FDA Clears PoNS Device for Stroke Rehabilitation, Expanding Neurostimulation Beyond MS Indication

 

Your competent? doctor and hospital want to get survivors recovered, so they already were following this and have plans to bring it in, right? NO? Know nothing and doing nothing?

Do you prefer your doctor, hospital and board of director's incompetence NOT KNOWING? OR NOT DOING? Your choice; let them be incompetent or demand action!

FDA Clears PoNS Device for Stroke Rehabilitation, Expanding Neurostimulation Beyond MS Indication

Author(s)Marco Meglio

Fact checked by: Kelly Kinges

Key Takeaways

• Clearance expands prior multiple sclerosis indication and represents the first noninvasive, orally applied neuromodulation device authorized in the US for stroke rehabilitation.
• Pooled pivotal analyses showed adjusted mean FGA change 5.37 with active stimulation plus PT vs 3.31 with sham plus PT, meeting Hochberg multiplicity.
The 510(k) clearance was supported by a 3-study, 159-patient registrational program showing a 45.5% increase in response rate vs physical therapy alone, and includes Medicare coverage at launch.>


Antonella Favit-Van Pelt, MD, PhD

Bioness Medical, Inc, announced FDA 510(k) clearance of the PoNS (Portable Neuromodulation Stimulator) System for the treatment of dynamic gait deficit due to chronic stroke symptoms, making it the first noninvasive, orally applied neuromodulation device cleared for stroke rehabilitation in the United States. The clearance expands PoNS beyond its existing FDA-cleared indication in multiple sclerosis (MS) and positions the home-use device as a prescription adjunct to supervised physical therapy for the more than 7 million Americans living with stroke-related gait disability.1

The clearance is supported by the Stroke Registrational Program (SRP), a 3-study, 159-patient program conducted across 10 centers of excellence in the US and Canada. In July 2025, then-manufacturer Helius Medical Technologies announced positive SRP outcomes and planned FDA submission under the device’s breakthrough device designation, setting the stage for the clearance now granted under Bioness, which acquired the PoNS program from Helius.2

The PoNS device delivers mild electrical neurostimulation through a mouthpiece placed on the tongue, activating branches of the trigeminal and facial cranial nerves. These cranial nerves connect directly to the brain stem, and the stimulation is designed to promote neuroplasticity, facilitating the development of new neural networks to compensate for corticospinal pathway damage sustained during stroke. The device is used by the patient at home in conjunction with a physical rehabilitation exercise program prescribed by a physician.

READ MORE: FDA Accepts Sarepta’s sNDAs for Casimersen and Golodirsen for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

In the pooled primary analysis of the SRP pivotal studies, active PoNS plus physical therapy produced a statistically significant adjusted mean change in Functional Gait Assessment (FGA) of 5.37 points (95% CI, 4.23-6.52) at week 12, compared with 3.31 points (95% CI, 1.96-4.76) in the sham PoNS plus physical therapy control group. The propensity-adjusted between-group difference was 2.06 points (95% CI, 0.29-3.84; P = .0233), meeting the Hochberg multiplicity requirement. Using a 6-point FGA increase threshold, 56.1% of active PoNS participants were classified as responders vs 11.1% of controls, a 45% increase in response rate.¹ Durability of effect was demonstrated through week 24, with a mean FGA reduction of less than 5% from the week 12 peak and 89.7% (95% CI, 81.8%-97.5%) of participants meeting the prespecified durability performance goal.1

Balance improvement on the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) trended in favor of active PoNS but did not reach statistical significance in the between-group comparison. Risk of falling was resolved in 17.4% of active PoNS participants vs 8.9% of controls, also without statistical significance. No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported across the SRP trials, and adverse event rates ranged from 0% to 14.8%, with none attributable to the device.

