Cited by 44Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryPain Management and Treatment

Functional electrical stimulation using microstimulators to correct foot drop: a case study

Weber, D J, Stein, R B, Chan, K M, Loeb, G E, Richmond, F J.R, Rolf, R, James, K, Chong, S L +2 more·2004·Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology

Abstract

This paper presents a case study that tested the feasibility and efficacy of using injectable microstimulators (BIONs) in a functional electrical stimulation (FES) device to correct foot drop. Compared with surface stimulation of the common peroneal nerve, stimulation with BIONs provides more selective activation of specific muscles. For example, stimulation of the tibialis anterior (TA) and extensor digitorum longus (EDL) muscles with BIONs produces ankle flexion without excessive inversion or eversion of the foot (i.e., balanced flexion). Efficacy was assessed using a 3-dimensional motion analysis of the ankle and foot trajectories during walking with and without stimulation. Without stimulation, the toe on the affected leg drags across the ground. BION stimulation of the TA muscle and deep peroneal nerve (which innervates TA and EDL) elevates the foot such that the toe clears the ground by 3 cm, which is equivalent to the toe clearance in the less affected leg. The physiological cost index (PCI) measured effort during walking. The PCI equals the change in heart rate (from rest to activity) divided by the walking speed; units are beats per metre. The PCI is high without stimulation (2.29 +/- 0.37, mean +/- SD) and greatly reduced with surface (1.29 +/- 0.10) and BIONic stimulation (1.46 +/- 0.24). Also, walking speed increased from 9.4 +/- 0.4 m/min without stimulation to 19.6 +/- 2.0 m/min with surface and 17.8 +/- 0.7 m/min with BIONic stimulation. These results suggest t…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1139/y04-078

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 41 · Cited by 44

Authors
Weber, D. J., Stein, R. B., Chan, K. M., Loeb, G. E., Richmond, F. J. R., Rolf, R., James, K., Chong, S. L., Thompson, A. K., & Misiaszek, J.
Affiliations
University of Alberta (CA)
Venue
Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology
Published
2004-07-01
Volume
82
Issue
8-9
Pages
784-792
ISSN
  • 0008-4212 (ISSN-L)
  • 1205-7541
OpenAlex
W2147273423
Cited by
44
References
41
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB002094)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
functional electrical stimulation, foot drop, peroneal nerve stimulation, tibialis anterior, extensor digitorum longus, ankle flexion, toe clearance, walking speed, physiological cost index, walking effort, gait
MeSH terms
Adult, Electrodes, Implanted, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Humans, Male, Microelectrodes, Case-Control Studies, Gait Disorders, Neurologic

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