Can EMS Help People Reach and Grasp Again After Stroke?

Quick Overview

We always provide direct links to the original research at the end of every article so you can review the evidence yourself.

 

Toronto Scientists Measured Real Arm Gains After Stroke With Guided Electrical Stimulation

 

 

Picture a cup on a table.
After a severe stroke, that cup can feel a world away.
The arm hangs.
The hand will not open.
Even a simple reach can fail.

A Canadian research team spent years asking a hopeful question.
Could carefully timed electrical muscle stimulation, used as functional electrical stimulation, help people practise reaching and grasping again?

 

 

They published the methods and trial results in 2020.
The paper appeared in Frontiers in Neuroscience, a peer-reviewed journal from Lausanne, Switzerland.
The work came from the KITE Research Institute at Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, part of University Health Network, with the University of Toronto.
Lead authors were Naaz Kapadia, Bastien Moineau, and Milos R. Popovic.
Hospital ethics boards approved the studies.
Patients gave written consent.
That is why this story rests on published science, not rumour.

What the team actually did

 

 

This was not a gadget waved over the skin.
Therapists placed surface electrodes on the shoulder, arm, and hand.
A multi-channel stimulator then produced short pulses.
Typical settings were 40 Hz, about 250 microseconds, and 15 to 30 mA.
Sessions lasted 45 to 60 minutes.
Patients trained three to five days a week for eight to 16 weeks.
Many completed about 40 hours.

The key rule was simple.
The person had to try the movement first.
Stimulation then helped the arm follow a natural pattern.
Tasks included lifting a mug, holding a pen, and opening the hand around an object.
As voluntary strength returned, stimulation was turned down.
Channels moved to weaker muscles.
That is how the lab used EMS as a training partner, not a magic switch.

What they measured after stroke

One randomised trial enrolled 21 people with acute, severe hemiplegia.
They were only two to seven weeks after stroke.
Arm and hand scores started very low.
Chedoke-McMaster arm and hand stages were no higher than 2.
Fugl-Meyer upper-limb scores were under 15.

One group received FES plus usual physiotherapy and occupational therapy.
The other group received the same usual therapy alone.
Training ran five days a week for 12 to 16 weeks.

 

 

The FES group improved more on several scored tests.
Gains were larger for object manipulation.
Palmar grip torque rose more.
Pinch-grip pulling force rose more.
Barthel Index scores, which track daily independence, improved more.
Upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer scores improved more.
Chedoke-McMaster motor stages improved more.
Those differences reached statistical significance.

The same laboratory later described FIM self-care scores in severe sub-acute stroke.
People who completed the FES programme showed larger self-care gains than people who received conventional therapy only.
Some needed less help with everyday tasks.

 

 

A small paediatric study added another bright data point.
Four children with severe, chronic stroke completed 48 hours of the same style of therapy.
Average object-manipulation scores rose by 14.5 points.
That change was statistically significant.
Grasp scores on the Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test rose by about 26 points.
Every child improved on the tests used.

 

 

Across the Toronto programme, the authors reported work with about 50 stroke patients and about 150 spinal cord injury patients.
They wrote that short courses of this therapy, paired with standard rehab, were linked with better arm and hand use.
Some people became less dependent on carers.

Related numbers from the same method

 

 

The group also ran a randomised trial in incomplete cervical spinal cord injury.
After 40 hours, mean FIM self-care change was 20.1 with FES plus therapy.
It was 10 with conventional therapy alone.
The difference was statistically significant.
Those extra independence points matter when dressing, eating, and washing are the goal.

The lesson they drew was consistent.
More structured practice hours, with the person actively trying, tracked with bigger measured gains.
They favoured at least 20 sessions.

 

They often aimed for 40 hours or more when the person could tolerate it.
They did not pile two exhausting sessions into one day.
They spread the work across weeks.

Why the source is solid

 

 

University Health Network is one of Canada’s major teaching-hospital networks.
University of Toronto is a leading research university.
Frontiers in Neuroscience is an open-access, peer-reviewed journal published in Switzerland, a country with a long scientific tradition.
The 2020 paper sits on earlier randomised trials from 2008, 2011, and 2014.
Readers can look up the scores.
That paper trail is what makes this write-up legitimate.

