Evidence Hub

Intention-driven functional electrical stimulation therapy using a wearable high-density electrode sleeve in chronic stroke: a case report

Baumgart IW, Darrow MJ, Tacca NJ, Dunlap CF, Colachis SC, Kamath A, Schlink BR, Putnam PT et al.

Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2026

Abstract

Background: Functional electrical stimulation (FES) has been recognized for decades as a method to retrain the motor system after stroke. Benefits of FES rehabilitation can be enhanced by (1) combining FES with task-oriented therapy (i.e. FES therapy (FEST)), (2) timing FES with the user's volitional motor intention and (3) incorporating multiple trained tasks, as opposed to high repetitions of single tasks. Using a novel wearable FES technology, we tested therapy incorporating these elements in two chronic stroke survivors.

Methods: Our group has developed the NeuroLife Sleeve, a wearable forearm sleeve that contains a high-density grid of embedded FES electrodes, that may be controlled by an operator or by the wearer's own electromyographic (EMG) signals. The system enables rapid software-based switching between stimulation configurations for different functional movements without repeated electrode repositioning. During eight weeks of FEST, intention-driven FES enabling multiple movements was delivered via operator control twice weekly and EMG control once weekly.

Results: At the end of the therapy period, subjects A and B had both improved their scores: Box and Blocks Test (A: +5, B: +7), the Action Research Arm Test (A: +7, B: +12), the Fugl Meyer Upper Extremity section (A: +11, B: +9), and the 9-Hole Peg Test (A: 158 s, B: 54 s, both previously unable). Clinical improvements persisted during the 10-week follow-up period, during which FES exposure was reduced by more…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free