ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2019
Safety Aspects, Tolerability and Modeling of Retinofugal Alternating Current Stimulation.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatiotemporal characteristics of visual cortical responses to transpalpebral electrical stimulation.iScience · 2026Article
- Modalities of vision restoration in optic neuropathies and retinal disease.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2026Review
- Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines (2017-2025: An update) - endorsed by the European Society for Brain Stimulation (ESBS) and by the International Federation for Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN).Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Review
- The interplay between pulse width and activation depth in TENS: a computational study.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Multi-physics simulations for investigating the effect of electrode conditions on transscleral ocular iontophoresis for particulate drug delivery into ocular tissues.Biomedical engineering letters · 2024Article
- Optic nerve-mediated modulation of temporally interfering electric fields for potential targeted retinal disease therapy: a computational modeling study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- [Transcranial alternating current stimulation to modulate oscillations in pain disorders].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2023Review
- Article
- Transcranial alternating current stimulation entrains alpha oscillations by preferential phase synchronization of fast-spiking cortical neurons to stimulation waveform.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Conducting double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials of transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS).Translational psychiatry · 2021Review
- Evaluating Current Density Modeling of Non-Invasive Eye and Brain Electrical Stimulation Using Phosphene Thresholds.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2021Article
- Determination of Current Flow Induced by Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Migraine: Potential for Optimization.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Optimized Electrode Placements for Non-invasive Electrical Stimulation of the Olfactory Bulb and Olfactory Mucosa.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile alternating current stimulation (ACS) is gaining relevance as a tool in research and approaching clinical applications, its mechanisms of action remain unclear. A review by Schutter and colleagues argues for a retinal origin of transcranial ACS' neuromodulatory effects. Interestingly, there is an alternative application form of ACS specifically targeting α-oscillations in the visual cortex via periorbital electrodes (retinofugal alternating current stimulation, rACS). To further compare these two methods and investigate retinal effects of ACS, we first aim to establish the safety and tolerability of rACS.
objectiveThe goal of our research was to evaluate the safety of rACS via finite-element modeling, theoretical safety limits and subjective report.
methods20 healthy subjects were stimulated with rACS as well as photic stimulation and reported adverse events following stimulation. We analyzed stimulation parameters at electrode level as well as distributed metric estimates from an ultra-high spatial resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-derived finite element human head model and compared them to existing safety limits.
resultsTopographical modeling revealed the highest current densities in the anterior visual pathway, particularly retina and optic nerve. Stimulation parameters and finite element modeling estimates of rACS were found to be well below existing safety limits. No serious adverse events occurred.
conclusionOur findings are in line with existing safety guidelines for retinal and neural damage and establish the tolerability and feasibility of rACS. In comparison to tACS, retinofugal stimulation of the visual cortex provides an anatomically circumscribed model to systematically study the mechanisms of action of ACS.
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.