1.Pfurtscheller, G., Mcfarland, D.: BCIs that use sensorimotor rhythms. In: Wolpaw, J.R., Wolpaw, E. (eds.) Brain-Computer Interfaces: Principles and Practice, pp. 227–240. Oxford University Press (2012)Google Scholar
3.Sannelli, C., Vidaurre, C., Müller, K.R., Blankertz, B.: A large scale screening study with a SMR-based BCI: categorization of BCI users and differences in their SMR activity (2019)Google Scholar
4.Do, A.H., Wang, P.T., King, C.E., Schombs, A., Cramer, S.C., Nenadic, Z.: Brain-computer interface controlled functional electrical stimulation device for foot drop due to stroke, pp. 6414–6417 (2012)Google Scholar
5.Ramos-Murguialday, A., Broetz, D., Rea, M., Yilmaz, Ö., Brasil, F.L., Liberati, G., Marco, R., Garcia-cossio, E., Vyziotis, A., Cho, W., Cohen, L.G., Birbaumer, N.: Brain-Machine-interface in chronic stroke rehabilitation: a controlled study. Ann. Neurol. 74, 100–108 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.23879.Brain-Machine-InterfaceCrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Biasiucci, A., Leeb, R., Iturrate, I., Perdikis, S., Al-Khodairy, A., Corbet, T., Schnider, A., Schmidlin, T., Zhang, H., Bassolino, M., Viceic, D., Vuadens, P., Guggisberg, A.G., Millán, J.D.R.: Brain-actuated functional electrical stimulation elicits lasting arm motor recovery after stroke. Nat. Commun. 9, 1–13 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04673-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Tabernig, C.B., Lopez, C.A., Carrere, L.C., Spaich, E.G., Ballario, C.H.: Neurorehabilitation therapy of patients with severe stroke based on functional electrical stimulation commanded by a brain computer interface. J. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. Eng. 5, 205566831878928 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/2055668318789280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.McCrimmon, C.M., King, C.E., Wang, P.T., Cramer, S.C., Nenadic, Z., Do, A.H.: Brain-controlled functional electrical stimulation therapy for gait rehabilitation after stroke: a safety study. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 12 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-015-0050-4
9.g.Nautilus wireless biosignal acquisition Homepage. http://www.gtec.at/Products/Hardware-and-Accessories/g.Nautilus-Specs-Features
10.Emotiv EpocFlex flexible wireless EEG system Homepage. https://www.emotiv.com/epoc-flex/
13.McCrimmon, C.M., Fu, J.L., Wang, M., Lopes, L.S., Wang, P.T., Karimi-Bidhendi, A., Liu, C.Y., Heydari, P., Nenadic, Z., Do, A.H.: Performance assessment of a custom, portable, and low-cost brain-computer interface platform. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 64, 2313–2320 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2017.2667579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archive for category Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES)
[Project] Functional Electrical Stimulation for at Home Rehabilitation | WalkHome Project | H2020 | CORDIS | European Commission
Stroke has huge human and economic cost. 1 million people suffer strokes in Europe every year, with an average life expectancy after stroke of 8 years. Roughly 20% of stroke survivors suffer from drop foot, with 45 billion euros spent on rehabilitating stroke patients in Europe every year.
FES offers the tantalising prospect of retraining voluntary motor functions such as walking. However:
– FES rehabilitation must be carried out in a hospital with the support of trained healthcare professionals;
– Transporting patients and supervising treatment is expensive;
– Patient’s treatment plan is sub-optimal;
– Per patient rehabilitation costs reach 32,000 euros
Fesia WalkHome is a FES rehabilitation device for drop foot patients which can be administered by the patient in their own home. This not only reduces costs by 43% but also means patients can have an optimal treatment plan, improving their speed of recovery.
The use of Fesia Walk at home will give autonomy, independence and improve the quality of life for chronic patients. It will also mean a substantial reduction of waiting lists, health costs, number of physician office visits, and carer support.
