Garments for functional electrical stimulation: Design and proofs of concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Repeated use of functional electrical stimulation can promote functional recovery in individuals with neurological paralysis. We designed garments able to deliver functional electrical stimulation. METHODS: Shirts and pants containing electrodes knitted with a conductive yarn were produced. Electrodes were moistened with water before use. Stimulation intensity at four thresholds levels (sensory, movement, full range of motion, and maximal), stimulation comfort, and electrical properties of the interface were tested in one able-bodied subject with garment electrodes and size-matched conventional gel electrodes. The pants and shirt were then used to explore usability and design limitations. RESULTS: Compared to gel electrodes, fabric electrodes had a lower sensory threshold (on forearm muscles) but they had a higher maximal stimulation threshold (for all tested muscles). The stimulation delivery was comfortable when the garment electrodes were recently moistened; however, as the electrodes dried (within 9 to 18 min) stimulation became unpleasant. Inconsistent water content in the fabric electrodes caused inconsistent intensity thresholds and inconsistent voltage necessary to apply a desired stimulation current. Garments' tightness and impracticality of electrode lead necessitate further design improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Fabric electrodes offer a promising alternative to gel electrodes. Further work involving people with paralysis is required to overcome the identified challenges.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".