Facilitating Myoelectric-Control with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

Conference paper
Part of the Biosystems & Biorobotics book series (BIOSYSROB, volume 1)


Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES) can electrically activate paretic muscles of the lower extremities to assist walking following stroke. Here the electrical stimulation can be modulated, and controlled by residual muscle activity of the patients recorded by electromyogram (EMG) from the paretic muscles. However such direct EMG control of stimulation envelope assumes normative EMG patterns during walking. Unfortunately the muscle activity in the hemiparetic lower limb often suffers from delays in initiation and termination during walking. Thus patients have to learn movement-related muscle contraction for fine-tuning of NMES. The objective of this study in 10 healthy volunteers was to investigate the effect of an intervention at the central nervous system level - anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of primary motor cortex (M1) and cerebellar cortex - on delays in initiation and termination of isometric tibialis anterior (TA) contraction following audible prompt. The results suggested that, 1. Cerebellar anodal tDCS increased the delay in initiation of TA contraction while M1 anodal tDCS decreased the same when compared to sham tDCS, 2. Cerebellar anodal tDCS decreased the delay in termination of TA contraction while M1 anodal tDCS increased the same when compared to Sham. These preliminary results from healthy subjects may have significant clinical implications on EMG-controlled NMES-assisted gait therapy, however controlled interventional trials are needed to elucidate the optimal therapy protocol in stroke survivors.


Tibialis Anterior Cerebellar Cortex Primary Motor Cortex Tibialis Anterior Muscle Functional Electrical Stimulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bogataj, U., Gros, N., Malezic, M., Kelih, B., Kilajic, M., Acimovic, R.: Restoration of gait during two to three weeks of therapy with multichannel electrical stimulation. Physical Therapy 69(5), 319–327 (1989)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Taylor, P.N., Burridge, J.H., Dunkerley, A.L., Wood, D.E., Norton, J.A., Singleton, C., Swain, I.D.: Clinical use of the Odstock dropped foot stimulator: Its effect on speed and effort of walking. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 80(12), 1577–1583 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sheffler, L.R., Hennessey, M.T., Naples, G.G., Chae, J.: Peroneal nerve stimulation versus an ankle foot orthosis for correction of footdrop in stroke: impact on functional ambulation. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 20(3), 355–360 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kottink, A.I., Hermens, H.J., Nene, A.V., Tenniglo, M.J., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C.G., IJzerman, M.J.: Therapeutic effect of an implantable peroneal nerve stimulator in subjects with chronic stroke and footdrop: a randomized controlled trial. Phys. Ther. 88(4), 437–448 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burridge, J.H., Taylor, P.N., Swain, I.D.: The effects of common peroneal stimulation on the effort and speed of walking: a randomized controlled trial with chronic hemiplegic patients. Clinical Rehabilitation 11(3), 201–210 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hausdorff, J.M., Ring, H.: Effects of a new radio frequency controlled neuroprosthesis on gait symmetry and rhythmicity in patients with chronic hemiparesis. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 87(1), 4–13 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daly, J.J., Zimbelman, J., Roenigk, K.L., McCabe, J.P., Rogers, J.M., Butler, K., Burdsall, R., Holcomb, J.P., Marsolais, E.B., Ruff, R.L.: Recovery of coordinated gait: randomized controlled stroke trial of functional electrical stimulation (FES) versus no FES, with weight-supported treadmill and over-ground training. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 25(7), 588–596 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dutta, A., Khattar, B., Banerjee, A.: Nonlinear analysis of electromyogram following training with myoelectrically-triggered neuromuscular electrical stimulation in stroke survivors. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing (accepted 2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Byrne, C.A., O’Keeffe, D.T., Donnelly, A.E., Lyons, G.M.: Effect of walking speed changes on tibialis anterior EMG during healthy gait for FES envelope design in drop foot correction. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 17(5), 605–616 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chae, J., Quinn, A., El-Hayek, K., Santing, J., Berezovski, R., Harley, M.: Delay in initiation and termination of tibialis anterior contraction in lower-limb hemiparesis: relationship to lower-limb motor impairment and mobility. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 87(9), 1230–1234 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aiello, E., Gates, D.H., Patritti, B.L., Cairns, K.D., Meister, M., Clancy, E.A., Bonato, P.: Visual EMG biofeedback to improve ankle function in hemiparetic gait. In: Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc., vol. 7, pp. 7703–7706 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Madhavan, S., Weber, K.A., Stinear, J.W.: Non-invasive brain stimulation enhances fine motor control of the hemiparetic ankle: implications for rehabilitation. Exp. Brain Res. 209(1), 9–17 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alexander von Humboldt FoundationGoettingenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Clinical NeurophysiologyGeorg-August-UniversityGoettingenGermany
  3. 3.Department of Physiotherapy and RehabilitationMax Superspeciality Hospital SaketNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations