Background: Stroke often results in impaired postural control and asymmetric weight distribution, which negatively affect balance and functional mobility. Previous research has demonstrated that balance training interventions incorporating proprioceptive stimulation and visual feedback can enhance postural stability in stroke survivors. However, there remains debate regarding the relative effectiveness of these two approaches. While proprioception-based training emphasizes sensory input from mechanoreceptors to improve postural control, visual feedback-based training leverages external cues to facilitate balance adjustments. Objectives: To investigation the effects of proprioception-based trunk exercise and visual-auditory feedback-based trunk exercise on sitting balance in patients with chronic stroke. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Methods: A total of 24 participants diagnosed with chronic stroke were randomly assigned to two groups: the proprioception-based trunk exercise group (PTG, n=10) and the visual-auditory feedback-based trunk exercise group (VTG, n=11). Both groups participated in a 6-week intervention program, five sessions per week, lasting 25 minutes per session. Outcome measures included the Limitation of Stability (LOS), the Korean version of the Trunk Impairment Scale (K-TIS), and the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke (PASS). Pre- and post-intervention assessments were analyzed using paired t-tests and independent t-tests to evaluate within-group and between-group differences. Results: Both PTG and VTG groups demonstrated significant improvements in LOS, K-TIS, and PASS scores following the intervention (P<.05). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the amount of change observed. Conclusion: The findings suggest that both proprioception-based and visualauditory feedback-based trunk exercises are effective in improving sitting balance in chronic stroke patients. The lack of a significant difference between the groups indicates that both approaches provide comparable benefits. Future research should explore long-term effects and investigate potential differences in various functional domains beyond sitting balance.

Background: Neck discomfort and movement limitations are common musculoskeletal problems among modern people. While cervical and thoracic joint mobilization are widely used interventions for cervical dysfunction, research comparing their immediate effectiveness in adults with asymmetrical cervical rotation is limited. Objectives: To compare the immediate effects of cervical versus thoracic joint mobilization in adults with adults with asymmetrical cervical rotation and discomfort. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Methods: Thirty adults with left-right differences in cervical rotation of more than 5 degrees were randomly assigned to a cervical mobilization group (CMG, n=15) or thoracic mobilization group (TMG, n=15). Both groups received Grade III mobilization for 15 minutes. Range of motion (ROM), pain (VAS), and neck disability index (NDI) were measured before and after intervention. Results: Both groups showed significant increases in ROM after intervention (P<.001). Within-group analysis revealed that the TMG showed significant pain reduction (P<.01) and significant reduction in left-right rotation asymmetry (P<.001), while the CMG showed improvement in ROM but no significant changes in asymmetry or pain (P>.05). Neither group showed significant changes in NDI. Between-group comparisons showed no significant differences in any outcome measures. Conclusion: Both cervical and thoracic joint mobilization increased cervical range of motion in adults with asymmetrical cervical rotation discomfort. The TMG demonstrated significant within-group improvements in left-right rotation asymmetry and pain reduction, suggesting potential clinical benefits of thoracic mobilization for certain aspects of cervical dysfunction.