CClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07447934Updated Jun 17, 2026

Trial to Test the Effectiveness of Vibrotactile Stimulation for Lower Limb Spasticity

An interventional study of Vibrotactile Stimulation (Static Use) and Vibrotactile Stimulation (Dynamic Use) in Lower Limb Spasticity, sponsored by Weill Medical College of Cornell University. Recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 85 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-06-17.

Sponsored by Weill Medical College of Cornell University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Started Apr 2026; still recruiting 5 months later.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
25
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 85 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The goal of this clinical trial is to find out if Vibrotactile Stimulation (VTS) can help improve mobility and reduce spasticity (muscle stiffness) in people with lower limb spasticity. The study will also look at how VTS affects walking speed. The main questions it aims to answer are:

  • Which areas of the body are the best for applying VTS?
  • Does VTS help improve walking speed in people with lower limb spasticity?

Participants will:

  • Receive 15 minutes of VTS treatment on different parts of the body
  • Use the VTS device for 60 minutes during supervised lab sessions and at home (at rest and while walking)
  • Complete a daily log of how much time the device was used for and note any issues or difficulties the participant experience
  • Complete assessments after the treatment to measure change in mobility
  • Complete surveys about how comfortable the device is to use
Read the detailed description

This study will investigate both the neurophysiological mechanisms and clinical effects of VTS in individuals with poststroke lower limb spasticity.

Aim 1 will assess how different anatomical placements of VTS impact neuromuscular activity and spasticity.

Aim 2 will test the feasibility and efficacy of VTS during both static and dynamic gait contexts using a randomized crossover design.

02

Conditions studied

  • Lower Limb Spasticity

Keywords

  • mobility
  • lower limb
  • spasticity
  • walking endurance
  • home device
  • quality of life
  • vts
  • LLS
  • gait
  • stroke
03

In context

Muscle Spasticity

704 studies on the registry are indexed under Muscle Spasticity; 149 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 25 is below the median of 36 across 525 interventional studies indexed under Muscle Spasticity.

Browse Muscle Spasticity studies →

Lead sponsor

Weill Medical College of Cornell University is the lead sponsor of 867 studies on the registry; 160 are open to participants now.

Of its 119 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 91 (76%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 85 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • ≥6 months following neurologic diagnosis leading to spasticity
  • Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) score of 3 or lower on ankle plantar flexor.
  • Ability to stand (with or without assistance) and lie supine.
  • Able to understand and comply with study procedures.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Uncontrolled systemic illness or serious medical conditions that could interfere with study procedures.
  • Previous surgery to treat spasticity in the affected lower limb.
  • Prior Botulinum Toxin (BoNT) therapy in the target limb within 4 months.
  • Unstable medication regimens for spasmolysis or muscle relaxation.
  • Participation in tone-related treatments (e.g., physiotherapy, TENS, acupuncture) within 4 weeks prior to baseline. If ongoing treatment started more than 4 weeks before baseline, it should remain consistent throughout the study
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Crossover assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
25 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    VTS Static Use, then Dynamic Use (Aim 2)

    The participant will first use the VTS device for 60 minutes daily for three consecutive days while in a static position. After a washout period of 1 week, the participant will use the VTS device for 60 minutes daily for three consecutive days during active gait training.

    Device: Vibrotactile Stimulation (Static Use)

  • Experimental
    VTS Dynamic Use, then Static Use (Aim 2)

    The participant will first use the VTS device for 60 minutes daily for three consecutive days during active gait training. After a washout period of 1 week, the participant will use the VTS device for 60 minutes daily for three consecutive days while in a static position.

    Device: Vibrotactile Stimulation (Dynamic Use)

  • Other
    VTS Neurophysiological Mechanism (Aim 1)

    The participant will use the VTS device for three 15-minutes sessions, once for each anatomical locations (i.e. muscle belly, origin, and insertion) around the leg and ankle.

    Device: Vibrotactile Stimulation (Neurophysiological Mechanism)

Interventions

  • DeviceVibrotactile Stimulation (Static Use)

    The Vibrotactile Stimulation (VTS) device is a wearable, non-invasive therapeutic system designed to reduce spasticity and improve motor function in individuals with neurological impairments leading to lower limb spasticity. The device consists of a compact vibratory motor housed in a soft, adjustable strap that can be worn over targeted muscle groups (e.g., gastrocnemius/soleus complex). The stimulation is delivered at a predefined frequency and amplitude, optimized based on prior research to modulate spinal reflex pathways and reduce motoneuron hyperexcitability. The device will be worn during static conditions (e.g., standing or seated) and is intended for daily use at home or in-clinic.

