The Orthotic Effects of Different Functional Electrical Stimulation Protocols on Walking Performance in Individuals with Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury: A Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Functional electrical stimulation (FES) of paralyzed muscles can facilitate walking after spinal cord injury (SCI). Objectives: To test the orthotic effects of different FES walking protocols on lower joint kinematics and walking speed. Methods: Three adults with incomplete SCI participated in this study. Their lower extremity motor scores and 10-meter walk test results were as follows: subject A: 50, 1.05 m/s, subject B: 44, 0.29 m/s, and subject C: 32, 0.27 m/s. Participants completed four conditions of over-ground walking including no FES and three bilateral FES-walking protocols as follows: multi-muscle stimulation (stimulation of quadriceps and gastrocnemius in the stance phase, and hamstring and tibialis anterior in the swing phase), drop foot (tibialis anterior stimulation), and flexor withdrawal (common peroneal nerve stimulation). The FES system obtained gait phase information from foot switches located under the individuals' heels. Three-dimensional kinematic analysis was undertaken to measure minimum toe clearance (MTC); ankle, knee, and hip range of motion (ROM); stride length; and stride speed. Results: Compared to no-FES walking, MTC increased during drop foot (all subjects), flexor withdrawal (subjects A and B), and multi-muscle stimulation (subjects B and C) protocols. A significant decrease in ankle ROM was seen with drop foot (all subjects), flexor withdrawal (subjects A), and multi-muscle stimulation (subjects A and C) protocols. Hip ROM increased with drop foot (subjects B and C), flexor withdrawal (subject B), and multi-muscle stimulation (subject C) protocols. Conclusion: Three FES walking protocols induced positive kinematic changes as indicated by increased MTC, decreased ankle ROM, and increased hip ROM during walking in subjects with incomplete SCI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".