Complex personalized Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) protocols for calibrating parameters and electrode positioning have been proposed, most being time-consuming or technically cumbersome for clinical settings. Therefore, there is a need for new personalized FES protocols that generate comfortable, functional hand movements, while being feasible for clinical translation.
OBJECTIVE:
To develop a personalized FES protocol, comprising electrode placement and parameter selection, to generate hand opening (HO), power grasp (PW) and precision grip (PG) movements, and compare in a pilot feasibility study its performance to a non-personalized protocol based on standard FES guidelines.
METHODS:
Two FES protocols, one personalized (P1) and one non-personalized (P2), were used to produce hand movements in twenty-three healthy participants. FES-induced movements were assessed with a new scoring scale which comprises items for selectivity, functionality, and comfort.
RESULTS:
Higher FES-HSS scores were obtained with P1 for all movements: HO ( 0.00013), PW ( 0.00007), PG ( 0.00460). Electrode placement time was significantly shorter for P2 ( 0.00003). Comfort scores were similar for both protocols.
CONCLUSIONS:
The personalized protocol for electrode placement and parameter selection enabled functional FES-induced hand movements and presented advantages over a non-personalized protocol. This protocol warrants further investigation to confirm its suitability for developing upper-limb rehabilitation interventions with clinical translational potential.
EraifejJClarkWFranceBDesandoSMooreD. Effectiveness of upper limb functional electrical stimulation after stroke for the improvement of activities of daily living and motor function: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev.2017; 6(1): 40. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0435-5.
2.
BickelCSGregoryCMDeanJC. Motor unit recruitment during neuromuscular electrical stimulation: A critical appraisal. Eur J Appl Physiol.2011; 111(10): 2399-407. doi: 10.1007/s00421-011-2128-4.
3.
IbitoyeMOHamzaidNAHasnanNWahabAKADavisGM. Strategies for rapid muscle fatigue reduction during FES exercise in individuals with spinal cord injury: A systematic review. PLoS One.2016; 11(2). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149024.
4.
BowmanBRBakerLL. Effects of waveform parameters on comfort during transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation. Ann Biomed Eng.1985; 13(1): 59-74. doi: 10.1007/BF02371250.
5.
BakerL. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation: a practical guide. 4th ed. Downey CA: Los Amigos Research & Education Institute; 2000.
6.
NussbaumELHoughtonPAnthonyJRennieSShayBLHoensAM. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for treatment of muscle impairment: Critical review and recommendations for clinical practice. Vol. 69, Physiotherapy Canada. University of Toronto Press Inc.; 2017. pp. 1-76. doi: 10.3138/ptc.2015-88.
7.
HodkinEFLeiYHumbyJGloverISChoudhurySKumarH, et al. Automated FES for upper limb rehabilitation following stroke and spinal cord injury. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng.2018; 26(5): 1067-74. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2816238.
8.
GobboMMaffiulettiNAOrizioCMinettoMA. Muscle motor point identification is essential for optimizing neuromuscular electrical stimulation use. J Neuroeng Rehabil.2014; 11(1): 17. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-17.
9.
BaoXZhouYWangYZhangJLüXWangZ. Electrode placement on the forearm for selective stimulation of finger extension/ flexion. Sakakibara M, editor. PLoS One.2018; 13(1): 1-22. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190936.
10.
WesterveldAJSchoutenACVeltinkPHVan Der KooijH. Selectivity and resolution of surface electrical stimulation for grasp and release. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng.2012; 20(1): 94-101. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2011.2178749.
11.
RavichandranNAwKCMcDaidA. Characterizing the Motor Points of Forearm Muscles for Dexterous Neuroprostheses. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng.2020; 67(1): 50-9. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2019.2907926.
12.
O’DwyerSBO’KeeffeDTCooteSLyonsGM. An electrode configuration technique using an electrode matrix arrangement for FES-based upper arm rehabilitation systems. Med Eng Phys.2006; 28: 166-76. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2005.03.010.
13.
MaleševićNMManeskiLZIlićVJorgovanovićNBijelićGKellerT, et al. A multi-pad electrode based functional electrical stimulation system for restoration of grasp. J Neuroeng Rehabil.2012; 9(1): 66. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-9-66.
14.
De MarchisCMonteiroTSSimon-MartinezCConfortoSGharabaghiA. Multi-contact functional electrical stimulation for hand opening: Electrophysiologically driven identification of the optimal Stimulation site. J Neuroeng Rehabil.2016; 13(22). doi: 10.1186/s12984-016-0129-6.
15.
Popović ManeskiLTopalovićIJovičićNDedijerSKonstantinovićLPopovićDB. Stimulation map for control of functional grasp based on multi-channel EMG recordings. Med Eng Phys.2016; 38(11): 1251-9. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2016.06.004.
16.
AuchstaetterNLucJLukyeSLyndKSchemenauerSWhittakerM, et al. Physical therapists’ use of functional electrical stimulation for clients with stroke: frequency, barriers, and facilitators. Phys Ther.2016; 96(7): 995-1005. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20150464.
17.
SalchowCValtinMSeelTSchauerT. A new semi-automatic approach to find suitable virtual electrodes in arrays using an interpolation strategy. Eur J Transl Myol.2016; 26(2): 134-9. doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2016.6029.
18.
MercadoJAFuentesJIToledoCLCastellanosNPGutiérrezJ. Design of a Flexible Platform for prototyping of FES-based Motor Rehabilitation Systems. In: 22 Annual Conference of the International Functional Electrical Stimulation Society Conference. Nottwil, Switzerland: International Functional Electrical Stimulation Society; 2018.
19.
KapadiaNMoineauBPopovicMR. Functional electrical stimulation therapy for retraining reaching and grasping after spinal cord injury and stroke. Front Neurosci.2020; 14: 718. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00718.
ThrasherTAZivanovicVMcIlroyWPopovicMR. Rehabilitation of reaching and grasping function in severe hemiplegic patients using functional electrical stimulation therapy. Neurorehabil Neural Repair.2008; 22(6): 706-14. doi: 10.1177/1545968308317436.
MartínAI. Manga para el posicionamiento estratégico de electrodos de registro de sEMG y de estimulación eléctrica funcional en miembro superior para su uso en una Neuroprótesis [bachelor’s thesis]. Universidad La Salle, Mexico City; 2019.
24.
KatrakPBowringGConroyPChilversMPoulosRMcNeilD. Predicting upper limb recovery after stroke: the place of early shoulder and hand movement. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.1998; 79(7): 758-761.
25.
BockbraderM. Upper limb sensorimotor restoration through brain–computer interface technology in tetraparesis. Curr Opin Biomed Eng.2019; 11: 85-101. doi: 10.1016/j.cobme.2019.09.002.
26.
DemersMLevinMF. Do activity level outcome measures commonly used in neurological practice assess upper-limb movement quality? Neurorehabil Neural Repair.2017; 31(7): 623-37. doi: 10.1177/1545968317714576.
27.
LoitzJCReinertANeumannAKQuandtFSchroederDKrautschneiderWH. A flexible standalone system with integrated sensor feedback for multi-pad electrode FES of the hand. Curr Dir Biomed Eng.2016; 2(1): 391-4. doi: 10.1515/cdbme-2016-0087.
de KroonJRIjzermanMJChaeJLankhorstGJZilvoldG. Relation between stimulation characteristics and clinical outcome in studies using electrical stimulation to improve motor control of the upper extremity in stroke. J Rehabil Med.2005; 37(2): 65-74. doi: 10.1080/16501970410024190.
