ReviewThe Journal of physiology2019
Electrophysiology equipment for reliable study of kHz electrical stimulation.
Review in The Journal of physiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The same biophysical mechanism is involved in both temporal interference and direct kHz stimulation of peripheral nerves.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Ramped kilohertz-frequency signals produce nerve conduction block without onset response.Journal of neural engineering · 2025Article
- Modulating cell signalling in vivo with magnetic nanotransducers.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2022Article
- Improving the Effect of Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS): A Systematic Review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Review
- Quantitative comparisons of block thresholds and onset responses for charge-balanced kilohertz frequency waveforms.Journal of neural engineering · 2020Article
- Article
- Temporal interference stimulation targets deep brain regions by modulating neural oscillations.Brain stimulationArticle
- Transcranial electric stimulation modulates firing rate at clinically relevant intensities.Brain stimulationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Characterizing the cellular targets of kHz (1-10 kHz) electrical stimulation remains a pressing topic in neuromodulation because expanding interest in clinical application of kHz stimulation has surpassed mechanistic understanding. The presumed cellular targets of brain stimulation do not respond to kHz frequencies according to conventional electrophysiology theory. Specifically, the low-pass characteristics of cell membranes are predicted to render kHz stimulation inert, especially given the use of limited-duty-cycle biphasic pulses. Precisely because kHz frequencies are considered supra-physiological, conventional instruments designed for neurophysiological studies such as stimulators, amplifiers and recording microelectrodes do not operate reliably at these high rates. Moreover, for pulsed waveforms, the signal frequency content is well above the pulse repetition rate. Thus, the very tools used to characterize the effects of kHz electrical stimulation may themselves be confounding factors. We illustrate custom equipment design that supports reliable electrophysiological recording during kHz-rate stimulation. Given the increased importance of kHz stimulation in clinical domains and compelling possibilities that mechanisms of actions may reflect yet undiscovered neurophysiological phenomena, attention to suitable performance of electrophysiological equipment is pivotal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.