ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2016
Evoked Electromyographically Controlled Electrical Stimulation.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Therapeutic Potential of Electromyostimulation (EMS) in Critically Ill Patients-A Systematic Review.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Pooled it
- Sensing and Control Strategies Used in FES Systems Aimed at Assistance and Rehabilitation of Foot Drop: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Safety and efficacy of electrical stimulation for lower-extremity muscle weakness in intensive care unit 2019 Novel Coronavirus patients: A phase I double-blinded randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Myoelectrically Controlled FES to Enhance Tenodesis Grip in People With Cervical Spinal Cord Lesion: A Usability Study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Time-variant muscle responses under electrical stimulation (ES) are often problematic for all the applications of neuroprosthetic muscle control. This situation limits the range of ES usage in relevant areas, mainly due to muscle fatigue and also to changes in stimulation electrode contact conditions, especially in transcutaneous ES. Surface electrodes are still the most widely used in noninvasive applications. Electrical field variations caused by changes in the stimulation contact condition markedly affect the resulting total muscle activation levels. Fatigue phenomena under functional electrical stimulation (FES) are also well known source of time-varying characteristics coming from muscle response under ES. Therefore, it is essential to monitor the actual muscle state and assess the expected muscle response by ES so as to improve the current ES system in favor of adaptive muscle-response-aware FES control. To deal with this issue, we have been studying a novel control technique using evoked electromyography (eEMG) signals to compensate for these muscle time-variances under ES for stable neuroprosthetic muscle control. In this perspective article, I overview the background of this topic and highlight important points to be aware of when using ES to induce the desired muscle activation regardless of the time-variance. I also demonstrate how to deal with the common critical problem of ES to move toward robust neuroprosthetic muscle control with the Evoked Electromyographically Controlled Electrical Stimulation paradigm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.