Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32075654›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2020

A computational model to design neural interfaces for lower-limb sensory neuroprostheses.

Marek Zelechowski, Giacomo Valle, Stanisa Raspopovic

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. User-Centered Design of Neuroprosthetics: Advancements and Limitations.CNS & neurological disorders drug targets · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marek ZelechowskiCenter for medical Image Analysis & Navigation, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Giacomo ValleNeuroengineering Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Systems, ETH, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2637-8007
Stanisa RaspopovicNeuroengineering Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Systems, ETH, Zürich, Switzerland. stanisa.raspopovic@hest.ethz.ch.ORCID 0000-0003-0567-9051
ETH Zurich · CHUniversity of Basel · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLeg amputees suffer the lack of sensory feedback from a prosthesis, which is connected to their low confidence during walking, falls and low mobility. Electrical peripheral nerve stimulation (ePNS) of upper-limb amputee's residual nerves has shown the ability to restore the sensations from the missing limb via intraneural (TIME) and epineural (FINE) neural interfaces. Physiologically plausible stimulation protocols targeting lower limb sciatic nerve hold promise to induce sensory feedback restoration that should facilitate close-to-natural sensorimotor integration and therefore walking corrections. The sciatic nerve, innervating the foot and lower leg, has very different dimensions in respect to upper-limb nerves. Therefore, there is a need to develop a computational model of its behavior in response to the ePNS.

methodsWe employed a hybrid FEM-NEURON model framework for the development of anatomically correct sciatic nerve model. Based on histological images of two distinct sciatic nerve cross-sections, we reconstructed accurate FEM models for testing neural interfaces. Two different electrode types (based on TIME and FINE) with multiple active sites configurations were tested and evaluated for efficiency (selective recruitment of fascicles). We also investigated different policies of stimulation (monopolar and bipolar), as well as the optimal number of implants. Additionally, we optimized the existing simulation framework significantly reducing the computational load.

resultsThe main findings achieved through our modelling study include electrode manufacturing and surgical placement indications, together with beneficial stimulation policy of use. It results that TIME electrodes with 20 active sites are optimal for lower limb and the same number has been obtained for FINE electrodes. To interface the huge sciatic nerve, model indicates that 3 TIMEs is the optimal number of surgically implanted electrodes. Through the bipolar policy of stimulation, all studied configurations were gaining in the efficiency. Also, an indication for the optimized computation is given, which decreased the computation time by 80%.

conclusionsThis computational model suggests the optimal interfaces to use in human subjects with lower limb amputation, their surgical placement and beneficial bipolar policy of stimulation. It will potentially enable the clinical translation of the sensory neuroprosthetics towards the lower limb applications.

Indexed as

Artificial LimbsComputer SimulationModels, NeurologicalNeural ProsthesesAmputeesFeedback, SensoryHumansLower ExtremityMaleSciatic NerveHybrid computational modelLower limbNeural interfacingNeural stimulationNeuroprosthesisSensory

Identifiers

PMID32075654
PMCPMC7029520
OpenAlexW3009052095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.