Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37025164›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in systems neuroscience2023

Cortical processing during robot and functional electrical stimulation.

Woosang Cho, Carmen Vidaurre, Jinung An, Niels Birbaumer, Ander Ramos-Murguialday

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Muscle synergies in upper limb stroke rehabilitation: a scoping review.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Woosang ChoInstitute of Medical Psychology and Behavioral Neurobiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Carmen VidaurreTECNALIA, Basque Research and Technology Alliance, Neurotechnology Laboratory, San Sebastián, Spain.
Jinung AnInterdisciplinary Studies, Graduate School, Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
Niels BirbaumerInstitute of Medical Psychology and Behavioral Neurobiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Ander Ramos-MurguialdayInstitute of Medical Psychology and Behavioral Neurobiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Tecnalia · ESDaegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology · KRGuger Technologies (Austria) · ATUniversity of Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Like alpha rhythm, the somatosensory mu rhythm is suppressed in the presence of somatosensory inputs by implying cortical excitation. Sensorimotor rhythm (SMR) can be classified into two oscillatory frequency components: mu rhythm (8-13 Hz) and beta rhythm (14-25 Hz). The suppressed/enhanced SMR is a neural correlate of cortical activation related to efferent and afferent movement information. Therefore, it would be necessary to understand cortical information processing in diverse movement situations for clinical applications. Methods: In this work, the EEG of 10 healthy volunteers was recorded while fingers were moved passively under different kinetic and kinematic conditions for proprioceptive stimulation. For the kinetics aspect, afferent brain activity (no simultaneous volition) was compared under two conditions of finger extension: (1) generated by an orthosis and (2) generated by the orthosis simultaneously combined and assisted with functional electrical stimulation (FES) applied at the forearm muscles related to finger extension. For the kinematic aspect, the finger extension was divided into two phases: (1) dynamic extension and (2) static extension (holding the extended position). Results: In the kinematic aspect, both mu and beta rhythms were more suppressed during a dynamic than a static condition. However, only the mu rhythm showed a significant difference between kinetic conditions (with and without FES) affected by attention to proprioception after transitioning from dynamic to static state, but the beta rhythm was not. Discussion: Our results indicate that mu rhythm was influenced considerably by muscle kinetics during finger movement produced by external devices, which has relevant implications for the design of neuromodulation and neurorehabilitation interventions.

Indexed as

functional electrical stimulationkinematickineticneurorehabilitationrobotsomatosensory mu rhythm

Identifiers

PMID37025164
PMCPMC10070684
OpenAlexW4328115567

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.