Tremor suppression using functional electrical stimulation: a comparison between digital and analog controllers
Abstract
In this study, we compared digital and analog versions of a functional electrical stimulator designed to suppress tremor. The device was based on a closed-loop control system designed to attenuate movements in the tremor frequency range, without significantly affecting slower, voluntary movements. Testing of the digital filter was done on three patients with Parkinsonian tremor and the results compared to those of a functional electrical stimulation device based on an analog filter evaluated in a previous study. Additional testing of both the analog and digital filters was done on three subjects with no neurological impairment performing tremor-like movements and slow voluntary movements. We found that the digital controller provided a mean attenuation of 84%, compared to 65% for the analog controller.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Gillard et al. digital-filter FES approach tested on three Parkinson's disease patients obtained an average tremor cancellation of 84.5 ± 2.2%.
“They tested their approach on three PD patients, obtaining an average tremor cancellation of 84.5 ± 2.2%.”
From A Review on Wearable Technologies for Tremor Suppression (2021) · cites this paper as [65]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 19 · Cited by 61
- Authors
- Gillard, D. M., Cameron, T., Prochazka, A., & Gauthier, M. J. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Alberta (CA)
- ORCID
- Cameron, T.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering
- Published
- 1999
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 385-388
- ISSN
- 1063-6528 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2103518795
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
- Keywords
- tremor suppression, functional electrical stimulation, parkinsonian tremor, digital filters, analog filters, feedback control
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Analog-Digital Conversion, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Equipment Design, Feasibility Studies, Feedback, Humans, Middle Aged, Models, Neurological, Parkinson Disease, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Tremor
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