  • DeviceVibrotactile Stimulation (Dynamic Use)

    The Vibrotactile Stimulation (VTS) device is a wearable, non-invasive therapeutic system designed to reduce spasticity and improve motor function in individuals with neurological impairments leading to lower limb spasticity. The device consists of a compact vibratory motor housed in a soft, adjustable strap that can be worn over targeted muscle groups (e.g., gastrocnemius/soleus complex). The stimulation is delivered at a predefined frequency and amplitude, optimized based on prior research to modulate spinal reflex pathways and reduce motoneuron hyperexcitability. The device will be used in dynamic conditions (e.g., walking) and is intended for daily use at home or in-clinic.

  • DeviceVibrotactile Stimulation (Neurophysiological Mechanism)

    The Vibrotactile Stimulation (VTS) device is a wearable, non-invasive therapeutic system designed to reduce spasticity and improve motor function in individuals with neurological impairments leading to lower limb spasticity. The device consists of a compact vibratory motor housed in a soft, adjustable strap that can be worn over targeted muscle groups (e.g., gastrocnemius/soleus complex). The stimulation is delivered at a predefined frequency and amplitude, optimized based on prior research to modulate spinal reflex pathways and reduce motoneuron hyperexcitability. The device will be used to investigate the neurophysiological mechanisms through which VTS modulates spasticity at different anatomical sites and its effectiveness on improving mobility. investigate the underlying neurophysiological mechanisms through which VTS modulates spasticity and muscle tone at different anatomical locations (i.e. muscle belly, origin, and insertion) around the leg and ankle.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. H-reflex amplitude Baseline (Aim 1)

    Assesses spinal reflex excitability as a neurophysiological indicator of spasticity modulation. μV amplitude; no fixed range.

    Time frame: Baseline measurement immediately before three 15-minutes intervention periods within a single session (Day 1) for Aim 1

  2. H-reflex amplitude After Intervention (Aim 1)

    Assesses spinal reflex excitability as a neurophysiological indicator of spasticity modulation. μV amplitude; no fixed range.

    Time frame: Immediately after each of three 15-minutes intervention periods within a single session (Day 1) for Aim 1

  3. Surface EMG activity of gastrocnemius/soleus Baseline (Aim 1)

    Measures muscle activation patterns in gastrocnemius/soleus to evaluate VTS effects. μV amplitude; no fixed range.

    Time frame: Baseline measurement immediately before three 15-minutes intervention periods within a single session (Day 1) for Aim 1

  4. Surface EMG activity of gastrocnemius/soleus After Intervention (Aim 1)

    Measures muscle activation patterns in gastrocnemius/soleus to evaluate VTS effects. μV amplitude; no fixed range.

    Time frame: Immediately after each of three 15-minutes intervention periods within a single session (Day 1) for Aim 1

  5. Modified Ashworth Scale at Screening

    Assesses muscle tone and spasticity, especially in ankle plantarflexors.Total score ranges from: 0 (no increase in tone) to 4 (rigid in flexion/extension).

    Time frame: Screening Visit (-0 to 7 days prior to Aim 1 intervention)

  6. Modified Ashworth Scale at Baseline (Aim 1)

    Assesses muscle tone and spasticity, especially in ankle plantarflexors.Total score ranges from: 0 (no increase in tone) to 4 (rigid in flexion/extension).

    Time frame: Baseline measurement immediately before three 15-minutes intervention periods within a single session (Day 1) for Aim 1

  7. Modified Ashworth Scale After Intervention (Aim 1)

    Assesses muscle tone and spasticity, especially in ankle plantarflexors.Total score ranges from: 0 (no increase in tone) to 4 (rigid in flexion/extension).

    Time frame: Immediately after each of three 15-minutes intervention periods within a single session (Day 1) for Aim 1

  8. Modified Ashworth Scale at Baseline (Aim 2)

    Assesses muscle tone and spasticity, especially in ankle plantarflexors.Total score ranges from: 0 (no increase in tone) to 4 (rigid in flexion/extension).

    Time frame: Baseline measurement immediately before intervention for 3 consecutive days for Aim 2

  9. Modified Ashworth Scale After Intervention (Aim 2)

    Assesses muscle tone and spasticity, especially in ankle plantarflexors.Total score ranges from: 0 (no increase in tone) to 4 (rigid in flexion/extension).

