Table 1. Symptomatic Improvement Using Computer-Guided Programming.
| Subject | Programming Time (min) | Contact / Polarity | Amplitude | Kinesia Score Off | Kinesia Score On After Computer-Guided Programming | Percent Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 70 | 0-/C+ | 1.8 mA | 0.5 | 0.4 | 14.5% |
| 2 | 57 | 1-/C+ | 0.5 mA | 0.9 | 0.5 | 47.9% |
| 3 | 93 | 0-/C+ | 1.2 mA | 1.8 | 1.5 | 13.7% |
| 4 | 105 | 2-/C+ | 3.9 mA | 2.8 | 2.0 | 29.6% |
| 5 | 90 | 0-/C+ | 2.4 mA | 0.9 | 0.7 | 23.4% |
| 6 | 93 | 1-/C+ | 1.5 mA | 1.5 | 0.9 | 38.1% |
| 7 | 120 | 1-/C+ | 2.4 mA | 2.8 | 0.5 | 82.7% |
|
| ||||||
| Average | 35.7% | |||||
The parameter space search algorithm was able to identify settings that significantly improved motor symptoms by an average of 35.7% (p<0.01, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). The pulse width and frequency for each subject were set to 90μs and 130Hz, respectively.