↓ Skip to main content

Advances in selective activation of muscles for non-invasive motor neuroprostheses

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Advances in selective activation of muscles for non-invasive motor neuroprostheses
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12984-016-0165-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aikaterini D. Koutsou, Juan C. Moreno, Antonio J. del Ama, Eduardo Rocon, José L. Pons

Abstract

Non-invasive neuroprosthetic (NP) technologies for movement compensation and rehabilitation remain with challenges for their clinical application. Two of those major challenges are selective activation of muscles and fatigue management. This review discusses how electrode arrays improve the efficiency and selectivity of functional electrical stimulation (FES) applied via transcutaneous electrodes. In this paper we review the principles and achievements during the last decade on techniques for artificial motor unit recruitment to improve the selective activation of muscles. We review the key factors affecting the outcome of muscle force production via multi-pad transcutaneous electrical stimulation and discuss how stimulation parameters can be set to optimize external activation of body segments. A detailed review of existing electrode array systems proposed by different research teams is also provided. Furthermore, a review of the targeted applications of existing electrode arrays for control of upper and lower limb NPs is provided. Eventually, last section demonstrates the potential of electrode arrays to overcome the major challenges of NPs for compensation and rehabilitation of patient-specific impairments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Unknown 133 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 23%
Student > Bachelor 24 18%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Master 14 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 4%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 33 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 50 37%
Neuroscience 13 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 36 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2017.
All research outputs
#13,398,273
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#640
of 1,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,056
of 352,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#10
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,282 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.