Adaptive multichannel FES neuroprosthesis with learning control and automatic gait assessment.
Philipp Müller, Antonio J Del Ama, Juan C Moreno and 1 others
PMID 32111245WHAT IT FOUND
Four people with spinal cord injury tested a learning electrical stimulation device.
Two felt it helped and showed small angle changes, but one had technical failures and one could not tolerate the stimulation. It is not yet a usable clinical tool.
Key findings
01Two of four participants reported the stimulation felt supportive and well-timed, and showed slight improvements in average joint angles.
02One participant's test was aborted due to false gait event detections, and another could not be stimulated effectively due to pain sensitivity.
03The device automatically identified stimulation parameters for each person in about 139 seconds, removing the need for manual tuning.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only four participants were tested, which is too few to draw any conclusions about effectiveness. The study was a single-session test with no control group and no follow-up, so it cannot show if the device helps with rehabilitation over time. One participant's test failed due to technical issues with gait detection, and another could not tolerate the stimulation due to pain. The device only stimulated one leg due to hardware limits, which does not reflect natural walking. Improvements in joint angles were small (around 4 degrees) and not consistently observed across all participants.
Declared interests
The authors declared no competing interests. The study was supported by non-U.S. government funding.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the small joint angle changes in two participants as evidence that this device improves walking function. The study was a short-term technical test with no control group, and half the participants could not use the device effectively due to pain or technical failure.