WalkHome represents a disruptive change of paradigm for the FES rehabilitation standard of care. The aim of the phase 1 project is to improve our understanding of the EU market for FES rehabilitation, identifying regional market variations in terms of key decision makers, appropriate business models, pricing structure and identifying which are the most attractive markets for us to use as a beachhead. We will also analyse what key improvements need to be made to the existing technology to create the new FES home care rehabilitation market.
Currently, there is no FES rehabilitation technology that is offered outside of a clinical setting. We estimate that this new home FES rehabilitation market could be worth up to 40 billion euros in Europe alone.
Periodic Reporting for period 1 – WalkHome (Functional Electrical Stimulation for at Home Rehabilitation)
[Abstract] The effects of a robot-assisted arm training plus hand functional electrical stimulation on recovery after stroke: a randomized clinical trial
[Abstract] Effect of functional electrical stimulation plus body weight-supported treadmill training for gait rehabilitation in patients with poststroke – a retrospective case-matched study.
Functional electrical stimulation (FES) plus body weight-supported treadmill training (BWSTT) provide effective gait training for poststroke patients with abnormal gait. These features promote a successful active motor relearning of ambulation in stroke survivors.
This is a retrospective study to assess the effect of FES plus BWSTT for gait rehabilitation in patients poststroke.
A retrospective case-matched study.
Participants were recruited from a rehabilitation department in an acute university-affiliated hospital.
Ninety patients poststroke from Yue Bei People’s Hospital underwent BWSTT (A: control group) were compared to an equal number of cross-matched patients who received FES plus BWSTT (B: FES plus BWSTT group).
While B group received FES for 45 minutes plus BSWTT for 30 minutes in the program, group A received time-matched BWSTT alone. The walking speed, step length, step cadence, Fugl-Meyer lower-limb scale (LL-FMA), composite spasticity scale (CSS), 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT), Tinetti Balance Test (TBT) and nerve physiology testing were collected before and after intervention.
One hundred and eighty patients with poststroke abnormal gait were chosen. There were significant differences in walking speed, step length, step cadence, LL-FMA, CSS, TBT, and 10MWT between baseline and post-intervention (P<0.05). There were significant differences in walking speed, step length, step cadence, LL-FMA, CSS, TBT, and 10MWT between two groups at the end of the eighth week (P<0.05), but not at baseline (P>0.05). In comparison with group A, the peak of somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) and motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude increased, the latency was shortened, and the conduction velocity of sensory nerve (SCV) and motor nerve (MCV) was significantly increased in the group B (P < 0.05). No adverse events occurred during the study.
This study suggests that FES plus BWSTT could be more effective than BWSTT alone in the improvement of gait, balance, spasticity, and function of the lower limb in patients poststroke.
CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT:
Introduce effective rehabilitation strategies for poststroke patients with abnormal gait.
Recent investigations have proposed brain computer interfaces combined with functional electrical stimulation as a novel approach for upper limb motor recovery. These systems could detect motor intention movement as a power decrease of the sensorimotor rhythms in the electroencephalography signal, even in people with damaged brain cortex. However, these systems use a large number of electrodes and wired communication to be employed for gait rehabilitation. In this paper, the design and development of a wireless brain computer interface combined with functional electrical stimulation aimed at lower limb motor recovery is presented. The design requirements also account the dynamic of a rehabilitation therapy by allowing the therapist to adapt the system during the session. A preliminary evaluation of the system in a subject with right lower limb motor impairment due to multiple sclerosis was conducted and as a performance metric, the true positive rate was computed. The developed system evidenced a robust wireless communication and was able to detect lower limb motor intention. The mean of the performance metric was 75%. The results encouraged the possibility of testing the developed system in a gait rehabilitation clinical study.
[Abstract + References] Functional Electrical Stimulation for Gait Rehabilitation – Conference paper
Conditions that can lead to a full or partial motor function loss, such as stroke or multiple sclerosis, leave people with disabilities that may interfere severely with lower body movements, such as gait. Drop Foot (DF) is a gait disorder that results in a reduced ability or total inability to contract the Tibialis Anterior (TA) muscle, causing an inability to raise the foot during gait. One of the most effective methods to correct DF is Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES). FES is a technique used to reproduce the activation patterns of functional muscles, in order to create muscular contractions through electrical stimulation of the muscle’s nervous tissue.
