Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40589787›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025

Comparing implantable epimysial and intramuscular electrodes for prosthetic control.

Eric J Earley, Morten B Kristoffersen, Max Ortiz-Catalan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

3 authors.

Eric J EarleyDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Morten B KristoffersenCenter for Bionics and Pain Research, Mölndal, Sweden.
Max Ortiz-CatalanCenter for Bionics and Pain Research, Mölndal, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Implantable electrodes are the subject of increasing interest due to the possibilities they present for the control of assistive devices such as prosthetic limbs, however evidence as to whether epimysial or intramuscular electrodes result in better performance is lacking. Methods: In this retrospective study, we analyzed data collected from six users of a neuromusculoskeletal arm prosthesis who had been implanted with epimysial or intramuscular electrodes, two of whom were implanted with both electrode types, and compared electrical impedance and electromyographic feature space characteristics - all important qualities for the control of prosthetic arms and hands. Results: Our results showed significantly greater cross-channel impedances for intramuscular electrodes suggesting improved isolation and reduced cross-talk, however this did not translate to significantly improved signal-to-noise ratio, separability, or repeatability. Sequential feedforward selection analysis may suggest that epimysial electrodes contribute greater signal separability when recording from larger muscles used for gross hand movements, whereas intramuscular electrodes contribute greater signal separability when recording from smaller muscles used for grasp prehension and finger movements, but additional study is required to confirm these findings. Discussion: Our results provide preliminary understanding as to which electrodes should be used for which patients, which may help to guide clinical practice for future implementation of cutting-edge bionic arms.

Indexed as

epimysialimplantable electrodeintramuscularmyoelectric controlneural interfaceprosthetics

Identifiers

PMID40589787
PMCPMC12206804

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.