English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Surface electrode arrays have become popular in the application of functional electrical stimulation (FES) on the forearm. Arrays consist of multiple, small elements, which can be activated separately or in groups, forming virtual electrodes (VEs). As technology progress yields rising numbers of possible elements, an effective search strategy for suitable VEs in electrode arrays is of increasing importance. Current methods can be time-consuming, lack user integration, and miss an evaluation regarding clinical acceptance and practicability.    Methods  Two array identification procedures with different levels of user integration—a semi-automatic and a fully automatic approach—are evaluated. The semi-automatic method allows health professionals to continuously modify VEs via a touchscreen while the stimulation intensities are automatically controlled to maintain sufficient wrist extension. The automatic approach evaluates stimulation responses of various VEs for different intensities using a cost function and joint-angles recordings. Both procedures are compared in a clinical setup with five sub-acute stroke patients with moderate hand disabilities. The task was to find suitable VEs in two arrays with 59 elements in total to generate hand opening and closing for a grasp-and-release task. Practicability and acceptance by patients and health professionals were investigated using questionnaires and interviews.    Results  Both identification methods yield suitable VEs for hand opening and closing in patients who could tolerate the stimulation. However, the resulting VEs differed for both approaches. The average time for a complete search was 25% faster for the semi-automatic approach (semi-automatic: 7.3min, automatic: 10.5min). User acceptance was high for both methods, while no clear preference could be identified.    Conclusions  The semi-automatic approach should be preferred as the search strategy in arrays on the forearm. The observed faster search duration will further reduce when applying the system repeatedly on a patient as only small position adjustments for VEs are required. However, the setup time will significantly increase for generation of various grasp types and adaptation to different arm postures. We recommend different levels of user integration in FES systems such that the search strategy can be chosen based on the users’ preferences and application scenario.

User-centered practicability analysis of two identification strategies in electrode arrays for FES induced hand motion in early stroke rehabilitation