitation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 26 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Hospices Civils de LyonUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 27 Sep 2012 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 3 Nov 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- 3 Nov 2017 (actual)
- First posted
- 28 Mar 2012 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Many patients retain upper-limb motor impairment following stroke. Most conventional rehabilitation techniques are aimed to improve motor intentional movement by repeated exercises. These techniques require attentional load and are responsible for significant fatigue that probably represents a limiting factor. Alternatively, the automatic control of action is now well documented. A rehabilitation method based on this principle could allow recovery of more natural movements.
Hypothesis: Stimulating automatic motricity improves upper-limb motor skills compared with a rehabilitation technique based on intentional movements.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| " AUTO " Group | Experimental | Other: motor training |
| " CONTROL " Group | Sham comparator | Other: motor training |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 80 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- All subjects must be between the ages of 18-80 and must not be pregnant
- Patients volunteer to participate in the study, with a written informed consent signed
- Affiliation to a national health insurance program
- Hemiplegia after stroke
- Stroke onset >6 weeks and <4 years prior to study enrollment
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Pregnancy
- Excessive pain in any joint of the paretic extremity (VAS>5)
- Coexistent major neurological or psychiatric disease as to decrease number of confounders
- Subjects with global aphasia and deficits of comprehension
- Any substantial decrease in alertness, language reception, or attention that might interfere with understanding instructions for motor testing
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| motor trainingSubject will perform prehension exercises on an automated table. After the initiation of the arm movement, the target to be grasped is programmed to move in order to stimulate automatic motricity. | Other | " AUTO " Group |
| motor trainingSubject will perform prehension exercises on an automated table. After the initiation of the arm movement, the target to be grasped will remain static in order to involve intentional motricity. | Other | " CONTROL " Group |
Primary outcome
Fugl Meyer assessment (upper extremity) of motor recovery following stroke
Time frame: 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)
we are looking for a change in scores between the baseline session score (Day 1), and those collected during this follow-up session (Day 26).
7 secondary outcomes
Fugl Meyer assessment (upper extremity) of motor recovery following stroke
Time frame: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12)
modified Ashworth scale
Time frame: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12) and 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)
Visual Analog Pain Scale
Time frame: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12) and 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)
Box and block test
Time frame: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12) and 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)
Frenchey Arm Test
Time frame: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12) and 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)
Motor Activity Log (MAL
Time frame: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12) and 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)
Functional independence scale (MIF)
Time frame: immediately following the last day of the intervention (Day 12) and 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 19 Dec 2025.
Related trials for Stroke
Recruiting
Connectomic Alterations Following Acute Ischemic Stroke in the MCA Territory
Ischemic Stroke
RecruitingObservational study
Clevidipine for the Antihypertensive Treatment of Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Intracerebral Hemorrhage, Stroke
Active, not recruitingPhase 4
A Study Testing How Well the Drug Extract of Ginkgo Biloba Leaves Tablets Works for People With Memory or Thinking Problems After a Stroke When Added to Standard Treatment
Ischemic Stroke Hospitalized, Impairment, Cognitive
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Anti-inflammatory and Anti-thrombotic Therapy With colcHicine and Low Dose Rivaroxaban for Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events Reduction in Ischemic Stroke
Ischemic Stroke
RecruitingObservational study
CoMind Early Feasibility Study
Intracranial Pressure, Intracranial Pressure Changes
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing motor training in people with Stroke and Upper-limb Paresis, run by Hospices Civils de Lyon at 1 site in France.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Dec 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in France. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Fugl Meyer assessment (upper extremity) of motor recovery following stroke (time frame: 2 weeks following the last day of the intervention (Day 26)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 19 Dec 2025.