4.6 Review

Transcutaneous Functional Electrical Stimulation Controlled by a System of Sensors for the Lower Limbs: A Systematic Review

Journal

SENSORS
Volume 22, Issue 24, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s22249812

Keywords

FES; sensors; rehabilitation; nonlinear control; systematic review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article discusses the choice of sensor type and control strategy for restoring lower limb functions through open-loop and closed-loop control strategies in transcutaneous FES. It provides a review of the latest control strategy solutions and suggests further research directions.
In the field of transcutaneous functional electrical stimulation (FES), open-loop and closed-loop control strategies have been developed to restore functions of the lower limbs: walking, standing up, maintaining posture, and cycling. These strategies require sensors that provide feedback information on muscle activity or biomechanics of movement. Since muscle response induced by transcutaneous FES is nonlinear, time-varying, and dependent on muscle fatigue evolution, the choice of sensor type and control strategy becomes critical. The main objective of this review is to provide state-of-the-art, emerging, current, and previous solutions in terms of control strategies. Focus is given on transcutaneous FES systems for the lower limbs. Using Compendex and Inspec databases, a total of 135 review and conference articles were included in this review. Recent studies mainly use inertial sensors, although the use of electromyograms for lower limbs has become more frequent. Currently, several researchers are opting for nonlinear controllers to overcome the nonlinear and time-varying effects of FES. More development is needed in the field of systems using inertial sensors for nonlinear control. Further studies are needed to validate nonlinear control systems in patients with neuromuscular disorders.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available