2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.jshs.2020.10.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Contributions of the Cybathlon championship to the literature on functional electrical stimulation cycling among individuals with spinal cord injury: A bibliometric review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
(127 reference statements)
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These sufficiently long durations suggest strong trends that can be compared with the literature data. 3 , 7 , 9 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These sufficiently long durations suggest strong trends that can be compared with the literature data. 3 , 7 , 9 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies investigating FES systems optimization often report power values instead of cadence, which could advance the discussion about passive orthoses use. In this work, we set up a similar system used for groups at the Cybathlon 2016 and 2020 competitions [5], [10]. Therefore, it is easier for other groups to repeat the methods and compare results, such as cadence performance.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For each simulation, we observed cadence over time, and calculated two performance parameters: the average crankset cadenceθ c and the standard deviation σθ. We set cadence as a parameter performance, as it often, other works set the system similarly [10]. From these performance parameters, we analyze how τ max and ∆θ could modify the average cadence of a complete cycle with similar muscle excitations (h).…”
Section: B Simulation Environmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The modified version of the D&B Checklist was not used, as the authors felt it important to adequately represent the sufficient powering of studies as per the original checklist. The following rounded cut-off points were used to categorize studies by quality [ 66 ]: excellent (91%–100%), good (71%–90%), fair (51%–70%), and poor (0%–50%).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%