ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2025
Efficacy of high- versus moderate-intensity spatially distributed sequential stimulation in subjects with spinal cord injury: an isometric study.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2025. 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.
- Spatially distributed sequential stimulation applied to the paralyzed quadriceps muscles while performing motor-assisted FES cycling.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Trial
- A wearable functional electrical stimulation device with a movable electrode for motor point tracking.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Electrical stimulation in upper limb assistance: opportunities and challenges.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
For producing isometric contractions, spatially distributed sequential stimulation (SDSS) has been demonstrated to be superior to conventional single electrode stimulation (SES) in terms of fatigue reduction and the power output produced by the muscle. However, the impact of stimulation parameters, particularly stimulation intensity, on the effectiveness of SDSS is not sufficiently understood. The aim of this work is to compare the fatigue-reducing capabilities of SDSS at two significantly different electrical stimulation intensities in individuals with lower-limb motor-complete spinal cord injuries, in order to understand the impact of stimulation intensity on the effectiveness of SDSS. Two experiments were conducted, focusing on isometric contractions of the quadriceps muscle group (Experiment 1) and the vastus lateralis muscle (Experiment 2). The effectiveness of high-intensity SDSS was compared to that of moderate-intensity SDSS, with SES serving as a reference. Seven subjects with spinal cord injuries participated in the study. Fatigue and force metrics, including time to fatigue (TTF) and force-time integral (FTI), were analyzed for both electrical stimulation intensity levels. Statistical analysis indicated that the advantages of SDSS over SES in reducing muscle fatigue and enhancing force generation were significantly diminished at high intensity compared to moderate intensity. These findings provide valuable scientific insights into the practical applications of SDSS and contribute to a deeper understanding of its mechanisms in mitigating muscle fatigue. Further research is recommended to explore the effects of various stimulation parameters to optimize SDSS for different muscle groups and functional tasks.
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.