The hopeful part, said carefully

 

 

This research does not claim that EMS cures stroke.
It does not replace a doctor, a therapist, or hospital rehab.
Not every person improved by the same amount.
In one chronic stroke group, changes were smaller and not statistically significant.

Still, the bright finding is clear.
In supervised trials, people with very weak arms practised real tasks with guided electrical muscle stimulation.
On standard tests of reaching, grasping, grip force, and daily self-care, many recorded larger gains than matched therapy without that stimulation.
The more complete programmes, around 40 hours over weeks, were the ones tied to those stronger numbers.

If you or someone you love is recovering after stroke, take this paper to a qualified clinician.
Ask whether a regulated, therapist-led FES programme is appropriate.
Research like this is how hope earns its evidence.

This article summarises published research. It is not medical advice and does not promote a product as a treatment.

Like this Research Digest? 📚

Share it with your friends 💬👇 https://bit.ly/4dgb6MK

About Our Health Research Digest

We bring you the latest and most important health research papers — simplified and easy to understand.

Each study is broken down into clear, concise summaries and engaging podcasts, with direct links to the original research so you can explore further whenever you like.

We also create content based on your requests. If you’re curious about a specific health topic or would like us to find relevant studies, simplify the findings, and turn them into a podcast, just let us know.

Don’t hesitate to reach out — we’re here to help make health research accessible and useful for you. Contact us anytime.

More  EMS   Research Scientists Are Studying

1. Can  EMS   reduce fat? 

2. Can   EMS  increase calorie burn while sitting?

3. Can   EMS  support muscle toning and muscle gains?

4. Can   EMS   improve athletic  training?

5. Can   EMS   play a role in muscle loss & frailty?

6. Can   EMS  reduce pain? 

7.   EMS   vs TENS: What are the differences?

8. Can  EMS  play a role after stroke?

Research Summary

Detail	What the paper reports
Original study	Open-access article in Frontiers in Neuroscience, volume 14, article 718. Full text: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00718
Title	Functional Electrical Stimulation Therapy for Retraining Reaching and Grasping After Spinal Cord Injury and Stroke
Authors	Naaz Kapadia, Bastien Moineau and Milos R. Popovic
Where it was done	KITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute–University Health Network, and University of Toronto, Canada
Publisher and date	Frontiers Media, Lausanne, Switzerland. Received 23 January 2020. Accepted 16 June 2020. Published 9 July 2020
Purpose	Describe how multi-channel surface FES was used in clinic trials to retrain arm and hand function, and summarise measured gains versus conventional therapy
Who was treated	About 50 people after stroke and about 150 people with spinal cord injury in the authors’ lab; more than 200 patients in total over 15-plus years
Stroke group in the key trial	Acute severe hemiplegia, 2–7 weeks after stroke. Chedoke-McMaster arm and hand stage no higher than 2. Fugl-Meyer upper-limb score under 15
How FES was used	Surface electrodes. Patient tries the movement first. Stimulation then assists a functional task such as opening the hand, lifting a mug or holding a pen. Stimulation is reduced as voluntary control returns
Stimulation settings	Balanced biphasic pulses. Frequency 40 Hz. Pulse width about 250 µs. Amplitude 8–50 mA, typically 15–30 mA. Sessions described as having little to virtually no pain
Session dose	45–60 minutes. Three to five days a week. Eight to 16 weeks. About 40 sessions. Active stimulation often 30–40 minutes inside the hour
Stroke findings they report	In the randomised acute stroke trial, the FES group improved more than conventional therapy on object manipulation, palmar grip torque, pinch-grip force, Barthel Index, Fugl-Meyer upper extremity and Chedoke-McMaster stages
Related independence scores	The paper’s stroke figure and text report larger FIM self-care gains after about 40 hours of FES plus therapy than after the same hours of usual physiotherapy and occupational therapy
Paediatric stroke add-on	Four children with severe chronic stroke completed 48 hours of FES. Mean object-manipulation score rose 14.5 points. QUEST grasp rose about 25.9 points. All four improved on the tests used
Spinal cord injury comparison from the same method	In subacute incomplete C3–C7 injury, mean FIM self-care change was 20.1 after 40 hours of FES plus therapy versus 10 after conventional therapy alone (P = 0.015)
Tasks that could be trained	Palmar grasp, lateral grasp, tripod grip, two-finger pinch, lateral pinch, lumbrical grip, sideways reach, forward reach, hand to mouth, and reach-plus-grasp combinations
What therapists tracked	Stroke: Action Research Arm Test and Fugl-Meyer upper extremity. Spinal cord injury: GRASSP, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute Hand Function Test, and SCIM self-care
Limits stated by the authors	Muscles must be reachable with surface electrodes. Major lower-motor-neuron damage can block FES. The person must be able to follow instructions. Contraindications include a pacemaker, metal at the site, open skin, or uncontrolled autonomic dysreflexia
Funding and ethics	Funded by the Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation, Spinal Cord Injury Ontario, Rick Hansen Institute, PSI Foundation, Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation and Toronto Rehab Foundation. Approved by the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute–UHN research ethics board. Written consent obtained