“The totality of data in chronic stroke survivors with gait deficits confirms the broader evidence of PoNS therapeutic effect in improving walking disability by transitioning the outcome of physical therapy alone to a clinically meaningful effect with a 45.5% increased response rate to PoNS treatment as compared to PT (physical therapy) alone,” Antonella Favit-Van Pelt, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of Bioness, said in a statement.

The stroke clearance builds on a well-established regulatory and payer trajectory for PoNS in MS. The device received FDA de novo marketing authorization for MS-related gait deficit in 2021, and major commercial payers including UnitedHealthcare, Anthem, and Aetna have since authorized claims for the device in MS patients.3 Under the new stroke indication, Bioness has noted that Medicare coverage is available at launch, a meaningful access advantage given the predominantly older demographic of stroke survivors.¹

Bioness plans to begin making PoNS commercially available for stroke in Germany first, in close collaboration with MS specialists and rehabilitation physicians, accompanied by a required Risk Management Program and Patient Support Program.

Novel Therapy Aids Swallowing Recovery After Stroke

 Oh, your incompetent? doctor didn't get this installed years ago? And this hospital has the same incompetent  installation of rehab! DELAYS ARE INCOMPETENCE! Why are you accepting them?

Pharyngeal electrical stimulation (1 post to November 2020) 

Do you prefer your doctor, hospital and board of director's incompetence NOT KNOWING? OR NOT DOING? Your choice; let them be incompetent or demand action!

Novel Therapy Aids Swallowing Recovery After Stroke

A novel neurostimulation therapy designed to support the recovery of swallowing function in patients following a stroke is now available at Marcus Neuroscience Institute at Boca Raton Regional Hospital, following pilot work led by Baptist Health Miami Neuroscience Institute earlier this year.

 

Baptist Health Brain & Spine Care is the first in Florida to implement this type of targeted pharyngeal neurostimulation therapy for post-stroke dysphagia, which differs from traditional swallowing rehabilitation by directly stimulating the neural pathways that control swallowing rather than relying solely on exercise-based therapy.

 

Experts with both institutes, which are part of Baptist Health Brain & Spine Care, say the treatment uses pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES) delivered through a temporary catheter to activate sensory nerves in the throat. By helping reestablish the brain’s control of swallowing, they say, the approach may help patients return to oral nutrition sooner and lower the risk of complications related to impaired swallowing.

 

“Our initial patients made remarkable progress in their swallowing abilities and were able to advance their diets more quickly than expected."

 Lina Hurtado, M.D., physical medicine and rehabilitation physician, Baptist Health Miami Neuroscience Institute Early Experience at Miami Neuroscience Institute

Miami Neuroscience Institute conducted the initial pilot treatments with several stroke patients in the Institute’s intensive care unit (Neuro ICU). Those patients were attended to by a multidisciplinary team that included stroke services, nursing, speech-language pathology, rehabilitation, dietary services and physical medicine and rehabilitation.

“Our initial patients made remarkable progress in their swallowing abilities and were able to advance their diets more quickly than expected,” says Lina Hurtado, M.D., a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician at Miami Neuroscience Institute. “Post-stroke swallowing impairment is a complex challenge. Having another therapeutic option—supported by a well-coordinated team—can make a meaningful difference.” Marcus Neuroscience Institute Among First to Use PES Marcus Neuroscience Institute is among the first programs in the state to bring this PES therapy into clinical practice. Leaders credit the Institute’s long-standing focus on innovation and its commitment to exploring new ways to enhance patient outcomes “Introducing PES therapy reflects our dedication(YOU HAVE ZERO DEDICATION IF YOU'RE 5 YEARS LATE IN INSTALLING THERAPY! I'd have you all fired for incompetence! You're absolutely hopeless!) to advancing recovery options for patients,” says  Marcalee Sipski Alexander, M.D., physiatrist at Marcus Neuroscience Institute and medical director of the Cornell Institute for Rehabilitation Medicine at Bethesda Hospital East. “Helping patients regain the ability to swallow—often one of the most basic and most impactful functions after a stroke—is an important step in restoring independence.” The neurostimulation therapy is being used in the Institute’s Neuro ICU, with plans for broader staff training in other units as well. At Miami Neuroscience Institute, physicians plan to use PES across multiple units, including Neuro ICU, Progressive Care and Neuro-Telemetry. “Helping patients regain the ability to swallow—often one of the most basic and most impactful functions after a stroke—is an important step in restoring independence.” Marcalee Sipski Alexander, M.D., physiatrist, Marcus Neuroscience Institute, medical director, Cornell Institute for Rehabilitation Medicine at Bethesda Hospital East The PES therapy initiative reflects the Institutes’ collaboration and commitment(You have none if you are that far behind in installing therapy! You're fired!) to high quality brain and spine across South Florida. Teams at Marcus Neuroscience Institute and Miami Neuroscience Institute began exploring the therapy around the same time, allowing for shared learnings and coordinated planning.“Our goal is to ensure that our patients receive consistent, evidence-informed care, no matter where they are treated,” Dr. Hurtado says. “This collaboration—linking clinical teams, rehabilitation services and our neuroscience programs—embodies that.” 

