ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2025
Dry-printed electrodes for transcutaneous electrical stimulation of innervated muscles: Towards wearable and closed-loop stimulation.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile transcutaneous electrical stimulation is an established clinical technique, applied in clinical settings, the need for precise electrode placement, limited long-term stability, and user inconvenience hinders widespread adoption in wearable and home-based applications. To address these issues, soft screen-printed electrode arrays, previously validated for biopotential recording and bioimpedance applications, were evaluated in two new contexts: (1) Systematic comparison against gel electrodes for stimulation in the neck region, and (2) Real-time closed-loop facial stimulation in healthy subjects.
methodsContact impedance was measured and modeled for both printed (dry) and conventional gel electrodes. Accessory nerve stimulation efficacy was evaluated in 12 healthy subjects using surface electromyography and mechanical movement recorded with an inertial measurement unit.
resultsDespite higher contact impedance, dry electrodes achieved comparable activation thresholds and perceived discomfort to gel electrodes. Finite element modeling confirmed a similar electric field distribution for both electrodes. In addition to validating their effectiveness for transcutaneous stimulation of innervated muscles, we demonstrated the feasibility of closed-loop facial recording and stimulation using dry electrodes in one subject as proof-of-concept.
conclusionsOur results pave the way for wearable neuromodulation systems for clinical and home use, particularly in restoring facial symmetry for individuals with neuromuscular impairments. Broader validation with larger sample sizes and testing in patients with denervated muscles will be necessary for clinical translation.
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.