## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Parameters**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Tipstim®**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Tipstim®**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Tipstim®**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Tipstim®**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Median Sensation**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Ulnar Sensation**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Median Sensation**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Ulnar Sensation**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & \(\mathbf{r_{s}}\) & \(\boldsymbol{p}\) & \(\mathbf{r_{s}}\) & \(\boldsymbol{p}\) & \(\mathbf{r_{s}}\) & \(\boldsymbol{p}\) & \(\mathbf{r_{s}}\) & \(\boldsymbol{p}\) \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**without Stabilization**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**with Stabilization**} \\ \hline MaxROM F2 & \(0.06\) & \(0.649\) & \(0.03\) & \(0.828\) & \(0.09\) & \(0.519\) & \(0.10\) & \(0.471\) \\ HzF1 & \(0.12\) & \(0.375\) & \(0.03\) & \(0.835\) & \(0.08\) & \(0.542\) & \(0.05\) & \(0.695\) \\ MaxROM F1 & \(-0.03\) & \(0.798\) & \(-0.08\) & \(0.563\) & \(0.10\) & \(0.467\) & \(-0.02\) & \(0.907\) \\ HzF5 & \(-0.01\) & \(0.930\) & \(-0.02\) & \(0.913\) & \(0.15\) & \(0.252\) & \(0.14\) & \(0.310\) \\ Grip strength [kg] & \(-0.02\) & \(0.878\) & \(-0.06\) & \(0.671\) & \(0.02\) & \(0.860\) & \(0.01\) & \(0.963\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: _Cont._hemiplegic arm functionality after 6 months can be predicted in a hospital stroke unit using two simple tests, finger extension and shoulder abduction [58]. In the works cited, the stabilization or the shoulder abduction influences the movements of the fingers. In our work, the position of lying on the back and limiting the abduction in the shoulder joint improves the coordination of the wrist and fingers and the strength of the handgrip. In the presented study, a nine-day wash-out was used to extinguish the effects of the therapy. Many studies, but most of all the methodology of cross-over research, assume the use of a break in subjecting participants to a specific intervention [59; 60; 61]. This is to prevent the effect of the previous intervention from overlapping with the next one. The statistical analysis of our research confirmed the correctness of this assumption. In our study, the intervention with tipstim(r) gave statistically significant results both in a stable position and without stabilization. In many studies in which participants are subjected to interventions using tipstim(r) parameters, researchers confirm the advantages of using this device in the treatment of stroke patients with sensorimotor disorders [32; 34; 35; 36]. In the analyzed studies, the effectiveness of the therapy was always observed, regardless of the parameters used [33; 62; 63]. In the presented results of our studies, both studied groups achieved statistically significant results in the stable position, however, taking into account the comparison of the results in groups A/B and B/A, more significant results were achieved in the group starting the intervention with the placebo effect. It is worth noting that the patients started with a similar level of functional assessment, and as we know, both the time and the application of the therapy work to the benefit of the treatment. In this situation, it seems correct to reason that it is in a stable position of the trunk and the affected upper limb that higher results can be obtained. At the same time, it should be noted that each of the interventions lasted only 5 working days, which may indicate that the duration of the therapy with the tipstim(r) device was too short to achieve better results of coordination and handgrip. Moreover, the research did not show any significant dependencies between the parameters of motor coordination, grip strength, and middle and elbow sensation of the examined persons. The tipstim(r) device used only five times does not significantly change the coordination of movements and the grip strength of the hand.