Cerebrovascular StrokeFASTNCT05013762
Fast Arm Motor Skill Training in Chronic Stroke Survivors
A study testing Fast intervention and Active Monitoring in people with Cerebrovascular Stroke, run by University of Southern California at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Every year, almost 800,000 people experience a stroke in the United States, which lead to upper-limb impairments, making recovery of motor function a priority in stroke rehabilitation. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 21 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Cerebrovascular Stroke
- What is being tested?
- Fast intervention and Active Monitoring
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 44 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 15 Jun 2021to 27 Nov 2023
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
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 21 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- At least 6 months following an ischemic supratentorial stroke
- At least 21 years of age
- Exhibit residual capability to move the paretic UE (Upper Extremity Fugl- Meyer motor score >20/66)
- Able to follow a 2-step command (8th item on the MMSE test)
- Able to perform an unassisted arm reach movement of 25 cm ahead of the body within 5 seconds with trunk restraint
- Exhibit no greater than mild/moderate spasticity as assessed with a Modified Ashworth Score < 3
Who cannot join
- any neurologic diagnoses other than stroke
- peripheral movement restrictions, such as neuropathy
- orthopedic disorders affecting the paretic UE
- severe pain or sensory/proprioceptive impairment in the more affected UE
- visual neglect (more than 4% of lines left uncrossed on Albert's test).
- had a stroke directly affecting the cerebellum
- any contra-indications to MRI scanning
- mostly resolved impairments with an Upper Extremity Fugl- Meyer motor score >58/66
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Casa Colina Hospital and Centers for Healthcare
Pomona, California, 91769
About this study
Official title: Fast Training Promotes Recovery of Arm Movements Post-stroke Via Cerebellar-mediated Anticipatory Feedforward Control
Every year, almost 800,000 people experience a stroke in the United States, which lead to upper-limb impairments, making recovery of motor function a priority in stroke rehabilitation. 1) The primary objective of this study is to determine whether fast arm movement training on a tracking task ("Speed-training"), in chronic stroke survivors with mild to moderate paresis, will generalize to improve arm function better than dose-equivalent accuracy training on the same task. 2) study the effect of intensive arm training on the recovery of anticipatory feedforward control. 3) Determine the involvement of cerebellar-cortical circuits in the recovery of arm movements due to speed training.
Read the detailed description
About 65% of stroke survivors experience long-term limitations in upper extremity (UE) functions. In particular, limitations in arm reaching movements are prominent and correlate strongly with patients' impairment levels. Because activities of daily living often involve the UEs, retraining reach and grasp skills is critical for return to a full quality-of-life. Yet, the training parameters required for effective rehabilitation of UE function are not known. Recent evidence suggests that high-speed movements during training are effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke. Hence, fast movements generating large errors, would promote the restoration of the feedforward controllers and therefore improves arm movements and UE functions in individuals with chronic stroke. Because the cerebellum is involved in learning feedforward controllers from motor errors, the improvements would be proportional to the integrity of the cerebellar-cortical networks.
A double-blind quasi-randomized controlled study will be carried out in chronic post-stroke survivors. Participants will be assigned to either the speed-bias training group or a dose equivalent accuracy-bias training group (control) and will receive 4 days of training over a 1week period by a trained Occupational or physical therapist. Behavioral, EMG, and MRI data will be acquired within two weeks before, 3 days post, and one month after intervention.
- Conditions
- Cerebrovascular Stroke
- Being tested
- Fast intervention, Active Monitoring
- Keywords
- Stroke, Physical therapy, neurorehabilitation, motor function, neuroplasticity, neuroimaging, MRI, TDI, Hemiparesis, occupational therapy, patient focused, motor learning, motor control, skill acquisition, skill training, motor recovery, task-oriented training, task-specific training, arm function, upper extremity
- Medical subject headings
- Stroke, Paresis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Fast interventionBehavioural
This intervention is based on recent body of evidence that high-speed movements during training are effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke.Participants will be rewarded for movements performed within a short amount of time.
Active MonitoringBehavioural
This is an observation-only group. The training received in this group will be dose equivalent to the active group.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Speed-biased complex motor skill training | Active comparator | Participants will perform 400 complex movements per day over 4 days over a one-week period. The task requires participants to navigate their hand through a "track" projected on the surface of a table with a width of 5cm. Participants receive adaptive score based on their movement time. . Receives: Behavioral: Fast intervention |
| Accuracy-biased complex motor skill training | Other | The accuracy-biased group receives a dose equivalent intervention with a emphasize on accuracy. The width of the track projected on the table is narrower (less than 2cm) and the adaptive score received are based on their accuracy to say within the boundary of the track. Receives: Behavioral: Active Monitoring |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in Arm Reaching Movement Time.