    Time frame: Immediately after intervention for 3 consecutive days for Aim 2

  10. Passive range of motion at the ankle at Screening

    Evaluates joint flexibility, particularly at the ankle. Range:Degrees; higher indicates greater flexibility

    Time frame: Screening Visit (-0 to 7 days prior to Aim 1 intervention)

  11. Passive range of motion at the ankle at Baseline (Aim 1)

    Evaluates joint flexibility, particularly at the ankle. Range:Degrees; higher indicates greater flexibility

    Time frame: Baseline measurement immediately before three 15-minutes intervention periods within a single session (Day 1) for Aim 1

  12. Passive range of motion at the ankle After Intervention (Aim 1)

    Evaluates joint flexibility, particularly at the ankle. Range:Degrees; higher indicates greater flexibility

    Time frame: Immediately after each of three 15-minutes intervention periods within a single session (Day 1) for Aim 1

  13. Passive range of motion at the ankle at Baseline (Aim 2)

    Evaluates joint flexibility, particularly at the ankle. Range:Degrees; higher indicates greater flexibility

    Time frame: Baseline measurement immediately before intervention for 3 consecutive days for Aim 2

  14. Passive range of motion at the ankle After Intervention (Aim 2)

    Evaluates joint flexibility, particularly at the ankle. Range:Degrees; higher indicates greater flexibility

    Time frame: Immediately after intervention for 3 consecutive days for Aim 2

  15. 10 meter walk test at Baseline (Aim 2)

    Measures gait speed over a short distance; primary measure of functional mobility. Time is in seconds; lower is better.

    Time frame: Baseline measurement immediately before intervention for 3 consecutive days for Aim 2

  16. 10 meter walk test at Baseline After Intervention (Aim 2)

    Measures gait speed over a short distance; primary measure of functional mobility. Time is in seconds; lower is better.

    Time frame: Immediately after intervention for 3 consecutive days for Aim 2

Secondary outcomes

  1. Timed up and go (TUG) at Baseline (Aim 2)

    Assesses walking endurance and functional mobility over a longer duration.Distance in meters; higher is better.

    Time frame: Baseline measurement immediately before intervention for 3 consecutive days for Aim 2

  2. Timed up and go (TUG) After Intervention (Aim 2)

    Assesses walking endurance and functional mobility over a longer duration.Distance in meters; higher is better.

    Time frame: Immediately after intervention for 3 consecutive days for Aim 2

  3. Two minute walk test (TMWT) at Baseline (Aim 2)

    Assesses functional mobility, balance, and fall risk. Time (s); lower is better.

    Time frame: Baseline measurement immediately before intervention for 3 consecutive days for Aim 2

  4. Two minute walk test (TMWT) After Intervention (Aim 2)

    Assesses functional mobility, balance, and fall risk. Time (s); lower is better.

    Time frame: Immediately after intervention for 3 consecutive days for Aim 2

  5. Berg Balance Scale (BBS) at Baseline (Aim 2)

    Evaluates balance performance using a 14-item scale. Range: 0 to 56; higher scores indicate better balance.

    Time frame: Baseline measurement immediately before intervention for 3 consecutive days for Aim 2

  6. Berg Balance Scale (BBS) After Intervention (Aim 2)

    Evaluates balance performance using a 14-item scale. Range: 0 to 56; higher scores indicate better balance.

    Time frame: Immediately after intervention for 3 consecutive days for Aim 2

  7. Global Impression of Change Scale (GICS) at Baseline (Aim 2)

    Self-reported measure of overall perceived improvement. Range: 1 (very much worse) to 7 (very much improved.

    Time frame: Baseline measurement immediately before intervention for 3 consecutive days for Aim 2

  8. Global Impression of Change Scale (GICS) After Intervention (Aim 2)

    Self-reported measure of overall perceived improvement. Range: 1 (very much worse) to 7 (very much improved.

    Time frame: Immediately after intervention for 3 consecutive days for Aim 2

  9. Short form 12 (SF12) at Baseline (Aim 2)

    Assesses health-related quality of life across physical and mental domains. Range: 0 to 100 per domain; higher is better

    Time frame: Baseline measurement immediately before intervention for 3 consecutive days for Aim 2

  10. Short form 12 (SF12) After Intervention (Aim 2)

    Assesses health-related quality of life across physical and mental domains. Range: 0 to 100 per domain; higher is better

