ArticlePloS one2024
Design dimensions of electrocutaneous warning stimulation patterns in workplace safety devices.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Warning of workers in dangerous situations is crucial. With the aim of deriving practical parameters for an electrocutaneous warning stimulation, we explore the design dimensions of pulse intervals, amplitudes, and locations of electrocutaneous stimulation in a study on healthy volunteers. Using biphasic rectangular current pulses on the upper right arm of 81 healthy participants, they evaluated temporal perception with varying intervals, ranging from 200 ms down to 0.5 ms, categorizing it as 'Individual pulses', 'Pulsating', 'Vibrating', or 'Continuous'. Next, we tested nine amplitude levels. Participants rated the perceived amplitude on a scale from 1 to 9 after a training phase. Finally, we presented five consecutive stimulation pulses in a pseudo-random order at eight electrode pair positions, asking participants to report the stimulated electrode pair. Participants perceived electrocutaneous pulses as 'Individual pulses' for median intervals above 74 ms, as 'Pulsating' between 44 ms and 74 ms, as 'Vibrating' between 12 ms and 44 ms, and as 'Continuous' below 12 ms. Pulse intervals below about 1 ms were perceived as weak and at about 5 ms as inconvenient, rendering these intervals less suitable for the design of a warning pattern. The median reported amplitudes [25%-75%-percentile] for presented amplitudes 1 to 9 are: 1[1-1], 2[2-3], 3[2-4], 3[3-4], 4[3-5], 5[4-6], 6[4-7], 7[5-8] and 7.5 [6-8] indicating a linear relationship between presented and perceived amplitude. These results suggest that the stimulation amplitude may be incorporated into a structured stimulation pattern. The majority of the electrode pair locations were reported correctly (64.3%-86.6%) or within the two neighboring electrode pairs (98%-99.7%). We conclude that the determined pulse intervals combined with the differentiability of locations offer the basis for designing a warning signal. Our research lays the groundwork for developing suitable signals for wearable electric warning devices.
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.