Combining robotics and functional electrical stimulation for assist-as-needed support of leg movements in stroke patients: A feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Rehabilitation technology can be used to provide intensive training in the early phases after stroke. The current study aims to assess the feasibility of combining robotics and functional electrical stimulation (FES), with an assist-as-needed approach to support actively-initiated leg movements in (sub-)acute stroke patients. METHOD: Nine subacute stroke patients performed repetitions of ankle dorsiflexion and/or knee extension movements, with and without assistance. The assist-as-needed algorithm determined the amount and type of support needed per repetition. The number of repetitions and range of motion with and without assistance were compared with descriptive statistics. Fatigue scores were obtained using the visual analogue scale (score 0-10). RESULTS: Support was required in 44 % of the repetitions for ankle dorsiflexion and in 5 % of the repetitions of knee extension, The median fatigue score was 2.0 (IQR: 0.2) and 4.0 (IQR: 1.5) for knee and ankle, respectively, indicating mild to moderate perceived fatigue. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility of assist-as-needed assistance through combined robotic and FES support of leg movements in stroke patients. It proved particularly useful for ankle dorsiflexion. Future research should focus on implementing this approach in a clinical setting, to assess clinical applicability and potential effects on leg function.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".