FES has first been introduced in 1961. However, the available commercial FES systems still do not take into account the fact that the gait differs from subject to subject, depending on their physical condition, muscular fatigue and rehabilitation stage. Therefore, they are unable to provide a personalized assistance to the user, delivering constant stimulation pulses that are only based on gait events. Consequently, they promote the early onset of fatigue and generate coarse movements. This dissertation aims to tackle the aforementioned issues by developing a FES system for personalized DF correction, tailored to each individual user’s needs through the use of a Neural Network (NN).
A Non-Linear Autoregressive Neural Network with Exogenous inputs (NARX Neural Network) was used to model the dynamics of the electrically stimulated TA muscle, in a novel approach that uses both the foot angle and the foot velocity. The model was combined with a Proportional Derivative controller to help compensate for any external disturbances. In order to create more natural movements, reference trajectories were obtained by recording the foot angle and velocity of healthy subjects walking at different speeds.
The system has been validated with a healthy subject walking at 3 different speeds on a treadmill: 1 km/h, 1.5 km/h and 2 km/h. It was able to track the desired trajectory for every speed, thus creating a more natural movement and effectively correcting DF gait.
4.Johnson, C.A., Burridge, J.H., Strike, P.W., Wood, D.E., Swain, I.D.: The effect of combined use of botulinum toxin type A and functional electric stimulation in the treatment of spastic drop foot after stroke: a preliminary investigation. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 85(June), 902–909 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Luzio de Melo, P.: A novel functional electrical stimulation system and strategies for motor rehabilitation. Ph.D thesis, Universidade de Lisboa – Instituto Superior Técnico (2014)Google Scholar
8.Science, I., Hospital, M.N.: Learning control of hand posture with neural network in FES for hemiplegics, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 2588–2589 (1998)Google Scholar
9.Imatz-ojanguren, E., Irigoyen, E., Valencia-blanco, D., Keller, T.: Electrical Stimulation in Able-bodied and Hemiplegic Subjects, vol. 0, pp. 1–9 (2016)Google Scholar
14.Azura, N., Bin, S., Kamaruddin, A., Mohamed, N., Mohamed, N.B.: The Quadriceps Muscle of Knee Joint Modelling Using Neural Network Approach: Part 1, pp. 52–57 (2016)Google Scholar
15.Yassin, I.M., Jailani, R., Syahirul, M., Megat, A., Baharom, R., Huzaifah, A.: Comparison Between Cascade Forward and Multi-Layer Perceptron Neural Networks for NARX Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) -Based Muscle Model, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 215–221 (2017)Google Scholar
16.Yilei, W., Qing, S., Xulei, Y., Li, L.: Recurrent Neural Network Control of Functional Electrical Stimulation Systems, pp. 400–404 (2006)Google Scholar
17.Ferrarin, M., D’Acquisto, E.: An experimental PID controller for knee movement restoration with closed loop FES system. In: Proceedings of 18th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 453–454 (1996)Google Scholar
18.Qiu, S., He, F., Tang, J., Xu, J., Zhang, L., Zhao, X., Qi, H., Zhou, P., Cheng, X., Wan, B., Ming, D.: Intelligent algorithm tuning PID method of function electrical stimulation using knee joint angle. In: Conference Proceedings: Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Annual Conference, vol. 2014, pp. 2561–2564 (2014)Google Scholar
19.Basith, A.L., Arifin, A., Arrofiqi, F., Watanabe, T., Nuh, M.: Embedded fuzzy logic controller for functional electrical stimulation system. In: 2016 International Seminar on Intelligent Technology and Its Applications (ISITIA), pp. 89–94 (2016)Google Scholar
What is Mollii?