What Patients Can Expect

Now that clinical use is underway, for patients recovering from a stroke, potential benefits of PES therapy include: Support in regaining swallowing ability A pathway that may speed resumption of oral intake Possible reduction in the need for feeding tubes in appropriate cases “Our shared aim is to help patients reclaim essential functions after a stroke,” Dr. Alexander says. “Even small improvements in swallowing can profoundly improve safety, comfort and quality of life.” for more information about stroke services and specialists with Baptist Health Brain & Spine Care.

Neurostimulation for treatment of post-stroke impairments - vagus nerve

If your hospital and doctor aren't using it already they are completely incompetent!  I assume you would rather not have implants. But up to you which actually delivers recovery!

• vagus nerve (77 posts to July 2012)

 

I think most stroke survivors would rather do the non-invasive approaches. 

Dorset Embarks on Revolutionary Stroke Recovery Trial Utilizing Earpiece Technology

Non-invasive VNS approach could enhance post-stroke recovery outcomes August 2023

The latest here:

Neurostimulation for treatment of post-stroke impairments

• Jesse Dawson,
• Azmil H. Abdul-Rahim &
• Teresa J. Kimberley 

Nature Reviews Neurology (2024)Cite this article

• Metrics details

Abstract

Neurostimulation, the use of electrical stimulation to modulate the activity of the nervous system, is now commonly used for the treatment of chronic pain, movement disorders and epilepsy. Many neurostimulation techniques have now shown promise for the treatment of physical impairments in people with stroke. In 2021, vagus nerve stimulation was approved by the FDA as an adjunct to intensive rehabilitation therapy for the treatment of chronic upper extremity deficits after ischaemic stroke. In 2024, pharyngeal electrical stimulation was conditionally approved by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for neurogenic dysphagia in people with stroke who have a tracheostomy. Many other approaches have also been tested in pivotal device trials and a number of approaches are in early-phase study. Typically, neurostimulation techniques aim to increase neuroplasticity in response to training and rehabilitation, although the putative mechanisms of action differ and are not fully understood. Neurostimulation techniques offer a number of practical advantages for use after stroke, such as precise dosing and timing, but can be invasive and costly to implement. This Review focuses on neurostimulation techniques that are now in clinical use or that have reached the stage of pivotal trials and show considerable promise for the treatment of post-stroke impairments.

Key points

• Neurostimulation techniques are ideally suited for use during stroke recovery owing to their ability to target anatomical structures or neuronal networks, alongside precise timing and dosing.

• Paired invasive vagus nerve stimulation has been shown to increase the number of people who achieve clinically important improvements in upper extremity impairment and performance of functional tasks following stroke. The treatment is now in clinical use in the USA.

• Several other neurostimulation techniques show promise for post-stroke impairments but definitive data from adequately powered trials are lacking.

