Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36735686›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Impact of galvanic vestibular stimulation electrode current density on brain current flow patterns: Does electrode size matter?

Dennis Q Truong, Alexander Guillen, Mujda Nooristani, Maxime Maheu, Francois Champoux, Abhishek Datta

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The interplay between pulse width and activation depth in TENS: a computational study.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Dennis Q TruongResearch and Development, Soterix Medical, Woodbridge, NJ, United States of America.
Alexander GuillenResearch and Development, Soterix Medical, Woodbridge, NJ, United States of America.
Mujda NooristaniFaculty of Medicine, School of Speech-Language and Audiology, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Maxime MaheuFaculty of Medicine, School of Speech-Language and Audiology, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0370-8632
Francois ChampouxFaculty of Medicine, School of Speech-Language and Audiology, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Abhishek DattaResearch and Development, Soterix Medical, Woodbridge, NJ, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6778-8125
Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal · CASoterix Medical (United States) · USCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal · CACity College of New York · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGalvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) uses at least one electrode placed on the mastoid process with one or multiple placed over other head areas to stimulate the vestibular system. The exact electrode size used is not given much importance in the literature and has not been reported in several studies. In a previous study, we compared the clinical effects of using different electrode sizes (3 cm2 and 35 cm2) with placebo but with the same injected current, on postural control. We observed significant improvement using the smaller size electrode but not with the bigger size electrode. The goal of this study was to simulate the current flow patterns with the intent to shed light and potentially explain the experimental outcome.

methodsWe used an ultra-high-resolution structural dataset and developed a model to simulate the application of different electrode sizes. We considered current flow in the brain and in the vestibular labyrinth.

resultsOur simulation results verified the focality increase using smaller electrodes that we postulated as the main reason for our clinical effect. The use of smaller size electrodes in combination with the montage employed also result in higher induced electric field (E-field) in the brain.

conclusionsElectrode size and related current density is a critical parameter to characterize any GVS administration as the choice impacts the induced E-field. It is evident that the higher induced E-field likely contributed to the clinical outcome reported in our prior study.

Indexed as

BrainVestibule, LabyrinthElectric StimulationElectrodesPostural BalanceVestibular Nerve

Identifiers

PMID36735686
PMCPMC9897567
OpenAlexW4319058236

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.