ArticleEuropean journal of translational myology2016
Comparison of Proximally Versus Distally Placed Spatially Distributed Sequential Stimulation Electrodes in a Dynamic Knee Extension Task.
Article in European journal of translational myology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatially distributed sequential stimulation applied to the paralyzed quadriceps muscles while performing motor-assisted FES cycling.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Trial
- Efficacy of high- versus moderate-intensity spatially distributed sequential stimulation in subjects with spinal cord injury: an isometric study.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- User-centered design and spatially-distributed sequential electrical stimulation in cycling for individuals with paraplegia.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Standardizing fatigue-resistance testing during electrical stimulation of paralysed human quadriceps muscles, a practical approach.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2021Article
- Stimulation of paralysed quadriceps muscles with sequentially and spatially distributed electrodes during dynamic knee extension.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2019Article
- Comparison of strategies and performance of functional electrical stimulation cycling in spinal cord injury pilots for competition in the first ever CYBATHLON.European journal of translational myology · 2017Article
- Mobility disorders and pain, interrelations that need new research concepts and advanced clinical commitments.European journal of translational myology · 2017Article
- The road to Cybathlon 2016 - Functional electrical stimulation cycling Team IRPT/SPZ.European journal of translational myology · 2017Article
- FES in Europe and Beyond: Current Translational Research.European journal of translational myology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spatially distributed sequential stimulation (SDSS) has demonstrated substantial power output and fatigue benefits compared to single electrode stimulation (SES) in the application of functional electrical stimulation (FES). This asymmetric electrode setup brings new possibilities but also new questions since precise placement of the electrodes is one critical factor for good muscle activation. The aim of this study was to compare the power output, fatigue and activation properties of proximally versus distally placed SDSS electrodes in an isokinetic knee extension task simulating knee movement during recumbent cycling. M. vastus lateralis and medialis of seven able-bodied subjects were stimulated with rectangular bi-phasic pulses of constant amplitude of 40 mA and at an SDSS frequency of 35 Hz for 6 min on both legs with both setups (i.e. n=14). Torque was measured during knee-extension movement by a dynamometer at an angular velocity of 110 deg/s. Mean power, peak power and activation time were calculated and compared for the initial and final stimulation phases, together with an overall fatigue index. Power output values (Pmean, Ppeak) were scaled to a standardised reference input pulse width of 100 μs (Pmean,s, Ppeak,s). The initial evaluation phase showed no significant differences between the two setups for all outcome measures. Ppeak and Ppeak,s were both significantly higher in the final phase for the distal setup (25.4 ± 8.1 W vs. 28.2 ± 6.2 W, p=0.0062 and 34.8 ± 9.5 W vs. 38.9 ± 6.7 W, p=0.021, respectively). With distal SDSS, there was modest evidence of higher Pmean and Pmean,s (p=0.071, p=0.14, respectively) but of longer activation time (p=0.096). The rate of fatigue was similar for both setups. For practical FES applications, distal placement of the SDSS electrodes is preferable.
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.