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.
Measured: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days
Change in Movement Smoothness
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.
Measured: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days
Change in Speed Accuracy Trade-off
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.
Measured: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days
Change in Arm Reaching Movement Time.
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.
Measured: 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.
Change in Movement Smoothness
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.
Measured: 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.
Change in Speed Accuracy Trade-off
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.
Measured: 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.
Secondary outcomes (6)
Change in Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)
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.
Measured: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days
Change in Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFM)
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.
Measured: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days
Change in Box and Block Test Score (BBT)
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.
Measured: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days
Change in Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)
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.
Measured: 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.
Change in Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFM)
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.
Measured: 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.
Change in Box and Block Test Score (BBT)
The Box and Block Test (BBT) measures unilateral gross manual dexterity.
Measured: 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.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted19 Aug 2021
- Study start15 Jun 2021
- Primary completion1 Sep 2023
- Study completion27 Nov 2023
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (9)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Cerebrovascular StrokeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of Southern CaliforniaThe 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
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 44 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Southern California
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Casa Colina Hospital and Centers for Healthcare, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Carolee Winstein, University of Southern California
- Investigators
- Nicolas Schweighofer, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Southern California
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05013762
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- HS-CG-20-00023
- Other IDs
- R21NS120274
- Acronym
- FAST
- Status last verified
- Jun 2026
- First submitted
- 2 Jul 2021
- Last updated
- 26 Jun 2026
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Lang CE, Strube MJ, Bland MD, Waddell KJ, Cherry-Allen KM, Nudo RJ, Dromerick AW, Birkenmeier RL. Dose response of task-specific upper limb training in people at least 6 months poststroke: A phase II, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Ann Neurol. 2016 Sep;80(3):342-54. doi: 10.1002/ana.24734. Epub 2016 Aug 16.
PubMed 27447365Winstein C, Kim B, Kim S, Martinez C, Schweighofer N. Dosage Matters. Stroke. 2019 Jul;50(7):1831-1837. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.023603. Epub 2019 Jun 5.
PubMed 31164067Park H, Kim S, Winstein CJ, Gordon J, Schweighofer N. Short-Duration and Intensive Training Improves Long-Term Reaching Performance in Individuals With Chronic Stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016 Jul;30(6):551-61. doi: 10.1177/1545968315606990. Epub 2015 Sep 24.
PubMed 26405046Kantak S, McGrath R, Zahedi N, Luchmee D. Behavioral and neurophysiological mechanisms underlying motor skill learning in patients with post-stroke hemiparesis. Clin Neurophysiol. 2018 Jan;129(1):1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2017.10.010. Epub 2017 Nov 8.
PubMed 29127826Pantano P, Baron JC, Samson Y, Bousser MG, Derouesne C, Comar D. Crossed cerebellar diaschisis. Further studies. Brain. 1986 Aug;109 ( Pt 4):677-94. doi: 10.1093/brain/109.4.677.
PubMed 3488093Kawato M, Gomi H. A computational model of four regions of the cerebellum based on feedback-error learning. Biol Cybern. 1992;68(2):95-103. doi: 10.1007/BF00201431.
PubMed 1486143Gribble PL, Ostry DJ. Compensation for interaction torques during single- and multijoint limb movement. J Neurophysiol. 1999 Nov;82(5):2310-26. doi: 10.1152/jn.1999.82.5.2310.
PubMed 10561408Maeda RS, Cluff T, Gribble PL, Pruszynski JA. Feedforward and Feedback Control Share an Internal Model of the Arm's Dynamics. J Neurosci. 2018 Dec 5;38(49):10505-10514. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1709-18.2018. Epub 2018 Oct 24.
PubMed 30355628Darmon Y, Kantak S, Cone H, Fullmer N, Ouellette D, Winstein C, Rosario ER, Schweighofer N. Speed-Biased Training Temporarily Improves Motor Performance of the Paretic Arm Compared to Accuracy-Biased Training in Chronic Stroke Survivors: The Phase 1 FAST Randomized Clinical Trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2025 Jul;39(7):542-554. doi: 10.1177/15459683251331582. Epub 2025 May 10.
