ArticleScientific reports2025
Ultra-conformable tattoo electrodes for providing sensory feedback via transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Electrical stimulation of the peripheral nervous system has been demonstrated to be effective in restoring somatotopic sensory information in subjects with amputations. It can be achieved using invasive electrodes, which require surgical implantation, or non-invasive electrodes, which are applied directly to the skin. Whereas less selective, non-invasive electrodes offer the advantage of avoiding surgical procedures. Additionally, commercially available wet Ag/AgCl electrodes lack adaptability to the irregular surface of a subject's residual limb, leading to detachment during movement or use. This study aims to address some of the limitations of non-invasive electrodes by proposing and validating the use of ultra-conformable Parylene C-based tattoo electrodes to restore somatotopic sensory information through transcutaneous electrical stimulation of the peripheral nervous system. The skin-electrode impedance was characterized in a healthy subject at varying frequencies over nine hours, showing a maximum impedance variation of 8% at the target stimulation frequency. Then, the performance of the proposed tattoo technology was compared to that of commercial Ag/AgCl electrodes through experimentation involving 12 healthy participants. The study found no statistically significant differences in key stimulation parameters (rheobase, p > 0.3, and chronaxie, p > 0.15) or in the sensory perceptions elicited by the two compared electrodes. Additionally, tattoo electrodes exhibited a lower operational impedance compared to commercial electrodes, highlighting their potential advantages for practical applications.
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.