Tremor Suppression Using Functional Electrical Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parkinson's disease (PD) and essential tremor are two major causes of pathological tremor among people over 60 years old. Due to the side effects and complications of traditional tremor management methods such as medication and deep brain surgery, non invasive tremor suppression methods have become more popular in recent years. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) is one of the methods used to reduce tremor in several studies. However, the effect of different FES parameters on tremor suppression and discomfort level, including amplitude, the number of pulses in each stimulation burst, frequency, and pulse width is yet to be studied for longer stimulation durations. Therefore, in this work, experiments were performed on 14 participants with PD to evaluate the effect of thirty seconds of out-of-phase electrical stimulation on wrist tremor at rest. Trials were conducted by varying the stimulation amplitude and the number of pulses while keeping the frequency and pulse width constant. Each test was repeated three times for each participant. The results showed an overall tremor suppression for 11 out of 14 participants and no average positive effects for three participants. It is concluded that despite the effectiveness of FES in tremor suppression, each set of FES parameters showed different suppression levels among participants due to the variability of tremor over time. Thus, for this method to be effective, an adaptive control system would be required to tune FES parameters in real time according to changes in tremor during extended stimulation periods.
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".