Related Posts Worth Reading

• 2026 Study coauthored by John Hopskin University School of Medicine , Published in Stroke / American Heart Association journal article

 

• 2015 Study - Published by BioMed Research International

 

• A 2017 systematic review in Systematic Reviews, published by BioMed Central

 

• 2025 study published in Frontiers in Neurology by Frontiers Media, Switzerland.

• 2018 study published in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation by Elsevier, Netherlands.

 

• 2024 study published in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation by Elsevier, Netherlands.

 

• 2024 study published in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation by Elsevier, Netherlands.

• 2025 study published in Progress in Rehabilitation Medicine by the Japanese Association of Rehabilitation Medicine, Japan.

 

• 

• 2002 study published in Clinical Rehabilitation by SAGE Publications, United States.

• 2014 study published in Journal of Physiotherapy by Elsevier, Netherlands.

• 2013 Study Published by Stroke Journal, American Heart Association, United States
  
  

 

• 2006 study published in the Australian Journal of Physiotherapy by Elsevier, Netherlands.

 

• 2020 Study Published by Frontiers in Neuroscience 

 

• 2022 Study Published by Annals of Geriatric Medicine and Research

 

 

 

• 2023 Study Published in the International Journal of Physiotherapy

 

• 2024 Study Published by The Rehabilitation Journal

 

• 2022 Study Published in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,

 

• 2021 Study Published by Journal of International Medical Research

 

• 2025 study published by the Japanese Association of Rehabilitation Medicine.

 

• 2025 Study published by Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

 

•  2014 Study Published in Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 

 

 

• Study Conducted on 93 Stroke People  Published on Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 

 

• Study conducted on 197 Stroke people , published in Stroke Journal, American Heart Association, United States

 

• 2016 Study Conducted on 815 Stroke Survivors , Published by Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine

 

 

 

 

• 2025 Review Conducted on 933 People, Published by Disability and Rehabilitation, Taylor & Francis

 

• 2017 Study, Published in Systematic Reviews, BioMed Central

 

• University of Glasgow Study Published in the American Heart Association journal Stroke

 

• Study Conducted on 120 People After Stroke, Published in American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

• 2023 Study Published in Pain and Therapy (Adis / Springer Nature)

• 2020 Study Published in 𝑭𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝑵𝒆𝒖𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆.

• 2016 Study Published in The Society of Physical Therapy Science, published by IPEC Inc., Japan

 

 

 

Disclaimer

This article is published for general information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute medical advice, health advice, diagnosis, or treatment of any kind.

All content on this website, including any studies, research, or information mentioned, is provided for informational purposes only and does not imply or guarantee any specific health outcomes.

We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected in any way to any researchers, universities, research centres, journals, or institutions referenced in any article. No reference to any study, researcher, or publication should be interpreted as an endorsement or recommendation of any products sold or featured on this website.

Our products (and any products featured or linked in this article) are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, prevent, or manage any disease or medical condition. Individual results may vary significantly. No guarantees or warranties are made regarding effectiveness, safety, or specific outcomes.

Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before using any product mentioned on this website or making any changes to your health routine, especially if you have a pre-existing medical condition, are pregnant, breastfeeding, have a pacemaker, or are taking medication.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, ORIEMS FIT, its directors, employees, authors, affiliates, and agents disclaim all liability for any loss, damage, cost, expense, or injury (whether direct, indirect, consequential, special, or incidental) arising from the use of, or reliance upon, any information in this article or from the purchase or use of any products featured or sold on this website.

© [ORIEMS FIT] – All Rights Reserved.