Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Efficacy and stability performance of traditional versus motion sensor-assisted strategies for FES standing
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Efficacy and stability performance of traditional versus motion sensor-assisted strategies for FES standing
Do you wish to request the book?
Efficacy and stability performance of traditional versus motion sensor-assisted strategies for FES standing
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Efficacy and stability performance of traditional versus motion sensor-assisted strategies for FES standing
2009
Overview
Standing by means of functional electrical stimulation (FES) after spinal cord injury is a topic widely reported in the neurorehabilitation literature. This practice commonly uses surface stimulation over the quadriceps muscle to evoke knee extension. To date, most FES neuroprostheses still operate without any artificial feedback, meaning that after a fatigue-driven knee buckle event, the stimulation amplitude or pulse width must be increased manually via button presses to re-establish knee-lock. This is often referred to as ‘hand-controlled (HC) operation’. In an attempt to provide a safer, yet clinically practical approach, this study proposed two novel strategies to automate the control of knee extension based on the kinematic feedback of four miniaturised motion sensors. These strategies were compared to the traditional HC strategy on four individuals with complete paraplegia. The standing times observed over multiple trials were in general longer for the automated strategies when compared to HC (0.5–80%). With the automated strategies, three of the subjects tended to need less upper body support over a frame to maintain balance. A stability analysis based on centre of pressure (CoP) measurements also favoured the automated strategies. This analysis also revealed that although FES standing with the assistance of a frame was likely to be safe for the subjects, their stability was still inferior to that of able-bodied individuals. Overall, the unpredictability of knee buckle events could be more effectively controlled by automated FES strategies to re-establish knee-lock when compared to the traditional user-controlled approach, thus demonstrating the safety and clinical efficacy of an automated approach.
Publisher
Elsevier Ltd,Elsevier Limited
Subject
/ Control
/ Electric Stimulation Therapy - instrumentation
/ Electric Stimulation Therapy - methods
/ Feedback
/ Functional electrical stimulation
/ Humans
/ Knee
/ Knee Joint - physiopathology
/ Male
/ Paraplegia - physiopathology
/ Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
/ Posture
/ Spinal Cord Injuries - complications
/ Standing
