Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38712875›Full record

ArticleNeurorehabilitation and neural repair2024

Characterization of an Algorithm for Autonomous, Closed-Loop Neuromodulation During Motor Rehabilitation.

Joseph D Epperson, Eric C Meyers, David T Pruitt, Joel M Wright, Rachael A Hudson, Emmanuel A Adehunoluwa, Y-Nhy Nguyen-Duong, Robert L Rennaker, Seth A Hays, Michael P Kilgard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurorehabilitation and neural repair, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Clinical experience implanting a miniature externally powered vagus nerve stimulator.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors.

Joseph D EppersonTexas Biomedical Device Center, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6430-8472
Eric C MeyersTexas Biomedical Device Center, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.
David T PruittTexas Biomedical Device Center, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.
Joel M WrightTexas Biomedical Device Center, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.
Rachael A HudsonTexas Biomedical Device Center, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.
Emmanuel A AdehunoluwaTexas Biomedical Device Center, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.
Y-Nhy Nguyen-DuongTexas Biomedical Device Center, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.
Robert L RennakerTexas Biomedical Device Center, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.
Seth A HaysTexas Biomedical Device Center, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.
Michael P KilgardTexas Biomedical Device Center, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA.

Funding

Wireless Nerve Stimulation Device To Enhance Recovery After StrokeUH3NS109497 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS · PI HAYS, SETH ALANSON, RENNAKER, ROBERT L · 2021 to 2023
$3.4M
NINDS NIH HHS UH3 NS109497
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent evidence demonstrates that manually triggered vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) combined with rehabilitation leads to increased recovery of upper limb motor function after stroke. This approach is premised on studies demonstrating that the timing of stimulation relative to movements is a key determinant in the effectiveness of this approach.

objectiveThe overall goal of the study was to identify an algorithm that could be used to automatically trigger VNS on the best movements during rehabilitative exercises while maintaining a desired interval between stimulations to reduce the burden of manual stimulation triggering.

methodsTo develop the algorithm, we analyzed movement data collected from patients with a history of neurological injury. We applied 3 different algorithms to the signal, analyzed their triggering choices, and then validated the best algorithm by comparing triggering choices to those selected by a therapist delivering VNS therapy.

resultsThe dynamic algorithm triggered above the 95th percentile of maximum movement at a rate of 5.09 (interquartile range [IQR] = 0.74) triggers per minute. The periodic algorithm produces stimulation at set intervals but low movement selectivity (34.05%, IQR = 7.47), while the static threshold algorithm produces long interstimulus intervals (27.16 ± 2.01 seconds) with selectivity of 64.49% (IQR = 25.38). On average, the dynamic algorithm selects movements that are 54 ± 3% larger than therapist-selected movements.

conclusionsThis study shows that a dynamic algorithm is an effective strategy to trigger VNS during the best movements at a reliable triggering rate.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsStroke RehabilitationVagus Nerve StimulationAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMovementUpper Extremityclosed loop neurostimulationneuroplasticityrehabilitationspinal cord injurystroketelerehabilitationvagal nerve stimulationvagus nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID38712875
PMCPMC11179975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.