Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2021 Nov;2021:6394-6397. doi: 10.1109/EMBC46164.2021.9630197.
This case study was designed starting from our experience at CYBATHLON 2020. The specific aim of this work was to compare the effectiveness of different fatigue reducing stimulation strategies during cycling induced by Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES). The compared stimulation strategies were: traditional constant frequency trains (CFTs) at 30 and 40Hz, doublet frequency trains (DFTs) and spatially distributed sequential stimulation (SDSS) on the quadriceps muscles. One Spinal Cord Injured (SCI) subject (39 years, T5-T6, male, ASIA A) was involved in 12 experimental sessions during which the four strategies were tested in a randomized order during FES-induced cycling performed on a passive trike at a constant cadence of 35 RPM. FES was delivered to four muscle groups (quadriceps, gluteal muscles, hamstrings and gastrocnemius) for each leg. The performance was evaluated in terms of saturation time (i.e., the time elapsed from the beginning of the stimulation until the predetermined maximum value of current amplitude is reached) and root mean square error (RMSE) of the actual cadence with respect to the target value. SDSS achieved a statistical lower saturation time and a qualitative higher RMSE of the cadence with respect to CFTs both at 30 and 40Hz.Clinical relevance- Conversely to previous literature, SDSS seems to be ineffective to reduce muscle fatigue during FES-induced cycling. Further experiments are needed to confirm this result.
本案例研究基于我们在 CYBATHLON 2020 的经验设计。这项工作的具体目的是比较在功能性电刺激(FES)诱导的自行车运动中不同的抗疲劳刺激策略的有效性。比较的刺激策略是:30Hz 和 40Hz 的传统恒频 trains(CFTs)、双频 trains(DFTs)和股四头肌的空间分布顺序刺激(SDSS)。一名脊髓损伤(SCI)受试者(39 岁,T5-T6,男性,ASIA A)参与了 12 次实验,在被动三轮车以 35RPM 的恒定速度进行 FES 诱导的自行车运动中,以随机顺序测试了这四种策略。FES 被传递到每个腿部的四个肌肉群(股四头肌、臀肌、腘绳肌和腓肠肌)。性能评估的指标为饱和时间(即从刺激开始到达到预定的最大电流幅度值所需的时间)和实际转速与目标值的均方根误差(RMSE)。与 30Hz 和 40Hz 的 CFTs 相比,SDSS 在达到饱和时间和保持转速方面都表现出了统计学上的更低的饱和时间和更高的 RMSE。临床相关性-与之前的文献相反,SDSS 似乎无法在 FES 诱导的自行车运动中减少肌肉疲劳。需要进一步的实验来证实这一结果。