## 3 Results
### Multi-Domain Assessment Results  
#### 3.2.1 Kinematics Analysis  
For kinematic analysis, trajectories were expressed in articular body coordinates (shoulder flexion angle and elbow flexion angle), considering the mean achieved by patients during the robotic movements. The mean angles displayed in Figure 3 (right column) were considered at the end of the forward phase when the robot-assisted gesture has just been completed. Averaging across patients, the corresponding values were 38.84\({}^{\circ}\) for shoulder flexion and 122.49\({}^{\circ}\) for elbow flexion. During the free movements, the shoulder flexion angle varied among patients from 5.55\({}^{\circ}\) to 62.82\({}^{\circ}\) (mean value 37.55\({}^{\circ}\)) at T0, while it varied from 15.68\({}^{\circ}\) to 78.75\({}^{\circ}\) (mean value 47.10\({}^{\circ}\)) at T1. Elbow extension ranged from a minimum value of 107.36\({}^{\circ}\) to a maximum of 135.99\({}^{\circ}\) (mean value 122.67\({}^{\circ}\)) at T0, and from 101.05\({}^{\circ}\) to 132.62\({}^{\circ}\) (mean value 120.03\({}^{\circ}\)) at T1.  
Fastest execution time at T0 was 1.08 s and the slowest was 2.35 s (mean 1.63 s), while at T1 the fastest execution time was 1.18 s and the slowest was 2.27 s (mean 1.50 s).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & **Patient 1** & **Patient 2** & **Patient 3** & **Patient 4** & **Patient 5** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Synergies} & Spatial Synergies & synergy 1 & 0.64 & 0.96 & 0.84 & 0.93 & 0.92 \\  & (Dot Product) (a. u.) & synergy 2 & 0.94 & 0.94 & 0.87 & 0.86 & 0.89 \\ \cline{2-7}  & Temporal Components & synergy 1 & 0.86 & 0.97 & 0.79 & 0.89 & 0.89 \\  & (Correlation), (a. u.) & synergy 2 & 0.61 & 0.87 & 0.56 & \(-\)0.15 & 0.86 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{EEG} & To & \(-\)0.28 & \(-\)0.05 & \(-\)0.30 & \(-\)0.10 & 0.17 \\  & & T1 & \(-\)0.38 & \(-\)0.18 & \(-\)0.31 & \(-\)0.16 & \(-\)0.46 \\  & & \(\Delta\) & \(-\)0.10 & \(-\)0.13 & \(-\)0.02 & \(-\)0.06 & \(-\)0.46 \\ \cline{2-7}  & ERD—alpha & T0 & \(-\)0.30 & 0.01 & \(-\)0.13 & \(-\)0.29 & \(-\)0.11 \\  & (a. u.) & T1 & \(-\)0.27 & \(-\)0.29 & \(-\)0.40 & \(-\)0.29 & \(-\)0.55 \\  & (a. u.) & \(\Delta\) & 0.03 & \(-\)0.30 & \(-\)0.27 & 0.01 & \(-\)0.44 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{EEG} & RD—beta & TO & \(-\)0.28 & \(-\)0.28 & \(-\)0.22 & \(-\)0.20 & \(-\)0.30 \\  & T1 & \(-\)0.22 & \(-\)0.22 & \(-\)0.15 & \(-\)0.34 & \(-\)0.35 \\  & (a. u.) & \(\Delta\) & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.08 & \(-\)0.15 & \(-\)0.05 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{EEG} & RD—beta & TO & \(-\)0.10 & \(-\)0.30 & \(-\)0.04 & \(-\)0.19 & \(-\)0.12 \\  & T1 & \(-\)0.41 & \(-\)0.31 & \(-\)0.25 & \(-\)0.16 & \(-\)0.52 \\  & (a. u.) & \(\Delta\) & \(-\)0.32 & \(-\)0.01 & \(-\)0.21 & 0.04 & \(-\)0.39 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{LC—alpha} & TO & 0.02 & \(-\)1.00 & \(-\)0.40 & 0.48 & 1.00 \\  & T1 & \(-\)0.18 & 0.22 & 0.11 & 0.28 & 0.09 \\  & A & \(-\)0.20 & 1.22 & 0.51 & \(-\)0.20 & \(-\)0.91 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{LC—beta} & TO & \(-\)0.48 & 0.03 & \(-\)0.72 & \(-\)0.01 & \(-\)0.42 \\  & T1 & 0.31 & 0.17 & 0.25 & \(-\)0.38 & 0.19 \\ \cline{1-1}  & (a. u.) & \(\Delta\) & 0.79 & 0.13 & 0.97 & \(-\)0.36 & 0.62 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: _Cont._  
Figure 2: Radar plots of the patients’ scores for the two clinical scales (FMA, **(A)**; WMFT, **(B)**) at T0 (blue line) and T1 (red line). FMA, Fugl-Meyer Assessment; WMFT, Wolf Motor Function Test.  
Normalized Jerk scores ranged from 80.73 to 332.54 (mean 194.81) at T0 and from 60.92 to 248.34 (mean 125.14) at T1. Further details can be found in Table 1.  
Pre-post differences measured with the Wilcoxon paired signed ranks test resulted significant only for the Jerk parameter, which decreased at T1 (\(p\) < 0.05), while for all the other parameters no significant difference was found (\(p\) > 0.05).