Mollii is a suit consisting of a pair of trousers, a jacket and a detachable control unit. The Mollii garments includes 58 imbedded electrodes, positioned to stimulate 40 key muscles in the body. Through a low frequency electro-stimulation therapy, Mollii relaxes spastic, tense and aching muscles safely and simply. Programmed after each person’s needs, Mollii prevents and counteracts different forms of muscle shortening and rigidity, helps the user regain control over muscular tension, and reduces pain related to spasticity. In addition, through electro-stimulation settings, Mollii may facilitate the activation of muscles, and thereby may facilitate muscle contractions, which in turn enable movements.
Who uses Mollii?
Mollii is used by people who suffer from spasticity and spasticity-related pain, which is typically found in people with cerebral palsy, stroke, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, acquired brain damages and other neurological injuries that result from or create motor disabilities, and generally induce pain. Mollii is used both by adults and children; and is available in men and women sizes starting from 104 cm. up to XXXL.
Mollii can be used in both a home and clinic environment; and is simple to use for all ages. Users dress-up with a Mollii the same way they would with an ordinary garment. There is a button for on/off and a button for play/ pause. A single push of the button starts the muscle stimulation, which proceeds automatically for 60 minutes, and has a lasting positive effect for up to 48 hours.”
How does it work?
Mollii stimulates the antagonist to the spastic muscle. If the bicep is spastic, the tricep is stimulated, which in turn makes the bicep relaxed. Relaxing the muscle enables active movements and a gradual improvement in function, while the body keeps this positive effect for up to 48 hours. The physiological mechanism is called reciprocal inhibition.
Mollii also reduces pain related to spasticity, both through the reciprocal inhibition, and via the gate control theory of pain, which asserts that non-painful input such as the electric stimulation of skin-nerves closes the nerve-gates to painful input, which prevents pain sensation from traveling to the central nervous system.
Moreover, Mollii may facilitate the sub-threshold stimulation of a muscle by preparing the muscle for contraction before generating a shortening of the muscle, thereby reducing the nerve signal-strength required by the patient to actually generate a muscle contraction.
It is a safe and simple assistive device that can increase quality of life and help recover faster motor functions. The device is used for one hour every second day. For optimum effect, Mollii should be used together with physiotherapy, training, activity and movement. The positive effect is individual and remains for up to 48 hours.
Frequently asked questions
The study in brief
Foot drop can be treated using two types of device. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) uses small electrical charges to the muscles of the lower leg to force the foot into a more natural position for walking. An ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) is a device made of plastic or carbon fibre that holds the foot and ankle in a correct position to prevent the foot from dropping down during walking.
There’s been very little research comparing the two devices, so this study aimed to compare the effectiveness and relative costs of AFO and FES in people with MS.
Seventy nine people were recruited from seven centres in Scotland and randomly assigned to be fitted with an AFO or an FES. The impact of the device was measured at the start, 3, 6 and 12 months.
The relatively small number of participants and the high drop out rate (38%) made it difficult to draw firm conclusions from the study. Both groups walked faster when wearing their devices at 12 months, with neither of the devices showing a clear advantage over the other. There was no evidence that either device had a therapeutic effect, that is, improved unassisted walking performance. Overall, results suggested that AFO devices were less acceptable to people with MS; the researchers conclude that both the physical and psychological impact of a device needs to be taken into account as both these contribute to someone’s willingness to keep using a device.[…]
Continue —> Treatments for foot drop compared | MS Trust
This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functio…
00:01:21 1 Principles
00:09:14 2 History
00:10:01 3 Common applications
00:10:11 3.1 Spinal cord injury
00:11:09 3.1.1 Walking in spinal cord injury
00:15:01 3.2 Stroke and upper limb recovery
00:16:21 3.3 Drop foot
00:18:08 3.4 Stroke
00:18:58 3.5 Multiple sclerosis
00:20:06 3.6 Cerebral palsy
00:21:07 3.7 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Guidelines (NICE) (UK)
00:21:47 4 In popular culture
00:22:10 5 See also
Listening is a more natural way of learning, when compared to reading. Written language only began at around 3200 BC, but spoken language has existed long ago.
