This study established the reliability of a novel upper-limb trajectory-tracking task for assessment of perceptual motor control in hemiparetic adults. Eleven persons with chronic poststroke hemiparesis (mean 58.6 months) and eleven nondisabled control subjects performed an elbow flexion-extension task against a low-resistance isotonic load at three speeds: 25°/s, 45°/s, and 65°/s. Both arms (paretic and nonparetic or dominant and nondominant) were tested during two identical sessions separated by 1 week. Relative reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) ranged from 0.5 to 0.8 and absolute reliability (standard error of measurement [SEM%]) ranged between 19% to 36% across both subject groups. No systematic errors between test sessions were revealed. Smallest real differences (SRDs) were determined to be ±2° to 3° in nondisabled, ±2° to 5° in nonparetic and ±9° in paretic arms. Responsiveness ratios derived with the use of the SRDs ranged between 1.91 to 2.45, indicating that this instrument is sensitive to clinically important change and suitable for demonstrating effects on upper-limb motor performance following clinical intervention.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Whereas mindfulness has been shown to enhance personal well-being, studies suggest it may also benefit intergroup dynamics. Using an integrative conceptual model, this meta-analysis examined associations between mindfulness and (a) different manifestations of bias (implicit/explicit attitudes, affect, behavior) directed toward (b) different bias targets (outgroup or ingroup, e.g., internalized bias), by (c) intergroup orientation (toward bias or anti-bias). Of 70 samples, 42 ( N = 3,229) assessed mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) and 30 ( N = 6,002) were correlational studies. Results showed a medium-sized negative effect of MBIs on bias outcomes, g = −0.56, 95% confidence interval [−0.72, −0.40]; I(2;3)2: 0.39; 0.48, and a small-to-medium negative effect between mindfulness and bias for correlational studies, r = −0.17 [−0.27, −0.03]; I(2;3)2: 0.11; 0.83. Effects were comparable for intergroup bias and internalized bias. We conclude by identifying gaps in the evidence base to guide future research.