CClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07592221tDCSUpdated May 18, 2026

Combined Functional Electrical and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Foot Drop

An interventional study of Standard protocol for combo of FES and tDCS in Falls, Foot Drop and Post Stroke Recovery, sponsored by Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia. Recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-05-18.

Sponsored by Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
30
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This study aims to determine if combining the treatments of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and functional electrical stimulation (FES) will better help persons with stroke who have difficulty lifting their toes. As part of the treatment, subjects will receive electrical stimulation through pads on their scalp (similar to what one may have received in physical therapy previously to an arm or leg). This protocol is called transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Subjects will also receive electrical stimulation through pads on their leg. This is called functional electrical stimulation (FES). During treatment sessions, subjects will also perform leg activity/strengthening exercises. The aim is to evaluate whether combining FES and tDCS within a PT session would reduce foot drop as indicated by improvements in the amount of toe clearance and ankle motion persons with stroke.

02

Conditions studied

  • Falls
  • Foot Drop
  • Post Stroke Recovery

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • transcranial direct current stimulation
  • functional electrical stimulation
  • minimum toe clearance
03

In context

Peroneal Neuropathies

41 studies on the registry are indexed under Peroneal Neuropathies; 9 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 30 is close to the median of 30 across 31 interventional studies indexed under Peroneal Neuropathies.

Browse Peroneal Neuropathies studies →

Lead sponsor

Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia is the lead sponsor of 5 studies on the registry; 2 are open to participants now.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion Criteria: To participate, you must be:

  • 18 years or older
  • Have had 1 or more strokes (> 6 months) affecting ankle dorsiflexion.
  • Discharged from all rehabilitative services.
  • Can walk independently with/without using an assistive device such as a cane without an ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) for 15 minutes.

Exclusion Criteria: You must not have:

  • An inability to repeat and understand 2-step commands.
  • Peripheral neuropathy
  • Damage to the skull or scalp, such as a fracture History of seizures or epilepsy Extremely high or low blood pressure or heart rate Chest pain or shortness of breath when you are resting Botox injections to your leg or foot in the last 4 months
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
30 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    FES and tDCS

    The tDCS was applied as a bilateral montage with the anode of the tDCS device (ActivaDose II, ActivaTek Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, USA) applied to the involved hemisphere and the cathode over the unaffected hemisphere. The dosage of the tDCS device was one mA for 60 minutes for the duration of the gait training delivered via a pair of sponge electrodes moistened with 0.9% NaCl solution. The exact locations for the electrode placements were based on a 20-point electrode system, in which we chose two points that targeted the motor cortex region corresponding to the left lower limb. Treatments were performed twice weekly over the 8 weeks. The FES was administered to the tibialis anterior muscle of the impaired lower extremity with one electrode over the common peroneal nerve at the head of the fibula and the other over a motor point in the middle of the muscle belly of the tibialis anterior muscle.

    Behavioral: Standard protocol for combo of FES and tDCS

  • Active comparator
    FES with tDCS subthreshold

    The tDCS was applied as a bilateral montage with the anode of the tDCS device (ActivaDose II, ActivaTek Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, USA) applied to the involved hemisphere and the cathode over the unaffected hemisphere. The dosage of the tDCS device was set initially at one mA for 60 minutes and then for the duration of the gait training the machine was turned to subthreshold levels, delivered via a pair of sponge electrodes moistened with 0.9% NaCl solution. The exact locations for the electrode placements were based on a 20-point electrode system, in which we chose two points that targeted the motor cortex region corresponding to the left lower limb. Treatments were performed twice weekly over the 8 weeks. The FES was administered to the tibialis anterior muscle of the impaired lower extremity with one electrode over the common peroneal nerve at the head of the fibula and the other over a motor point in the middle of the muscle belly of the tibialis anterior muscle.

    Behavioral: Standard protocol for combo of FES and tDCS

Interventions

  • BehavioralStandard protocol for combo of FES and tDCS

    The gait training consisted of treadmill training with forward and backward ambulation with speed progression as appropriate, ambulation over obstacles, ramp ambulation forwards and backwards, and stair ambulation up and down. In each condition, cues were to increase toe clearance on the affected limb and achieve heel strike at initial contact. Vitals were collected at the start and end of each session, and heart rate was measured at the end of each activity, along with the Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE), to determine whether the participant was working at a higher intensity than baseline.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. minimum toe clearance

    For the motion capture, participants were fitted with a modified Cleveland Clinic marker set where 4 clusters of 4 markers were attached to the thighs and shanks, and wand-mounted markers were also attached bilaterally to the anterior superior iliac spines (ASIS) and the sacrum. Additionally, seven 14 mm reflective markers were attached to the shoe at the upper ridge of the posterior surface of the calcaneus, sustentaculum tali, and lateral aspect of the calcaneus (peroneal tubercle); the heads of the first, second, and fifth metatarsals (MET); and the tip of the shoe/second digit if barefooted. Scores will vary by participant, and the key finding is the change in score from pre- to post-testing, indicating whether or not the intervention effected this change. Minimum value is 10 mm, max value is 40 mm, with a higher score indicating better and safer clearance.

    Time frame: A pretest at baseline 2-3 days prior to the start of the intervention and then after 12 training sessions (between 6 and 8 weeks) posttests will occur 2-3 days after the 12th and final intervention is completed.

