ArticlePloS one2025
Comparison of TENS electrodes and textile electrodes for electrocutaneous warning.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
Electrocutaneous stimulation can be employed to alert workers in potentially hazardous situations. Previous parameter studies used TENS electrodes during the developmental process of the electrical warning system. As a step towards more practicability, we now focus on electrocutaneous stimulation through wearable textile electrodes. In order to determine the feasibility of a novel textile electrode cuff in comparison to previously used TENS electrodes, two studies were conducted. In a study on n = 30 participants, perception, attention, muscle twitch, and intolerance thresholds as well as qualitative and spatial perceptions, were determined for eight pairs of electrodes circumferentially placed around the upper right arm for TENS and for textile electrodes. In a second study on n = 36 participants, these thresholds were also determined during vibration, and a warning signal pattern was presented during vibration. We found smaller perception thresholds for the textile electrodes in comparison to the TENS electrodes for all 8 electrode pairs and occasional differences for the attention and intolerance thresholds, which might be mainly explained by the varying electrode sizes due to the manual production process of the textile electrodes. Stimulation using textile electrodes within the cuff showed less frequent muscle twitches compared to TENS electrodes. Other qualitative and spatial perceptions appeared comparable. The perception, attention, and intolerance thresholds increased during vibration comparable to previous results with TENS electrodes. The feasibility of using the textile electrodes during vibration and for the application of a warning signal was successfully demonstrated. Occasional cases occurred where the transition impedance was too high while using the textile electrodes. Future studies will focus on electrode optimization to achieve a wearable solution with both low electrode-skin transition impedance and minimal muscle twitching.
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.