Background: Rapid onset of muscular fatigue is still one of the main issues of functional electrical stimulation (FES). A promising technique, known as distributed stimulation, aims to activate sub-units of a muscle at a lower stimulation frequency to increase fatigue-resistance. Besides a general agreement on the beneficial effects, the great heterogeneity of evaluation techniques, raises the demand for a standardized method to better reflect the requirements of a practical application. Methods: This study investigated the fatigue-development of 6 paralysed quadriceps muscles over the course of 180 dynamic contractions, evaluating different electrode-configurations (conventional and distributed stimulation). For a standardized comparison, fatigue-testing was performed at 40% of the peak-torque during a maximal evoked contraction (MEC). Further, we assessed the isometric torque for each electrode-configuration at different knee-extension-angles (70°–170°, 10° steps). Results: Our results showed no significant difference in the fatigue-index for any of the tested electrode-configurations, compared to conventional-stimulation. We conjecture that the positive effects of distributed stimulation become less pronounced at higher stimulation amplitudes. The isometric torque produced at different knee-extension angles was similar for most electrode-configurations. Maximal torque-production was found at 130°–140° knee-extension-angle, which correlates with the maximal knee-flexion-angles during running. Conclusion: In most practical applications, FES is intended to initiate dynamic movements. Therefore, it is crucial to assess fatigue-resistance by using dynamic contractions. Reporting the relationship between produced torque and knee-extension-angle can help to observe the stability of a chosen electrode-configuration for a targeted range-of-motion. Additionally, we suggest to perform fatigue testing at higher forces (e.g. 40% of the maximal evoked torque) in pre-trained subjects with SCI to better reflect the practical demands of FES-applications.

Functional electrical stimulation (FES) is a technique used in rehabilitation, allowing the recreation or facilitation of a movement or function, by electrically inducing the activation of targeted muscles. FES during cycling often uses activation patterns which are based on the crank angle of the pedals. Dynamic changes in their underlying predefined geometrical models (e.g., change in seating position) can lead to desynchronised contractions. Adaptive algorithms with a real-time interpretation of anatomical segments can avoid this and open new possibilities for the automatic design of stimulation patterns. However, their ability to accurately and precisely detect stimulation triggering events has to be evaluated in order to ensure their adaptability to real-case applications in various conditions. In this study, three algorithms (Hilbert, BSgonio, and Gait Cycle Index (GCI) Observer) were evaluated on passive cycling inertial data of six participants with spinal cord injury (SCI). For standardised comparison, a linear phase reference baseline was used to define target events (i.e., 10%, 40%, 60%, and 90% of the cycle’s progress). Limits of agreement (LoA) of ±10% of the cycle’s duration and Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) were used to evaluate the accuracy and precision of the algorithm’s event detections. The delays in the detection were determined for each algorithm over 780 events. Analysis showed that the Hilbert and BSgonio algorithms validated the selected criteria (LoA: +5.17/−6.34% and +2.25/−2.51%, respectively), while the GCI Observer did not (LoA: +8.59/−27.89%). When evaluating control algorithms, it is paramount to define appropriate criteria in the context of the targeted practical application. To this end, normalising delays in event detection to the cycle’s duration enables the use of a criterion that stays invariable to changes in cadence. Lin’s CCC, comparing both linear correlation and strength of agreement between methods, also provides a reliable way of confirming comparisons between new control methods and an existing reference.