ArticleIBRO reports2020
Effect of electrical stimulation of receptive fields in people with lower limb amputation on variables of gait.
Article in IBRO reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of pain and functional outcomes after lower limb amputation: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Development and assessment of vibrotactile feedback from the embedded sensors of a microprocessor-controlled knee prosthesis.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- The impact of walking on the perception of multichannel electrotactile stimulation in individuals with lower-limb amputation and able-bodied participants.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People with amputation may perceive phantom limb sensations or pain in the amputated body part when ipsilateral body-regions are stimulated. These body-regions are called receptive fields. This study assessed whether receptive fields change in size and position over the course of one month in people with trans-tibial amputation and whether electrical stimulation of these fields in synchrony with walking affects phantom sensations and variables of gait. Thirty-one subjects participated in this study. Receptive fields were mapped seven times over a one month period. Thereafter, the effect of electrical stimulation in synchrony with walking was compared to placebo stimulation in an acute setting with a randomized, single-blind gait analysis in 18 participants. Results showed that receptive field size and position presented an adequate degree of consistency (difference in point of first response position of 4.9 ± 4.8 cm and overlap of total receptive field area of 54.3 ± 35.0 %) for future use of electrical stimulation. Gait parameters for everyday activities (speed, gait width, % stance and swing phase) as well as perception of phantom pain were not altered to a clinically relevant degree by electrical stimulation and no negative effects were reported. In conclusion: Location and size of receptive fields are consistent enough for daily electrical stimulation without laborious daily assessment. If applied acutely, no significant effect on gait or pain could be detected. However, results are promising enough to test chronic application of electrical stimulation during gait in a long-term setting.
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.