Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation as a Method to Maximize the Beneficial Effects of Muscle Stem Cells Transplanted into Dystrophic Skeletal Muscle

Cellular therapy is a potential approach to improve the regenerative capacity of damaged or diseased skeletal muscle. However, its clinical use has often been limited by impaired donor cell survival, proliferation and differentiation following transplantation. Additionally, functional improvements after transplantation are all-too-often negligible. Because the host microenvironment plays an important role in the fate of transplanted cells, methods to modulate the microenvironment and guide donor cell behavior are warranted. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the use of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for 1 or 4 weeks following muscle-derived stem cell (MDSC) transplantation into dystrophic skeletal muscle can modulate the fate of donor cells and enhance their contribution to muscle regeneration and functional improvements. Animals submitted to 4 weeks of NMES after transplantation demonstrated a 2-fold increase in the number of dystrophin+ myofibers as compared to control transplanted muscles. These findings were concomitant with an increased vascularity in the MDSC+NMES group when compared to non-stimulated counterparts. Additionally, animals subjected to NMES (with or without MDSC transplantation) presented an increased maximal specific tetanic force when compared to controls. Although cell transplantation and/or the use of NMES resulted in no changes in fatigue resistance, the combination of both MDSC transplantation and NMES resulted in a faster recovery from fatigue, when compared to non-injected and non-stimulated counterparts. We conclude that NMES is a viable method to improve MDSC engraftment, enhance dystrophic muscle strength, and, in combination with MDSC transplantation, improve recovery from fatigue. These findings suggest that NMES may be a clinically-relevant adjunct approach for cell transplantation into skeletal muscle. © 2013 Distefano et al

Microstimulation of human somatosensory cortex evokes task-dependent, spatially patterned responses in motor cortex

The primary motor (M1) and somatosensory (S1) cortices play critical roles in motor control but the signaling between these structures is poorly understood. To fill this gap, we recorded – in three participants in an ongoing human clinical trial (NCT01894802) for people with paralyzed hands – the responses evoked in the hand and arm representations of M1 during intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) in the hand representation of S1. We found that ICMS of S1 activated some M1 neurons at short, fixed latencies consistent with monosynaptic activation. Additionally, most of the ICMS-evoked responses in M1 were more variable in time, suggesting indirect effects of stimulation. The spatial pattern of M1 activation varied systematically: S1 electrodes that elicited percepts in a finger preferentially activated M1 neurons excited during that finger’s movement. Moreover, the indirect effects of S1 ICMS on M1 were context dependent, such that the magnitude and even sign relative to baseline varied across tasks. We tested the implications of these effects for brain-control of a virtual hand, in which ICMS conveyed tactile feedback. While ICMS-evoked activation of M1 disrupted decoder performance, this disruption was minimized using biomimetic stimulation, which emphasizes contact transients at the onset and offset of grasp, and reduces sustained stimulation

How a Diverse Research Ecosystem Has Generated New Rehabilitation Technologies: Review of NIDILRR’s Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers

Over 50 million United States citizens (1 in 6 people in the US) have a developmental, acquired, or degenerative disability. The average US citizen can expect to live 20% of his or her life with a disability. Rehabilitation technologies play a major role in improving the quality of life for people with a disability, yet widespread and highly challenging needs remain. Within the US, a major effort aimed at the creation and evaluation of rehabilitation technology has been the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) sponsored by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. As envisioned at their conception by a panel of the National Academy of Science in 1970, these centers were intended to take a “total approach to rehabilitation”, combining medicine, engineering, and related science, to improve the quality of life of individuals with a disability. Here, we review the scope, achievements, and ongoing projects of an unbiased sample of 19 currently active or recently terminated RERCs. Specifically, for each center, we briefly explain the needs it targets, summarize key historical advances, identify emerging innovations, and consider future directions. Our assessment from this review is that the RERC program indeed involves a multidisciplinary approach, with 36 professional fields involved, although 70% of research and development staff are in engineering fields, 23% in clinical fields, and only 7% in basic science fields; significantly, 11% of the professional staff have a disability related to their research. We observe that the RERC program has substantially diversified the scope of its work since the 1970’s, addressing more types of disabilities using more technologies, and, in particular, often now focusing on information technologies. RERC work also now often views users as integrated into an interdependent society through technologies that both people with and without disabilities co-use (such as the internet, wireless communication, and architecture). In addition, RERC research has evolved to view users as able at improving outcomes through learning, exercise, and plasticity (rather than being static), which can be optimally timed. We provide examples of rehabilitation technology innovation produced by the RERCs that illustrate this increasingly diversifying scope and evolving perspective. We conclude by discussing growth opportunities and possible future directions of the RERC program

Propaganda in an Age of Algorithmic Personalization: Expanding Literacy Research and Practice

In this commentary, the author considers the rise of algorithmic personalization and the power of propaganda as they shift the dynamic landscape of 21st‐century literacy research and practice. Algorithmic personalization uses data from the behaviors, beliefs, interests, and emotions of the target audience to provide filtered digital content, targeted advertising, and differential product pricing to online users. As persuasive genres, advertising and propaganda may demand different types of reading practices than texts whose purpose is primarily informational or argumentative. Understanding the propaganda function of algorithmic personalization may lead to a deeper consideration of texts that activate emotion and tap into audience values for aesthetic, commercial, and political purposes. Increased attention to algorithmic personalization, propaganda, and persuasion in the context of K–12 literacy education may also help people cope with sponsored content, bots, and other forms of propaganda and persuasion that now circulate online

Upper limb strength in individuals with spinal cord injury who use manual wheelchairs

Introduction: Manual wheelchair users have been found to be at risk for secondary upper extremity injuries. Purpose: The primary goal of this study was to compare shoulder strength and muscle imbalance of individuals with paraplegia to case-wise matched unimpaired controls (UC). A secondary goal was to evaluate the impact of age and neurologic level of injury (NLI) on weight-normalized strength (WNS). Methods: The SCI group (n = 28) and the UC group (n = 28) completed bilateral shoulder isokinetic strength testing in the sagittal, frontal, and horizontal plane at 60 degrees/second using the BioDex system. Strength ratios, an indicator of muscle imbalance, were also calculated. Results: No significant difference was seen in shoulder strength or strength ratios between the SCI group and the UC group. However, NLI was significantly related to WNS on several planes in the SCI group. Therefore, we dichotomized the SCI group into equal groups based on an NLI. The Low-SCI group was significantly stronger than the High-SCI group in most planes (P < 0.05). The High-SCI group was significantly weaker than the UC in extension (P < 0.01) and a trend (P < 0.01) was seen in flexion, abduction, and external rotation. The Low-SCI group was significantly stronger in abduction than the UC. Conclusion: WNS at the shoulder correlated with NLI. It is likely that this is related to contributions of the trunk and abdominal muscles during testing, since proximal trunk strength aids in generating forces distally. This study and others of strength in individuals with paraplegia may overestimate shoulder strength