NMES Amplitude, Balance Training and STIM-HD | August 2026
A roundup of papers, patents, product launches, and company announcements published in August 2026 (in progress) relating to EMS (Electrical Muscle Stimulation), NMES (neuromuscular electrical stimulation), and FES (functional electrical stimulation).
If you would like to start with the fundamentals, see The EMS Textbook. For the full archive including past months, see the EMS Industry News Index (annual hub).
This month at a glance
- Papers and research: 3
- Patents: 0
- Product launches and company announcements: 0
Week 31 (August 1–2)
Papers and research
How stimulation amplitude changes quadriceps torque and muscle thickness
Published: August 2, 2026 Journal: Physiotherapy Research International
Summary: A randomized trial using participants' left and right legs to compare acute changes in isometric quadriceps torque and muscle thickness under different NMES amplitudes in healthy young adults.
Background:
In practice, NMES intensity is often set by a rule of thumb along the lines of "turn it up as far as the person can tolerate." How much output and muscle response actually change as amplitude increases — the dose–response side of the question — remains surprisingly under-characterized. Using one leg against the other is a way to hold individual differences such as body size and skin condition constant, so that the effect of amplitude alone can be isolated.
Worth adding: amplitude is a setting that relates to the size of the stimulus, but the level shown on the device is not the same as the current actually flowing through the body. It varies with the condition of the electrodes, the state of the skin, and impedance.
Our take: If you want to test the idea that "stronger is better," you have to look at measured output and evoked torque rather than perceived intensity. It also matters not to equate an acute change in muscle thickness with long-term hypertrophy — the immediate response includes transient components.
Read the original paper (Physiotherapy Research International)
Week 32 (August 3–9)
Papers and research
Balance training with EMS to the ankle muscles, and how sensory weighting shifts
Published: August 6, 2026 Journal: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Summary: Forty healthy adults were split into a group that received EMS to the muscles around the ankle (20 people) and a group that did not (20 people). Before and after a five-minute balance-board training session, the researchers compared how participants distributed reliance across visual, vestibular, and somatosensory input (sensory reweighting) and how their postural control strategy changed. The work is a collaboration between NTT Human Informatics Laboratories and Hokkaido University.
Background:
The idea that supplementing sensory feedback can improve balance has been around for some time. What EMS adds is that involuntary contractions assist joint movement directly, so it may be acting on both the sensory and the motor side. What was not clear is whether EMS-based balance training genuinely produces a change in how sensory input is weighted, and if so, how that reshapes the strategy used to control posture. Separating those two questions is what this study set out to do.
As background: balance is not determined by muscle strength alone. It emerges from the integration of the sensory input that registers how the body is tilting and the response to that input. Looking only at how large a contraction EMS produces will not give you the full picture.
Our take: After training, the EMS group showed increased reliance on vision, along with a shift toward stabilizing the upper body using the hips rather than centering control at the ankle. It is a useful reminder that a foot-worn EMS device should not be judged on muscle strength alone.
That said, reading a shift toward greater visual reliance as simply "better balance" would be premature. Considered against postural control in the dark or in poor visibility, it is a change that could be evaluated either way. Add that this is a change measured immediately after five minutes of training, in healthy adults, and in combination with balance-board training — and it is clearly not something that transfers to sitting still and running current through the muscle.
Read the original paper (Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation)
Week 33 (August 10–16)
Papers and research
STIM-HD: trial protocol published for NMES in sarcopenia among people on haemodialysis
Published: August 11, 2026 Journal: Trials
Summary: The study protocol for STIM-HD, a randomized controlled trial testing NMES for sarcopenia in people receiving haemodialysis. It recruits 228 participants across multiple UK sites and compares 12 weeks of NMES to the quadriceps — delivered three times a week during routine dialysis — against standard care, allocated 1:1. The primary outcome is the change in isometric muscle strength at 12 weeks. This is the plan, not the results.
Background:
Sarcopenia is common among people on haemodialysis and is linked to declines in physical function and quality of life. Structured exercise programs are known to help, but in practice most people receiving haemodialysis are unable or unwilling to take part, which has driven the search for an alternative. NMES can produce muscle contraction without voluntary effort, which is why it has drawn interest as something that might stand in for exercise. Earlier reports, however, have been small enough that they cannot settle the question. Assembling a trial with adequate numbers is the response to that gap. Delivering the intervention during dialysis sessions is likewise a way to avoid adding to the burden of travel and daily life.
One note on terms: sarcopenia is a condition with formal diagnostic criteria, and it does not mean the same thing as the everyday phrase "not enough muscle."
Our take: The trial was prospectively registered in November 2024, and this publication makes the plan available in detail. Setting out the design before results exist narrows the room to cherry-pick favorable findings after the fact. In this series we treat "trial launched" and "results published" as separate items, and we hold off on discussing effects until the results are in.