ArticleBiomedical engineering online2026
Effects of multiple motor point stimulation on knee joint torque compared with conventional functional electrical stimulation.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFunctional electrical stimulation (FES) delivers transcutaneous electrical current to motor nerves to artificially evoke muscle contractions and produce joint torque. In neurorehabilitation, FES is commonly applied via a large surface electrode pair placed over a muscle group-an approach that we here refer to as single-electrode stimulation (SES). However, the torque-generating capacity of SES is limited, possibly due to spatial-fixation of recruited motor units. Targeting specific regions of high electrical excitability, or motor points, may enhance neuromuscular activation and increase joint torque output.
methodsTwelve neurologically-intact participants underwent both continuous multiple motor point stimulation (mMPS) and SES of the quadriceps and hamstring muscle groups. Isometric tetanic knee torque was evaluated and compared relative to maximal voluntary contraction (MVC). As secondary aims, we quantified the discrepancy between observed and predicted torque response and the relative contribution of MPS conditions to knee extension torque.
resultsStimulating all quadriceps motor points produced approximately 51% greater knee extension torque than SES (33.3% MVC vs. 22.1% MVC). In contrast, stimulating all hamstring motor points (18.4% MVC) did not significantly increase knee flexion torque compared to SES (21.0% MVC). Discrepancies between observed and predicted MPS torques were primarily associated with rectus femoris stimulation, while vastus medialis contributed the least.
conclusionsStimulation of all quadriceps motor points generated greater knee extension torque compared with conventional SES, highlighting the potential of mMPS to improve the effectiveness of FES interventions. In contrast, hamstring stimulation did not yield additional knee flexion torque underscoring muscle-specific limitations. These findings provide practical guidance for quadriceps electrode placement and channel allocation, indicating that more refined FES strategies can be achieved by prioritizing a targeted subset of motor points.
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.