## 3 Results  
As shown in Table 2 and Figure 1A,B, almost all the patients without complete sensory loss improved in the FMA-S/E and FMA-total scores after the robot training. Although the pre-training FMA scores in patients with complete sensory loss were relatively higher than those in patients without complete sensory loss, their improvement tended to be less. This tendency was prominent in the FMA-total scores in the moderate paralysis group (Figure 1B). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Motor Paralysis**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sensory Loss**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**FMA-UE**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**InMotion2-Evaluation**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**S/E (0–30)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Total (0–54)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**RE (cm)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**PE (cm)**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & **pre** & **post** & **pre** & **post** & **pre** & **post** & **pre** & **post** \\ \hline \multirow{10}{*}{Severe} & Complete & 8 & 9 & 8 & 9 & 11.0 & 8.4 & 4.6 & 2.8 \\ \cline{2-10}  & - & 2 & 2 & 4 & 4 & 10.9 & 3.4 & 2.3 & 2.1 \\ \cline{2-10}  & - & 3 & 13 & 3 & 13 & 5.8 & 2.4 & 1.4 & 1.5 \\ \cline{2-10}  & - & 5 & 8 & 6 & 17 & 0.9 & 0.8 & 1.2 & 1.0 \\ \cline{2-10}  & - & 6 & 7 & 6 & 8 & 10.5 & 1.7 & 3.8 & 2.0 \\ \cline{2-10}  & - & 4 & 4 & 6 & 6 & 7.6 & 0.8 & 2.0 & 1.3 \\ \cline{2-10}  & - & 6 & 9 & 9 & 13 & 6.7 & 1.6 & 1.4 & 1.4 \\ \cline{2-10}  & - & 8 & 10 & 9 & 11 & 4.4 & 1.2 & 2.1 & 1.5 \\ \cline{2-10}  & - & 6 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 6.2 & 1.6 & 1.6 & 0.9 \\ \cline{2-10}  & - & 7 & 7 & 14 & 15 & 7.7 & 1.0 & 1.9 & 1.0 \\ \cline{2-10}  & - & Avg & 5.2 & 7.3 & 7.1 & 10.6 & 6.7 & 1.6 & 2.0 & 1.4 \\ \cline{2-10}  & - & SD & 1.9 & 3.2 & 3.3 & 4.3 & 3.0 & 0.8 & 0.8 & 0.4 \\ \hline \multirow{10}{*}{Moderate} & Complete & 23 & 23 & 42 & 38 & 2.3 & 0.9 & 2.4 & 1.5 \\ \cline{2-10}  & - & 14 & 14 & 15 & 16 & 6.6 & 0.8 & 2.5 & 0.9 \\ \cline{1-10}  & - & 17 & 22 & 31 & 44 & 0.8 & 0.9 & 0.9 & 0.7 \\ \cline{1-10}  & - & 13 & 24 & 17 & 38 & 1.0 & 0.8 & 0.9 & 0.9 \\ \cline{1-10}  & - & 23 & 24 & 35 & 46 & 0.8 & 0.9 & 0.7 & 0.5 \\ \cline{1-10}  & - & 13 & 16 & 13 & 17 & 1.9 & 0.9 & 1.5 & 1.0 \\ \cline{1-10}  & - & 21 & 21 & 22 & 22 & 0.9 & 0.9 & 1.0 & 0.7 \\ \cline{1-10}  & - & 17 & 18 & 15 & 16 & 1.0 & 0.9 & 0.6 & 0.7 \\ \cline{1-10}  & Avg & 16.9 & 19.9 & 21.1 & 28.4 & 1.9 & 0.9 & 1.2 & 0.8 \\ \cline{1-10}  & SD & 3.9 & 3.9 & 8.6 & 13.7 & 2.1 & 0.1 & 0.7 & 0.2 \\ \hline \multirow{10}{*}{Mild} & Complete & 30 & 30 & 51 & 52 & 1.2 & 0.8 & 0.9 & 0.7 \\ \cline{1-10}  & - & 28 & 28 & 51 & 51 & 1.0 & 0.8 & 0.5 & 0.6 \\ \cline{1-10}  & - & 29 & 30 & 52 & 53 & 0.9 & 0.8 & 0.9 & 0.7 \\ \cline{1-10}  & - & 27 & 30 & 48 & 52 & 0.9 & 0.7 & 0.7 & 0.4 \\ \cline{1-10}  & Avg & 28.0 & 29.3 & 50.3 & 52.0 & 0.9 & 0.8 & 0.7 & 0.6 \\ \cline{1-10}  & SD & 1.0 & 1.2 & 2.1 & 1.0 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.2 \\ \hline \end{tabular} FMA-UE, upper-extremity subscale of Fugl–Meyer Assessment, S/E, shoulder and elbow excluding tendon reflex; Total, total FMA-UE score excluding coordination and tendon reflex; RE, Reach error; PE, Path error; Avg and SD, mean and standard deviation excluding the patients with complete sensory loss.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: The upper-extremity subscale of Fugl–Meyer Assessment (FMA-UE) and InMotion2-evaluation scores in pre- and post-robot training. InMotion2-evaluation scores are shown in Table 2 and Figure 1C,D. The RE values of the patients without complete sensory loss in the severe and moderate motor paralysis groups were scattered initially, but the values were greatly reduced after the robot training (Figure 1C). In the mild paralysis group, the RE values were slightly improved. While all the patients with complete sensory loss showed similar improvements in RE to the patients without complete sensory loss, the RE value of the patient with complete sensory loss in the severe motor paralysis group remained high after the training. As shown in the Figure 1D, in the severe and moderate motor paralysis groups, the PE values were maintained or improved in all the cases.