Abdelraouf and colleagues carried out a study with 49 subjects who had experienced a stroke. They wanted to see which rehabilitation method worked better: soft robotic gloves (SRGs) or mirror therapy. All particapants in the study also continued with standard rehabilitation for eight weeks. The researchers measured progress at the start, right after treatment, and again six months later. The robotic glove gave powered support to help patients practice gripping and releasing objects. Mirror therapy, on the other hand, uses the reflection of the unaffected hand to “trick” the brain into thinking the weaker hand was moving. To track recovery, the team tested hand dexterity (Box and Block Test), grip strength, and overall arm function (Fugl-Meyer Assessment–Upper Extremity). Results showed that people using the robotic glove made bigger improvements in all areas, and, importantly, those gains lasted for six months. In contrast, the progress made with mirror therapy faded over time. The study didn’t find clear differences based on age, sex, or stroke severity, but the relatively small number of participants makes it hard to draw firm conclusions about subgroups. One challenge is that robotic gloves can be expensive and hard to access, which may limit their use in some healthcare settings.,