Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36202893›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Cognitive benefits of using non-invasive compared to implantable neural feedback.

Lauren Chee, Giacomo Valle, Greta Preatoni, Chiara Basla, Michele Marazzi, Stanisa Raspopovic

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lauren Chee *Laboratory for Neuroengineering, Department of Health Science and Technology, Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Systems, ETH Zürich, 8092, Zürich, Switzerland.
Giacomo Valle *Laboratory for Neuroengineering, Department of Health Science and Technology, Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Systems, ETH Zürich, 8092, Zürich, Switzerland.
Greta PreatoniLaboratory for Neuroengineering, Department of Health Science and Technology, Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Systems, ETH Zürich, 8092, Zürich, Switzerland.
Chiara BaslaLaboratory for Neuroengineering, Department of Health Science and Technology, Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Systems, ETH Zürich, 8092, Zürich, Switzerland.
Michele MarazziLaboratory for Neuroengineering, Department of Health Science and Technology, Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Systems, ETH Zürich, 8092, Zürich, Switzerland.
Stanisa RaspopovicLaboratory for Neuroengineering, Department of Health Science and Technology, Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Systems, ETH Zürich, 8092, Zürich, Switzerland. stanisa.raspopovic@hest.ethz.ch.
ETH Zurich · CH

Funding

European Research Council 759998Swiss National Science Foundation 193724Swiss National Science Foundation 197271
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A non-optimal prosthesis integration into an amputee's body schema suggests some important functional and health consequences after lower limb amputation. These include low perception of a prosthesis as a part of the body, experiencing it as heavier than the natural limb, and cognitively exhausting use for users. Invasive approaches, exploiting the surgical implantation of electrodes in residual nerves, improved prosthesis integration by restoring natural and somatotopic sensory feedback in transfemoral amputees. A non-invasive alternative that avoids surgery would reduce costs and shorten certification time, significantly increasing the adoption of such systems. To explore this possibility, we compared results from a non-invasive, electro-cutaneous stimulation system to outcomes observed with the use of implants in above the knee amputees. This non-invasive solution was tested in transfemoral amputees through evaluation of their ability to perceive and recognize touch intensity and locations, or movements of a prosthesis, and its cognitive integration (through dual task performance and perceived prosthesis weight). While this managed to evoke the perception of different locations on the artificial foot, and closures of the leg, it was less performant than invasive solutions. Non-invasive stimulation induced similar improvements in dual motor and cognitive tasks compared to neural feedback. On the other hand, results demonstrate that remapped, evoked sensations are less informative and intuitive than the neural evoked somatotopic sensations. The device therefore fails to improve prosthesis embodiment together with its associated weight perception. This preliminary evaluation meaningfully highlights the drawbacks of non-invasive systems, but also demonstrates benefits when performing multiple tasks at once. Importantly, the improved dual task performance is consistent with invasive devices, taking steps towards the expedited development of a certified device for widespread use.

Indexed as

Artificial LimbsFeedback, SensoryAmputeesCognitionFeedbackHumansImplantable Neurostimulators

Identifiers

PMID36202893
PMCPMC9537330
OpenAlexW4302293896

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.