• Pharyngeal electrical stimulation increases the odds of decannulation following tracheostomy and is under investigation as a treatment for post-stroke dysphagia.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Helius Medical Technologies (HSDT) Initiates Open-Label Study for Registrational Program in Stroke

PoNS, short for Portable Neuromodulation Stimulator, is an orally applied therapy delivered by neurostimulation through a mouthpiece connected to a portable controller.

Still don't understand anything about this. 

 

Helius Medical Technologies (HSDT) Initiates Open-Label Study for Registrational Program in Stroke

Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: HSDT) (“Helius” or the “Company”), a neurotech company focused on delivering a novel therapeutic neuromodulation approach for balance and gait deficits, today announced the initiation of an open-label study for its registrational program in stroke. The program was established based on encouraging early trial results as well as real-world evidence from Canada, where PoNS is already authorized for treatment of stroke, and aims to establish the effects of cranial-nerve non-invasive neuromodulation (“CN-NINM”), delivered using PoNS Therapy®, on gait and dynamic balance in chronic stroke survivors.

Under the direction of Mark Bowden, PT, PhD, Brooks Rehabilitation (“Brooks Rehabilitation”) will be the first site to enroll patients. Brooks Rehabilitation is already a participant site to the Company’s ongoing investigator-initiated, placebo-controlled study in stroke, led by Dr. Steven Kautz at the Medical University of South Carolina (“MUSC”).

“The open-label study will serve as an integral part of our stroke registrational program by bringing the PoNS clinical experience to additional sites in the U.S. We’re thrilled to work with Brooks Rehabilitation and Dr. Bowden, a renowned expert in neurorehabilitation and a key contributor to the international guidelines for stroke rehabilitation, to help move PoNS Therapy one step closer to authorization in the U.S.,” said Dr. Antonella Favit-Van Pelt, Helius’ Chief Medical Officer.

“PoNS Therapy has the potential to meaningfully improve the lives of over five million stroke patients affected by walking and balance disability. In joining the MUSC trial and participating to the open label study, Brooks is very excited to be on the cutting edge in testing this promising technology. We are hopeful that PoNS Therapy can have a meaningful therapeutic effect on chronic stroke survivors and I’m excited about Helius’ opportunity to expand the clinical research to other sites,” stated Dr. Bowden.

Motor Cortex Neurostimulation Technologies for Chronic Post-stroke Pain: Implications of Tissue Damage on Stimulation Currents

No clue since I've not had to think about CPSP. Ask someone else.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00545/full?

Anthony T. O’Brien^1†, Rivadavio Amorim^1†, R. Jarrett Rushmore^2,3, Uri Eden⁴, Linda Afifi^2,3, Laura Dipietro⁵, Timothy Wagner^5,6*‡ and Antoni Valero-Cabré^2,3,7,8*‡

• ¹Neuromodulation Lab and Center for Clinical Research and Learning – Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
• ²Laboratory of Cerebral Dynamics, Plasticity and Rehabilitation, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
• ³Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
• ⁴Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
• ⁵Highland Instruments, Cambridge, MA, USA
• ⁶Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Harvard Medical School/Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA, USA
• ⁷Université Pierre et Marie Curie, CNRS UMR 7225-INSERM U1127, Institut du Cerveau et la Moelle Epinière, Paris, France
• ⁸Cognitive Neuroscience and Information Technology Research Program, Open University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain

Background: Central post stroke pain (CPSP) is a highly refractory syndrome that can occur after stroke. Primary motor cortex (M1) brain stimulation using epidural brain stimulation (EBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been explored as potential therapies for CPSP. These techniques have demonstrated variable clinical efficacy. It is hypothesized that changes in the stimulating currents that are caused by stroke-induced changes in brain tissue conductivity limit the efficacy of these techniques.

Methods: We generated MRI-guided finite element models of the current density distributions in the human head and brain with and without chronic focal cortical infarctions during EBS, TMS, and tDCS. We studied the change in the stimulating current density distributions’ magnitude, orientation, and maxima locations between the different models.

Results: Changes in electrical properties at stroke boundaries altered the distribution of stimulation currents in magnitude, location, and orientation. Current density magnitude alterations were larger for the non-invasive techniques (i.e., tDCS and TMS) than for EBS. Nonetheless, the lesion also altered currents during EBS. The spatial shift of peak current density, relative to the size of the stimulation source, was largest for EBS.

Conclusion: In order to maximize therapeutic efficiency, neurostimulation trials need to account for the impact of anatomically disrupted neural tissues on the location, orientation, and magnitude of exogenously applied currents. The relative current-neuronal structure should be considered when planning stimulation treatment, especially across techniques (e.g., using TMS to predict EBS response). We postulate that the effects of altered tissue properties in stroke regions may impact stimulation induced analgesic effects and/or lead to highly variable outcomes during brain stimulation treatments in CPSP.

Introduction

Central post stroke pain (CPSP) results from stroke lesions to any region of the somatosensory pathway (Klit et al., 2009; Kumar et al., 2009; Creutzfeldt et al., 2012; Mozaffarian et al., 2015). Between 8 and 25% of the ~18 M/year new cases of stroke develop CPSP (Strong et al., 2007; Klit et al., 2015). CPSP leads to poor quality of life (Kumar and Soni, 2009; Oh and Seo, 2015). Patients are often refractory to pharmacotherapy and can become drug dependent (Kumar and Soni, 2009). Such limitations have motivated researchers to explore brain stimulation therapies to treat CPSP.

Epidural Brain Stimulation (EBS), Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) have all been investigated. Stimulation of primary motor cortex (M1) appears to be the most effective cortical target (Nguyen et al., 1999; Kumar and Soni, 2009; Hirabayashi et al., 2011; DosSantos et al., 2012; Fregni et al., 2014; Brietzke et al., 2015; Cioato et al., 2015; Morishita et al., 2015; Oh and Seo, 2015). Analgesia is believed to be achieved through the stimulation of M1-thalmic relays to reduce hyperactivity in thalamic linked pain networks (Tsubokawa et al., 1993; Mertens et al., 1999; Khedr et al., 2005; Garcia-Larrea and Peyron, 2007; Peyron et al., 2007; Lima and Fregni, 2008; Nguyen et al., 2008; Fontaine et al., 2009; Lefaucheur et al., 2009; Ohn et al., 2012; Bae et al., 2014; Hasan et al., 2014; Lefaucheur, 2016).

While EBS, TMS, and tDCS have shown some clinical success in treating CPSP, high variability across studies has impeded their widespread acceptance (Mertens et al., 1999; Lefaucheur et al., 2004, 2009; Lima and Fregni, 2008; Nguyen et al., 2008; Fontaine et al., 2009; DosSantos et al., 2012; Bae et al., 2014; Lefaucheur, 2016). Upward of 30% of EBS patients do not respond to stimulation (Tsubokawa et al., 1993; Katayama et al., 1998; Mertens et al., 1999; Nguyen et al., 1999). However, it should be noted that this is highly dependent on patient characteristics, and even lower response rates have been reported in certain patient classes (Katayama et al., 1998). Meta-analyses by O’Connell et al. (2014) and Vaseghi et al. (2014) demonstrated limited evidence supporting the use of TMS or tDCS in chronic pain and CPSP. Vaseghi et al. (2014), who focused on tDCS, commented that stimulation could induce significant analgesic effects, but due to the heterogeneity across studies it is difficult to support its use in chronic pain (O’Connell et al., 2014; Vaseghi et al., 2014).

Such variable levels of efficacy have been associated with several factors such as lesion location and extent, the impact of altered neuronal excitability, and the shrinkage of gray and white matter (Hossman, 2009). Infarction based changes in brain tissue conductivity could also impact stimulation based CPSP treatments. Necrotic brain tissue in the infarction region is phagocytized by inflammatory cells and replaced by a cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) (De Girolami et al., 1999). CSF produces a sixfold increase in the tissues’ electrical conductivity and a drastic disruption of the tissue geometry (Yunokuchi et al., 1998; Jacobs et al., 2001; Brown et al., 2003; Soltanian-Zadeh et al., 2003; Wagner et al., 2004, 2006, 2007a; Harris-Love and Cohen, 2006). Such altered electrical tissue properties have been shown to perturb the stimulating currents during TMS and tDCS (Wagner et al., 2006, 2007b, 2009).

Nevertheless, as emphasized by Plow and others, the role of such variables in influencing the distribution of current fields and ultimately impacting therapeutic efficacy in focally injured brain models needs further consideration, and remains to be compared across different brain stimulation techniques (Plow et al., 2009). Comparisons across stimulation techniques, which differ by electrode/source size, focality, invasiveness, proximity to lesion borders and specific features of the delivered electrical currents, are fundamental to evaluating and optimizing their clinical use (Plow et al., 2009). Furthermore, this comparative information is important for assessing the use of non-invasive stimulation techniques to identify responders to CPSP stimulation treatments prior to implanting invasive stimulation devices (Khedr et al., 2005; Lefaucheur, 2013, 2016).

The aim of this study is to determine how infarctions and/or complex neuroanatomy could alter the neurostimulation currents of the three primary neurostimulation techniques used in CPSP and potentially impact their clinical significance.

"Star Wars" helmet for detecting concussion

Maybe a possible use for detecting a stroke? But with no leadership or strategy we will never know about that possibility.  

"Star Wars" helmet for detecting concussion

A new system has been developed to make it possible to run fast EEG tests at accident scenes or in ambulances. Potential head traumas can be assessed and action taken at an early stage.
Two footballers clash heads and one of them is left lying on the pitch. How badly is the player hurt? Will he be able to carry on playing?
The medical team rushes from the sidelines and carefully places a helmet on the player's head. Shortly afterwards he is carried off the pitch. A concussion has been established and he must be kept absolutely still.
"Highly-paid players are under pressure to carry on playing", says Frode Strisland at SINTEF. "But a concussion must be taken very seriously. A player must take the time necessary to convalesce if he wants to be ready to play again as quickly as possible", he says.
EEG at the scene
The Norwegian company Smartbrain, which works with EEG-based diagnoses, came up with the idea to develop a portable system that could detect concussion at an early stage so that the right treatment could be given as soon as possible. With a patented idea for a new method of running EEGs, the company launched an EU-funded project which has just been completed.
"Our system, called EmerEEG, is special because it offers the opportunity to run EEGs really quickly", says Haldor Sjåheim at Smartbrain. "The diagnostics and outcomes for many patient groups in the field of emergency medicine will be improved, especially in cases of head trauma and strokes", he says. "Currently, we can't be sure of a patient's status before some time has passed – when he or she has arrived at the hospital. This can result in delayed injury and prolonged periods of convalescence", he says.
Students at Oslo Architecture and Design College have been working on the ergonomic aspects of the helmet and how it can be adapted for use in ambulances and emergency situations. Ambulance personnel at the Accident and Emergency clinic in Oslo who took part in the project were positive to this innovation and said that it would help them with many of the challenges they face.
Stimulation system
Professors Andrea Aantal and Walter Paulus from Gøttingen University Hospital are also taking part in this EU project. Both are world leaders in research into Transcranial Electrical Stimulation, which is a new approach to neurostimulation being used to treat a variety of clinical conditions and regulate brain activity.
Weak electrical stimulation using 32 electrodes makes it possible to stimulate or suppress brain activity, and this may be of help in treating conditions such as depression, tinnitus, migraine and speech dysfunction following strokes.

Halo Neuroscience raises $9M Series A for neurostimulation for athletics, stroke rehab

I don't have enough smarts to tell if the research behind this is decent enough to suggest commercial use. So ask your doctor, Halo does point to some research on their website. Neuropriming seems to be a made up word for marketing purposes.
http://medcitynews.com/2016/02/365959/
Post a comment /

23 Shares

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

/ Feb 10, 2016 at 3:47 PM

Halo Neuroscience has launched a set of headphones and companion app to improve fitness performance through brain stimulation called Halo Sport, becoming the latest company to leap into the neurostimulation market.
More specifically, the company refers to its technology as neuropriming. It uses pulses of energy to accelerate strength and learning new skills.
It also raised a $9 million Series A round led by Lux Capital, with participation from Andreessen Horowitz, Jazz Venture Partners, SoftTech Ventures and Xfund.
The company is interested in applying its brain stimulation technology in two areas –athletics and stroke rehabilitation.
For that reason it stands apart from other companies that have focused on areas like ADHD, concentration in general, and de-stressing. In the area of stroke rehabilitation it has partnered with University of San Francisco Medical School and Medical University of South Carolina, to help it validate this application.
On the athletics side, it partnered with the  United States Ski & Snowboard Association, Invictus Crossfit and Michael Johnson Performance — an athletic training organization. Three Major League Baseball teams are also using the device.
It highlighted some of the results partners achieved with its neuropriming device in a company statement
The Olympic ski jumping team used its technology with the goal of improving propulsion for jumps. It saw a 13% gain in propulsion force.
The U.S. Military also used the technology to accelerate sniper training, according to Halo’s website.
The size of the neurostimulation device market is expected to rise to $8.79 billion by 2020, according to a report by Grand View Research.

MicroTransponder developing neurostimulation technology to allow tinnitus and stroke victims to re-train their brains

Hell, vagus nerve stimulation for stroke has been known for a long time.

Earlier research on this is here July, 2012;

Nerve stimulation plus standard therapy may accelerate stroke recovery

and here Jan. 2013;

UK docs aim to `rewire` brains of stroke patients

and here - Sept. 2013;

Researchers Find Early Success in New Treatment for Stroke Recovery 

And just when the hell will the research be enough to create a stroke protocol?I bet this will still take 50 years to get rolled out because we have no stroke leadership making sure stroke medical teams are using the latest interventions. Remember you can't even suggest this to your doctor because that would be practicing medicine without a license. Whereas your doctor is probably practicing no medicine for stroke at all and has a license. Ask how your doctor will get you to 100% recovery.
http://medcitynews.com/2015/12/microtransponder-developing-neurostimulation-technology-to-treat-tinnitus-and-stroke-victims/?utm_source=MedCity+News+Subscribers&utm_campaign=0c3fc8bac8-MCN+Daily+Email&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5092836c41-0c3fc8bac8-408818725


Dallas-based MicroTransponder is looking to treat neurological conditions with its aired Vagus Nerve Stimulation, which is designed to help patients with tinnitus as well as stroke victims. The company, which has completed clinical studies, recently announced a $5.5 million round of funding (planned to be used to launch the product in Europe) and now have a paper published in the journal Stroke.

For the treatment of tinnitus, chronic ringing in the ears, they have developed what they call the Serenity System. For stroke victims who have upper limb mobility issues, they have created the Vivistim System.

In an interview, CEO Frank McEachern shared about the recent financing and what MicroTransponder is focused on with its technology:
Can you explain how the MicroTransponder technology actually works?
The Vagus Nerve Stimulation is a pacemaker-type device implanted in the chest. A wire reaches the left vagus nerve in the neck. That system implant generates the electrical current that stimulates the vagus nerve. That basic kind of implant has been used for a long time, but for different purposes – to treat epilepsy. It reduces seizures and has been FDA approved.
In terms of what is being implanted, this is something that is not unique, but what’s novel is when we stimulate the vagus nerve, we are taking advantage of the fact that the nerve is part of the learning system. When we stimulate the vagus nerve, it releases some neurotransmitters that makes what happens in the immediate environment important to the brain.

We get a window where we can generate importance to the brain so that we can direct learning. No one has used neurostimulation to direct learning like we have.
Can you elaborate on the issue of tinnitus and how your device really treats this condition?
Tinnitus, ringing in the ear, is not an ear problem. It’s a brain problem. What happens is there is an abnormal circuit in the brain that is hyper-active. In part of the auditory cortex, a bunch of neurons are firing together and it creates a phantom sound. What we do, is we go in and play frequencies outside of the tinnitus frequency and re-normalize that broken circuit.
Although tinnitus is an issue in the brain, originally, the insult occurs in the ear from a loud noise. Right now, it’s the number one disability for someone in the military. What’s happening is there is damage to the cochlea. Each portion of the cochlea will capture a unique feature of frequency. With certain trauma, one part can be damaged. The cochlea matches one-to-one with your auditory cortex, sending input to one part of that cortext – with damage, it doesn’t make that connection and your brain looking for information from neighboring regions.
That’s abornmal, and the result is that a large area of the cortex is communicating between itself, which is faulty. Our device is designed to re-normalize this information transference.
Is there any similarity to shock therapy in how the brain’s system reacts to this?
I wouldn’t compare it to that. Shock therapy disrupts the system, but with this it is focused on the vagus nerve to release these neurotransmitters that make the brain plastic for a temporary period so we can teach it.
Nobody has done this kind of stimulation to direct brain learning. Say you take a drug that affects the same neurotransmitters, it just floods your system which doesn’t allow the brain to make certain events important.
Beyond tinnitus, how does this work for stroke victims?
A person who has had a stroke, they do regular rehab. After a stroke, about four months later, many have recovered upper limb functions, but about half haven’t. It becomes harder to show improvement through other therapies. It’s hard to continue improvement after the first time of growth, you kind of plateau.
With this, each time a patient does a movement, they get a moment of vagus nerve stimulation. It makes the event important. These are basic motions, but the adult brain doesn’t know these functions are important. You need to make new connections, but your brain doesn’t recognize that these basic items are critical and important. They were as a child, but as an a adult, now, we can hijack the system to force these activities to be important again.

Invasive Neurostimulation in Stroke Rehabilitation

I can't tell if this is planting electrodes in the penumbra or something else.
So ask your doctor when this will be translated into a stroke protocol. And get in your doctors face until they answer. They are supposed to know more than you do. Hah! 
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13311-013-0245-y 

• Ela B. Plow,
• Andre Machado

Purchase on Springer.com

$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access

Abstract

The last decade has seen a growing interest in adjuvant treatments that synergistically influence mechanisms underlying rehabilitation of paretic upper limb in stroke. One such approach is invasive neurostimulation of spared cortices at the periphery of a lesion. Studies in animals have shown that during training of paretic limb, adjuvant stimulation targeting the peri-infarct circuitry enhances mechanisms of its reorganization, generating functional advantage. Success of early animal studies and clinical reports, however, failed to translate to a phase III clinical trial. As lesions in humans are diffuse, unlike many animal models, peri-infarct circuitry may not be a feasible, or consistent target across most. Instead, alternate mechanisms, such as changing transcallosal inhibition between hemispheres, or reorganization of other viable regions in motor control, may hold greater potential. Here, we review comprehensive mechanisms of clinical recovery and factors that govern which mechanism(s) become operative when. We suggest novel approaches that take into account a patient’s initial clinical–functional state, and findings from neuroimaging and neurophysiology to guide to their most suitable mechanism for ideal targeting. Further, we suggest new localization schemes, and bypass strategies that indirectly target peri-lesional circuitry, and methods that serve to counter technical and theoretical challenge in identifying and stimulating such targets at the periphery of infarcts in humans. Last, we describe how stimulation may modulate mechanisms differentially across varying phases of recovery- a temporal effect that may explain missed advantage in clinical trials and help plan for the next stage. With information presented here, future trials would effectively be able to target patient’s specific mechanism(s) with invasive (or noninvasive) neurostimulation for the greatest, most consistent benefit.