PubMed 40346836
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Jun 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Fast Training Promotes Recovery of Arm Movements Post-stroke Via Cerebellar-mediated Anticipatory Feedforward Control
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05013762
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- FAST / HS-CG-20-00023
- Conditions
- Cerebrovascular Stroke
- Keywords
- Stroke, Physical therapy, neurorehabilitation, motor function, neuroplasticity, neuroimaging, MRI, TDI
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 44 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Southern CaliforniaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Casa Colina Hospital and Centers for Healthcare, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
- Study start
- 15 Jun 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Sep 2023 (actual)
- Study completion
- 27 Nov 2023 (actual)
- First posted
- 19 Aug 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 26 Jun 2026
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Every year, almost 800,000 people experience a stroke in the United States, which lead to upper-limb impairments, making recovery of motor function a priority in stroke rehabilitation. 1) The primary objective of this study is to determine whether fast arm movement training on a tracking task ("Speed-training"), in chronic stroke survivors with mild to moderate paresis, will generalize to improve arm function better than dose-equivalent accuracy training on the same task. 2) study the effect of intensive arm training on the recovery of anticipatory feedforward control. 3) Determine the involvement of cerebellar-cortical circuits in the recovery of arm movements due to speed training.
Detailed description
About 65% of stroke survivors experience long-term limitations in upper extremity (UE) functions. In particular, limitations in arm reaching movements are prominent and correlate strongly with patients' impairment levels. Because activities of daily living often involve the UEs, retraining reach and grasp skills is critical for return to a full quality-of-life. Yet, the training parameters required for effective rehabilitation of UE function are not known. Recent evidence suggests that high-speed movements during training are effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke. Hence, fast movements generating large errors, would promote the restoration of the feedforward controllers and therefore improves arm movements and UE functions in individuals with chronic stroke. Because the cerebellum is involved in learning feedforward controllers from motor errors, the improvements would be proportional to the integrity of the cerebellar-cortical networks.
A double-blind quasi-randomized controlled study will be carried out in chronic post-stroke survivors. Participants will be assigned to either the speed-bias training group or a dose equivalent accuracy-bias training group (control) and will receive 4 days of training over a 1week period by a trained Occupational or physical therapist. Behavioral, EMG, and MRI data will be acquired within two weeks before, 3 days post, and one month after intervention.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Speed-biased complex motor skill training | Active comparator | Behavioral: Fast interventionParticipants will perform 400 complex movements per day over 4 days over a one-week period. The task requires participants to navigate their hand through a "track" projected on the surface of a table with a width of 5cm. Participants receive adaptive score based on their movement time. . |
| Accuracy-biased complex motor skill training | Other | Behavioral: Active MonitoringThe accuracy-biased group receives a dose equivalent intervention with a emphasize on accuracy. The width of the track projected on the table is narrower (less than 2cm) and the adaptive score received are based on their accuracy to say within the boundary of the track. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 21 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- At least 6 months following an ischemic supratentorial stroke
- At least 21 years of age
- Exhibit residual capability to move the paretic UE (Upper Extremity Fugl- Meyer motor score >20/66)
- Able to follow a 2-step command (8th item on the MMSE test)
- Able to perform an unassisted arm reach movement of 25 cm ahead of the body within 5 seconds with trunk restraint
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- any neurologic diagnoses other than stroke
- peripheral movement restrictions, such as neuropathy
- orthopedic disorders affecting the paretic UE
- severe pain or sensory/proprioceptive impairment in the more affected UE
- visual neglect (more than 4% of lines left uncrossed on Albert's test).
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Fast interventionThis intervention is based on recent body of evidence that high-speed movements during training are effective at improving arm movements in individuals with chronic stroke.Participants will be rewarded for movements performed within a short amount of time. | Behavioural | Speed-biased complex motor skill training |
| Active MonitoringThis is an observation-only group. The training received in this group will be dose equivalent to the active group. | Behavioural | Accuracy-biased complex motor skill training |
Primary outcome
Change in Arm Reaching Movement Time.
Time frame: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 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.
Change in Movement Smoothness
Time frame: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days
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.
Change in Speed Accuracy Trade-off
Time frame: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days
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.
Change in Arm Reaching Movement Time.
Time frame: 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.
Change in Movement Smoothness
Time frame: 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 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.
Change in Speed Accuracy Trade-off
Time frame: 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.
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.
