The Orthotic Effect of Functional Electrical Stimulation on Reactive Stepping for People With Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI) often face challenges initiating reactive steps, leading to an increased risk of falls. Reactive balance training (RBT) can improve balance control; however, it is difficult to participate in RBT without the ability to initiate a reactive step independently. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) has been used to facilitate participation in RBT. FES applied to the common fibular nerve (CFN) following iSCI initiates a flexor withdrawal response, promoting rapid hip and knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion, potentially aiding the execution of reactive stepping responses. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the orthotic (i.e., immediate) effect of FES on reactive stepping parameters in participants with chronic, motor iSCI. METHODS: Sixteen individuals with chronic motor iSCI completed the Lean-and-Release test, which elicits reactive stepping through a simulated forward fall. Participants completed 10-20 trials, with FES applied in half at random. The behavioral response (i.e., single-step, two-step, ≥ 3-step, or fall) of each trial was recorded. Temporal parameters (i.e., foot-off time, swing time, and stepping time) and spatial parameters (i.e., length, height, and width) of the first reactive step were also recorded. RESULTS: The proportion of single-step (p = 0.31), two-step (p = 0.19), ≥ 3-step (p = 0.44) and fall (p = 0.42) behavioral responses did not differ between FES and No-FES conditions. Additionally, the temporal (foot-off time (p = 0.43), swing time (p = 0.80), and step time (p = 0.95)) and spatial parameters (length (p = 0.73), height (p = 0.70), and width (p = 0.54)) of the first reactive step did not differ between conditions. CONCLUSIONS: FES had no orthotic effect on reactive stepping parameters in individuals with chronic motor iSCI.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".