Combining Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) to Elicit Hand Movements and a Mechanical Orthosis to Passively Maintain Wrist and Fingers Position in Individuals With Tetraplegia: A Feasibility Test
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have developed a new approach to assist prehension by combining functional electrical stimulation (FES) and a motorized orthosis: ORTHYB. The aim was to induce movements of fingers, thumb, and wrist joints by activating muscles using surface FES and locking joints in desired positions using electric motors, to reduce muscle fatigue and enable prolonged grasping of objects. Another hypothesis was that the mechanical orthosis would improve grip quality by constraining joint positioning and guiding movements. The functionality and acceptability of this hybrid orthosis were tested on five participants with upper-limb paralysis due to spinal cord injury. The evaluation was carried out by monitoring the quality of grip for 30 seconds on 3 different objects; perceived effort using the Borg RPE (Rating of Perceived Exertion) scale; pain using visual analog scale (VAS); acceptability using QUEST (Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction Technology with Assistive Technology) scale and SUS (System Usability Scale). Preliminary results indicate that the hybrid orthosis provides added value compared to FES alone. The scores obtained in terms of functionality were in most of the trials greater than or equal to those obtained with FES alone. Object grasping was possible for 30 seconds without muscular fatigue affecting grip quality.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it