## 3 Results
### Final Selection of Input Parameters  
Input parameter selection, for the development of the UBI indicator resulted in the creation of six sets for each of the 16 selected parameters. Frequency of appearance of the individual parameters was checked in given sets, and the results are presented in Table 7. From this comparison, twenty-one parameters were identified that were repeated in at least half of the sets (NRR).  
Results from the surveys conducted among physicians and physiotherapists identified seventeen parameters that were repeated in at least half of the survey answers (Table 7). The resulting set of 17 parameters selected by physiotherapists and physicians was compared with a set of 21 parameters selected according to the accepted calculation procedures (parameters repeated in at least half of the sets--NRR). This comparison allowed the selection of 13 parameters that appeared in both parameter determination approaches. As it was assumed that the new index would be based on 16 parameters (similar to the GGI index [25]), it was decided that the missing 3 parameters would be indicated by experienced clinicians and physiotherapists. Three additional parameters were then added to the UBI indicator, including temporal parameters P1 and P2 and P29, which represented the scope of abduction/adduction motion of the shoulder joint.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **M1\_R** & **M1\_L** & **M2\_R** & **M2\_L** & **M3\_R** & **M3\_L** & **NRR** & **NRR Selected** & **Survey** \\ \hline P1 & & & & & & ✓ & & 1 & & ✓ \\ P2 & ✓ & & & & & ✓ & 2 & & ✓ \\ P3 & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & & & 4 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P4 & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & & & 4 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P5 & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & & & 3 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P6 & ✓ & ✓ & & ✓ & ✓ & & 3 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P7 & ✓ & & ✓ & ✓ & & ✓ & 4 & ✓ & \\ P8 & ✓ & & ✓ & ✓ & & & 3 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P9 & ✓ & & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & & ✓ & 4 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P10 & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & & & 3 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P11 & ✓ & & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & 5 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P12 & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & 6 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P13 & & ✓ & & & & & & 1 & & \\ P14 & & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & & & 3 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P15 & & & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & 3 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P16 & & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & 4 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P17 & ✓ & ✓ & & & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & 4 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P18 & ✓ & ✓ & & & & ✓ & ✓ & 4 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P19 & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & 6 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P20 & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & 6 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P21 & & & & & & ✓ & ✓ & 2 & & ✓ \\ P22 & ✓ & ✓ & & & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & 4 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P23 & & & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & 4 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P24 & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & 6 & ✓ & ✓ \\ P25 & & & & & & & & 0 & & \\ P26 & & & & & & ✓ & & 1 & & \\ P27 & & & & & & & & 0 & & \\ P28 & & & & & & ✓ & & 1 & & \\ P29 & & & & & & ✓ & 2 & & ✓ \\ P30 & & ✓ & & ✓ & ✓ & 3 & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: A list of input parameters selected for the development of the new Upper Body Index indicator according to methods M1, M2, M3; frequency of appearance of individual parameter sets and physiotherapists’ guidelines, derived from survey results.  
Final selection of the 16 parameters was carried out through consultations with physiotherapists who provide rehabilitation services to stroke patients on a daily basis. The physiotherapists pointed out the following issues:  
* For upper limb motion evaluation, it is necessary to select mainly parameters that define maximum joint angles and motion ranges of the joints;
* Kinematic parameters measured for the spine should consider the possibility of detecting compensation movements, which may be a result of limb paresis;
* Appropriate velocity of the performed movement proves physical efficiency and ability of the upper limb.  
The set of 16 input parameters selected is presented in Table 8.