    Time frame: Immediately after intervention for 3 consecutive days for Aim 2

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • Department of Rehabilitation Medicine
    New York, New York 10065, United States
    Recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Seo NJ, Woodbury ML, Bonilha L, Ramakrishnan V, Kautz SA, Downey RJ, Dellenbach BHS, Lauer AW, Roark CM, Landers LE, Phillips SK, Vatinno AA. TheraBracelet Stimulation During Task-Practice Therapy to Improve Upper Extremity Function After Stroke: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Study. Phys Ther. 2019 Mar 1;99(3):319-328. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzy143. PubMed 30690609 ↗
  • Seim CE, Wolf SL, Starner TE. Wearable vibrotactile stimulation for upper extremity rehabilitation in chronic stroke: clinical feasibility trial using the VTS Glove. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Jan 23;18(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s12984-021-00813-7. PubMed 33485371 ↗
  • Seim CE, Ritter B, Starner TE, Flavin K, Lansberg MG, Okamura AM. Design of a Wearable Vibrotactile Stimulation Device for Individuals With Upper-Limb Hemiparesis and Spasticity. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2022;30:1277-1287. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2022.3174808. Epub 2022 May 17. PubMed 35552152 ↗
  • Kodama K, Yasuda K, Kuznetsov NA, Hayashi Y, Iwata H. Balance Training With a Vibrotactile Biofeedback System Affects the Dynamical Structure of the Center of Pressure Trajectories in Chronic Stroke Patients. Front Hum Neurosci. 2019 Mar 12;13:84. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00084. eCollection 2019. PubMed 30914938 ↗
  • Khalifeloo M, Naghdi S, Ansari NN, Akbari M, Jalaie S, Jannat D, Hasson S. A study on the immediate effects of plantar vibration on balance dysfunction in patients with stroke. J Exerc Rehabil. 2018 Apr 26;14(2):259-266. doi: 10.12965/jer.1836044.022. eCollection 2018 Apr. PubMed 29740561 ↗
  • Fari G, Ranieri M, Marvulli R, Dell'Anna L, Fai A, Tognolo L, Bernetti A, Caforio L, Megna M, Losavio E. Is There a New Road to Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation? A Case Report about the Effects of Driving a Go-Kart on Muscle Spasticity. Diseases. 2023 Aug 22;11(3):107. doi: 10.3390/diseases11030107. PubMed 37754303 ↗
  • Enders LR, Hur P, Johnson MJ, Seo NJ. Remote vibrotactile noise improves light touch sensation in stroke survivors' fingertips via stochastic resonance. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013 Oct 11;10:105. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-10-105. PubMed 24112371 ↗
  • Caliandro P, Celletti C, Padua L, Minciotti I, Russo G, Granata G, La Torre G, Granieri E, Camerota F. Focal muscle vibration in the treatment of upper limb spasticity: a pilot randomized controlled trial in patients with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Sep;93(9):1656-61. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.04.002. Epub 2012 Apr 13. PubMed 22507444 ↗
  • Bark K, Hyman E, Tan F, Cha E, Jax SA, Buxbaum LJ, Kuchenbecker KJ. Effects of vibrotactile feedback on human learning of arm motions. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2015 Jan;23(1):51-63. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2014.2327229. Epub 2014 Jun 2. PubMed 25486644 ↗
  • Alashram, A. and Annino, G. (2022). Focal muscle vibration reduces spasticity and improves functional level in incomplete spinal cord injury: a case report. Physikalische Medizin Rehabilitationsmedizin Kurortmedizin, 33(03), 162-165. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1819-6874
  • Afzal MR, Pyo S, Oh MK, Park YS, Yoon J. Evaluating the effects of delivering integrated kinesthetic and tactile cues to individuals with unilateral hemiparetic stroke during overground walking. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Apr 16;15(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s12984-018-0372-0. PubMed 29661237 ↗
  • Afzal MR, Lee H, Eizad A, Lee CH, Oh MK, Yoon J. Effects of Vibrotactile Biofeedback Coding Schemes on Gait Symmetry Training of Individuals With Stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2019 Aug;27(8):1617-1625. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2019.2924682. Epub 2019 Jun 24. PubMed 31247557 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — De-identified participant-level data including demographic information, baseline and post-intervention assessments of spasticity, EMG/H-reflex measures, and functional outcomes (e.g., 10-Meter Walk Test, Modified Ashworth Scale). No direct identifiers or protected health information will be included.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Icf

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jun 17, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07447934
Lead sponsor
Weill Medical College of Cornell University
Collaborators
National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Mar 4, 2026
Start date
Apr 30, 2026
Primary completion
Jun 30, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Oct 31, 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Jun 17, 2026

Study contacts

Joan Stilling, M.D., M.S.
principal investigator · Weill Medical College of Cornell University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

No contact was published for this record. The registry link below has the sponsor’s details.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion