Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
151
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
151 results for “FES”
Fig. 2. A in Current State of the Florida Entomological Society - 2014 FES Presidential Address -
Fig. 2. A strong correlation between Entomological Society of America (ESA) and Florida Entomological Society (FES) membership 1984–2013 (P <0.0001), with a significant correlation for the period 1984–1999 (P = 0.0256), and no correlation for the period 2000–2013 (P = 0.3551).
PyPSA-FES Atlite Cutouts
<p>To reduce computational overhead for users, we precomputed renewable generation potential for the model's default weather year 2019.</p><p>All credit to the makers of atlite, the library used to create the cutouts.</p><p>This dataset is part of the <a href="http://github.com/centrefornetzero.org">PyPSA-FES repository</a>.</p>
Fig. 5 in Current State of the Florida Entomological Society - 2014 FES Presidential Address -
Fig. 5. Country origins of Florida Entomologist authors in 1993 and 2013
BCI-FES Therapy for Stroke Rehabilitation
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04279067. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Hybrid-FES Exercise to Prevent Cardiovascular Declines in Acute SCI
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02139436. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 5.
Contralaterally Controlled FES of Arm & Hand for Subacute Stroke Rehabilitation
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01688856. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 12.
Brain and Coordination Changes Induced By Robotics and FES Treatment Following Stroke
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00237744. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 7.
Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) for Upper Extremity Recovery in Stroke
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00142792. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 12.
Efficacy of Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) in Persons Receiving Botulinum Neurotoxin for Upper Extremity Spasticity
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00462449. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 25.
Tele BCI-FES for Upper -Limb Stoke Rehabilitation
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05215522. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Development of a FES Device for Hand Use During Arm Activities Following Stroke
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03986216. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
FES Rowing for Skeletal Health After SCI
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02008149. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Usability, Acceptability, User Experience, Human-Device Interaction, and Ergonomics in Two Mobile FES-Cycling Systems for Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury
<p>This database originates from a study comparing two FES-cycling systems: the <strong>commercial BerkelBike Pro</strong> and a <strong>recumbent FES-bike prototype</strong> developed by the team at Politecnico di Milano. The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the <strong>usability</strong>, <strong>acceptability</strong>, <strong>user experience</strong>, <strong>human-device interaction</strong>, and <strong>ergonomics</strong> of these two devices for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI).</p> <p>The study involved 15 participants with SCI, covering a wide range of ages (18 to 65 years) and injury types (both complete and incomplete, at acute and chronic phases). Each participant underwent three sessions with both FES-cycling devices:</p> <ul> <li><strong>First session</strong>: Dedicated to setting up the system for each participant. For both the BerkelBike Pro and the FES-bike prototype, the system settings were tailored to meet individual needs, ensuring optimal comfort and function.</li> <li><strong>Second and third sessions</strong>: Focused on actual training, where participants used the devices to engage in cycling activities.</li> </ul> <p>At the end of the <strong>third session</strong>, participants completed a series of questionnaires to assess the usability, acceptability, user experience, and ergonomics of both devices. These questionnaires form the core of the study’s data collection and are central to understanding participants' interactions with the FES-cycling systems.</p> <p>The database is organized as follows:</p> <ol> <li><strong>Demographic data</strong>: The first page contains demographic information, including participants' age, gender, height, weight, time after injury, injury type (ASIA grade), and injury level.</li> <li><strong>PGWBI scores</strong>: The second page includes baseline data collected using the <strong>Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI)</strong>, which assesses the participants' emotional and psychological state before engaging with the devices. The PGWBI consists of 22 questions grouped into 6 items: "anxiety", "depression", "positivity", "self-control", "health" and "vitality”. The responses are assessed on a 6-point scale ranging from 0 to 5. The score contributions for each question are then added together and transformed to achieve the final score that can range from 0 to 110.</li> <li><strong>SUS scores</strong>: The third page contains the results from the <strong>System Usability Scale (SUS)</strong>, a standard 10-item questionnaire that evaluates the usability of each FES-cycling system based on user ratings. The SUS is evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 corresponds to strongly disagree, while 5 to strongly agree. The score contributions for each question are then added together and multiplied by 2.5 to achieve the final score that can range from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate better usability.</li> <li><strong>TAM-3 scores</strong>: The fourth page presents data from the <strong>Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM-3)</strong>, which measures how participants perceive the ease of use and the usefulness of the devices. . The TAM-3 consists of 50 questions grouped into 14 items. These items include “perceived usefulness”, “perceived ease of use”, “self-efficacy”, “perception of external control”, “playfulness”, “anxiety”, “enjoyment”, “subjective norm”, “voluntariness”, “image”, “relevance”, “output quality”, “result demonstrability” and “behavioral intention”. The items are investigated using a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 corresponds to strongly disagree, while 7 to strongly agree.</li> <li><strong>UEQ scores</strong>: The fifth page includes responses from the <strong>User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ)</strong>, evaluating participants' experience with the devices. The UEQ consists of 26 questions grouped in six items: “attractiveness”, “perspicuity”, “efficiency”, “dependability”, “stimulation” and “novelty”. Questions are scored using a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 corresponds to strongly disagree, while 7 to strongly agree. Then scores per item are transformed using a scale ranging from -3 to +3, with +3 representing the most positive value (extremely good) and -3 the most negative one (horribly bad). Values between -0.8 and 0.8 represent a neutral evaluation of the corresponding scale, values > 0.8 represent a positive evaluation and values < -0.8 represent a negative one.</li> <li><strong>Custom questionnaire scores</strong>: The sixth page contains data from a <strong>custom-designed questionnaire</strong>, created specifically for this study to assess the ergonomics of the two FES-cycling systems, with particular attention to human-device interaction at both the physical and psychological levels. It consists of 12 questions covering four items: the transfer from/to the bikes and the initial tuning, bike comfort, its accessibility, and the ease of interaction. Questions are evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 corresponds to strongly disagree/very uncomfortable, while 5 to strongly agree/very comfortable.</li> </ol> <p>This comprehensive data collection allows for a thorough comparison of the two FES-cycling systems in terms of user experience and overall acceptability in the SCI population.</p> <p>Please cite the following manuscript when using this database:<br>Nossa R, Biffi E, Sanna N, Diella E, Guanziroli E, Ferrari F, Ferrante S, Molteni F, Pedrocchi A, Tarabini M, Ambrosini E. Assessment of User Experience, Acceptability, Usability, Human-Device Interaction, and Ergonomics in Two Mobile FES-Cycling Systems for Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury. Artif Organs. 2025 Apr 16. doi: 10.1111/aor.15007. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 40237144.</p>
Multi-pad FES System for Drop Foot Treatment
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02729636. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Diagnostic Performance of [18F]FES PET/CT for Axillary LN Metastasis in Invasive Lobular Carcinoma
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05960201. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.
The Effects of Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) and Exercise on the Quadriceps in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT07309003. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Repetitive Arm Training + FES on Upper Extremity Motor Recovery in Sub-acute Stroke Survivors
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02267798. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
FES (16α-[18F]-Fluoro-17β-estradiol)-PET: Towards a New Standard to Stage Locally Advanced and Recurrent, Estrogen Receptor Positive (ER+) Breast Cancer? Pilot Study to Compare [18F]FES-PET and [18F]F
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03726931. IPD Sharing: UNDECIDED. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Characterizing Breast Cancer With 18F-FES PET/CT
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05613270. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.
BCI-FES for Upper Limb Rehabilitation in Chronic Stroke
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT06409754. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 13.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.