6 secondary outcomes
Change in Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)
Time frame: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days
Change in Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFM)
Time frame: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days
Change in Box and Block Test Score (BBT)
Time frame: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days
Change in Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)
Time frame: 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.
Change in Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFM)
Time frame: 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.
Change in Box and Block Test Score (BBT)
Time frame: 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.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 26 Jun 2026.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 27447365Lang CE, Strube MJ, Bland MD, Waddell KJ, Cherry-Allen KM, Nudo RJ, Dromerick AW, Birkenmeier RL. Dose response of task-specific upper limb training in people at least 6 months poststroke: A phase II, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Ann Neurol. 2016 Sep;80(3):342-54. doi: 10.1002/ana.24734. Epub 2016 Aug 16.
- Background: PubMed 31164067Winstein C, Kim B, Kim S, Martinez C, Schweighofer N. Dosage Matters. Stroke. 2019 Jul;50(7):1831-1837. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.023603. Epub 2019 Jun 5.
- Background: PubMed 26405046Park H, Kim S, Winstein CJ, Gordon J, Schweighofer N. Short-Duration and Intensive Training Improves Long-Term Reaching Performance in Individuals With Chronic Stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016 Jul;30(6):551-61. doi: 10.1177/1545968315606990. Epub 2015 Sep 24.
- Background: PubMed 29127826Kantak S, McGrath R, Zahedi N, Luchmee D. Behavioral and neurophysiological mechanisms underlying motor skill learning in patients with post-stroke hemiparesis. Clin Neurophysiol. 2018 Jan;129(1):1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2017.10.010. Epub 2017 Nov 8.
- Background: PubMed 3488093Pantano P, Baron JC, Samson Y, Bousser MG, Derouesne C, Comar D. Crossed cerebellar diaschisis. Further studies. Brain. 1986 Aug;109 ( Pt 4):677-94. doi: 10.1093/brain/109.4.677.
- Background: PubMed 1486143Kawato M, Gomi H. A computational model of four regions of the cerebellum based on feedback-error learning. Biol Cybern. 1992;68(2):95-103. doi: 10.1007/BF00201431.
- Background: PubMed 10561408Gribble PL, Ostry DJ. Compensation for interaction torques during single- and multijoint limb movement. J Neurophysiol. 1999 Nov;82(5):2310-26. doi: 10.1152/jn.1999.82.5.2310.
- Background: PubMed 30355628Maeda RS, Cluff T, Gribble PL, Pruszynski JA. Feedforward and Feedback Control Share an Internal Model of the Arm's Dynamics. J Neurosci. 2018 Dec 5;38(49):10505-10514. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1709-18.2018. Epub 2018 Oct 24.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 40346836Darmon Y, Kantak S, Cone H, Fullmer N, Ouellette D, Winstein C, Rosario ER, Schweighofer N. Speed-Biased Training Temporarily Improves Motor Performance of the Paretic Arm Compared to Accuracy-Biased Training in Chronic Stroke Survivors: The Phase 1 FAST Randomized Clinical Trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2025 Jul;39(7):542-554. doi: 10.1177/15459683251331582. Epub 2025 May 10.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Cerebrovascular Stroke
Not yet recruiting
Temporal Interference Stimulation for Upper-Limb Motor Recovery in Early Subacute Stroke
Acute Ischemic Stroke
RecruitingObservational study
ELATE Study: Evaluating Large-vessel Acute Thrombectomy in Extended Time Window
Acute Ichemic Stroke
Recruiting
Web-Based Tele-Rehabilitation Using Action Observation and Mirror Therapy for Subacute Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Stroke, Upper Extremity Paresis
Recruiting
Early Motor-Cognitive Integrative Training on Cognitive and Motor Performance in Patients With Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
Subarachnoid Aneurysm Hemorrhage
Not yet recruiting
Selective Intra-Arterial Hypothermia After Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion
Acute Ischemic Stroke, Basilar Artery Occlusion
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.
Nicolas Schweighofer, PhD principal investigator
University of Southern California
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Fast intervention and Active Monitoring in people with Cerebrovascular Stroke, run by University of Southern California at 1 site in United States.
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 8 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 26 Jun 2026. 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 United States. 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. 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?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 26 Jun 2026). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
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?
Change in Arm Reaching Movement Time. (time frame: Change from baseline (assessed during the week preceding the intervention) to 3 days post-intervention, representing an average interval of 12 days). The study lists 6 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05013762, which also lists 9 linked publications.
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 26 Jun 2026.