Learning by listening is a great way to:
- – increases imagination and understanding
- – improves your listening skills
- – improves your own spoken accent
- – learn while on the move
- – reduce eye strain
Now learn the vast amount of general knowledge available on Wikipedia through audio (audio article). You could even learn subconsciously by playing the audio while you are sleeping! If you are planning to listen a lot, you could try using a bone conduction headphone, or a standard speaker instead of an earphone.
Listen on Google Assistant through Extra Audio: https://assistant.google.com/services…
Other Wikipedia audio articles at: https://www.youtube.com/results?searc…
Upload your own Wikipedia articles through: https://github.com/nodef/wikipedia-tts
Speaking Rate: 0.9170272343252982 Voice name: en-AU-Wavenet-B
“I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.” – Socrates
Functional electrical stimulation (FES) is a technique that uses low-energy electrical pulses to artificially generate body movements in individuals who have been paralyzed due to injury to the central nervous system. More specifically, FES can be used to generate muscle contraction in otherwise paralyzed limbs to produce functions such as grasping, walking, bladder voiding and standing. This technology was originally used to develop neuroprostheses that were implemented to permanently substitute impaired functions in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI), head injury, stroke and other neurological disorders. In other words, a person would use the device each time he or she wanted to generate a desired function. FES is sometimes also referred to as neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES).FES technology has been used to deliver therapies to retrain voluntary motor functions such as grasping, reaching and walking. In this embodiment, FES is used as a short-term therapy, the objective of which is restoration of voluntary function and not lifelong dependence on the FES device, hence the name functional electrical stimulation therapy, FES therapy (FET or FEST). In other words, the FEST is used as a short-term intervention to help the central nervous system of the person to re-learn how to execute impaired functions, instead of making the person dependent on neuroprostheses for the rest of her or his life.
This video demonstrates how to use FES, Functional Electrical Stimulation, to engage the muscles of the arm to extend the fingers.
[Abstract] Bilateral Contralaterally Controlled Functional Electrical Stimulation Reveals New Insights Into the Interhemispheric Competition Model in Chronic Stroke
Background. Upper-limb chronic stroke hemiplegia was once thought to persist because of disproportionate amounts of inhibition imposed from the contralesional on the ipsilesional hemisphere. Thus, one rehabilitation strategy involves discouraging engagement of the contralesional hemisphere by only engaging the impaired upper limb with intensive unilateral activities. However, this premise has recently been debated and has been shown to be task specific and/or apply only to a subset of the stroke population. Bilateral rehabilitation, conversely, engages both hemispheres and has been shown to benefit motor recovery. To determine what neurophysiological strategies bilateral therapies may engage, we compared the effects of a bilateral and unilateral based therapy using transcranial magnetic stimulation.
Methods. We adopted a peripheral electrical stimulation paradigm where participants received 1 session of bilateral contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation (CCFES) and 1 session of unilateral cyclic neuromuscular electrical stimulation (cNMES) in a repeated-measures design. In all, 15 chronic stroke participants with a wide range of motor impairments (upper extremity Fugl-Meyer score: 15 [severe] to 63 [mild]) underwent single 1-hour sessions of CCFES and cNMES. We measured whether CCFES and cNMES produced different effects on interhemispheric inhibition (IHI) to the ipsilesional hemisphere, ipsilesional corticospinal output, and ipsilateral corticospinal output originating from the contralesional hemisphere.
Results. CCFES reduced IHI and maintained ipsilesional output when compared with cNMES. We found no effect on ipsilateral output for either condition. Finally, the less-impaired participants demonstrated a greater increase in ipsilesional output following CCFES.
Conclusions. Our results suggest that bilateral therapies are capable of alleviating inhibition on the ipsilesional hemisphere and enhancing output to the paretic limb.
via Bilateral Contralaterally Controlled Functional Electrical Stimulation Reveals New Insights Into the Interhemispheric Competition Model in Chronic Stroke – David A. Cunningham, Jayme S. Knutson, Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian, Kelsey A. Potter-Baker, Andre G. Machado, Ela B. Plow, 2019