  2. Gait speed

    time for participants to traverse 10 meters. It is expected that post-training a lower score will be recorded, indicating faster walking and improved speed as a result of the intervention.

    Time frame: A pretest at baseline 2-3 days prior to the start of the intervention and then a posttest 2-3 days after the 12th and final intervention is completed, 6-8 weeks after the start of the intervention.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Functional gait Assessment

    a series of walking and balancing tests that require walking 6 meters several times, performing different tasks. A higher score is expected post training, indicating fewer concerns with falling.

    Time frame: A pretest at baseline 2-3 days prior to the start of the intervention and then a posttest 2-3 days after the 12th intervention session is completed, 6-8 weeks after the start of the intervention.

  2. Activities Specific Balance Scale (ABC)

    Participants' perceived ability to safely perform a series of activities was rated on a percent scale. This indicator will vary, as sometimes prior to training, individuals are unaware of the concerns of falling, and then sometimes post-training, one is more cautious, and it can be vice versa as well. Thus, the goal is to look for patterns of change.

    Time frame: A pretest at baseline 2-3 days prior to the start of the intervention and then a posttest 2-3 days after the 12th and final intervention session is completed, 6-8 weeks after the training began.

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • Saint Joseph's University
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, United States
    Recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Sterling DA, O'Connor JA, Bonadies J. Geriatric falls: injury severity is high and disproportionate to mechanism. J Trauma. 2001 Jan;50(1):116-9. doi: 10.1097/00005373-200101000-00021. PubMed 11231681 ↗
  • Prudham D, Evans JG. Factors associated with falls in the elderly: a community study. Age Ageing. 1981 Aug;10(3):141-6. doi: 10.1093/ageing/10.3.141. PubMed 7270321 ↗
  • Hornbrook MC, Stevens VJ, Wingfield DJ, Hollis JF, Greenlick MR, Ory MG. Preventing falls among community-dwelling older persons: results from a randomized trial. Gerontologist. 1994 Feb;34(1):16-23. doi: 10.1093/geront/34.1.16. PubMed 8150304 ↗
  • Hausdorff JM, Rios DA, Edelberg HK. Gait variability and fall risk in community-living older adults: a 1-year prospective study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Aug;82(8):1050-6. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2001.24893. PubMed 11494184 ↗
  • Campbell AJ, Borrie MJ, Spears GF. Risk factors for falls in a community-based prospective study of people 70 years and older. J Gerontol. 1989 Jul;44(4):M112-7. doi: 10.1093/geronj/44.4.m112. PubMed 2738307 ↗
  • Blake AJ, Morgan K, Bendall MJ, Dallosso H, Ebrahim SB, Arie TH, Fentem PH, Bassey EJ. Falls by elderly people at home: prevalence and associated factors. Age Ageing. 1988 Nov;17(6):365-72. doi: 10.1093/ageing/17.6.365. PubMed 3266440 ↗
  • Berg WP, Alessio HM, Mills EM, Tong C. Circumstances and consequences of falls in independent community-dwelling older adults. Age Ageing. 1997 Jul;26(4):261-8. doi: 10.1093/ageing/26.4.261. PubMed 9271288 ↗
  • Maki BE. Gait changes in older adults: predictors of falls or indicators of fear. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997 Mar;45(3):313-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1997.tb00946.x. PubMed 9063277 ↗
  • Al Bochi A, Delfi G, Dutta T. A Scoping Review on Minimum Foot Clearance: An Exploration of Level-Ground Clearance in Individuals with Abnormal Gait. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Sep 29;18(19):10289. doi: 10.3390/ijerph181910289. PubMed 34639597 ↗
  • Nolan KJ, Yarossi M. Weight transfer analysis in adults with hemiplegia using ankle foot orthosis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011 Mar;35(1):45-53. doi: 10.1177/0309364610393061. PubMed 21515889 ↗
  • O'Dell MW, Dunning K, Kluding P, Wu SS, Feld J, Ginosian J, McBride K. Response and prediction of improvement in gait speed from functional electrical stimulation in persons with poststroke drop foot. PM R. 2014 Jul;6(7):587-601; quiz 601. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.01.001. Epub 2014 Jan 9. PubMed 24412265 ↗
  • Peishun C, Haiwang Z, Taotao L, Hongli G, Yu M, Wanrong Z. Changes in Gait Characteristics of Stroke Patients with Foot Drop after the Combination Treatment of Foot Drop Stimulator and Moving Treadmill Training. Neural Plast. 2021 Nov 22;2021:9480957. doi: 10.1155/2021/9480957. eCollection 2021. PubMed 34853588 ↗
  • Tsao Cw Fau - Aday AW, Aday Aw Fau - Almarzooq ZI, Almarzooq Zi Fau - Anderson CAM, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2023 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. (1524-4539 (Electronic))

Study documents

  • Protocol and statistical analysis plan · Apr 14, 2026
  • Informed consent form · Apr 14, 2026

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on May 18, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07592221
Lead sponsor
Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
May 18, 2026
Start date
Jun 1, 2026 (estimated)
Primary completion
Dec 31, 2028 (estimated)
Completion
Aug 30, 2029 (estimated)
Last update
May 18, 2026

Study contacts

Greg Thielman, EdD
Contact
gthielman@sju.edu
8562667863
Sylvester Carter, PhD
Contact
scarter1@sju.edu
215 596 7087
Gregory Thielman, EdD
principal investigator · Saint Joseph's University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
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.

Contact study team

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