Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41689035›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2026

Optimizing electrotactile stimulation intensity for responses under cognitive load.

Felix Jarto, Elaine Corbett, Sigrid Dupan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Felix JartoSchool of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. felix.jarto@ucdconnect.ie.
Elaine CorbettSchool of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Sigrid DupanSchool of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

Science Foundation Ireland Grant 21/PATH-S/9605
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProsthetic users mainly rely on their vision for feedback during control of the device in absence of the tactile and proprioceptive modalities. Overreliance on vision increases cognitive load during prosthesis use, resulting in reduced control performance. Provision of additional feedback through other modalities could reduce this overreliance on vision and improve closed-loop prosthetic control. Fast and accurate recognition of feedback is particularly important when we consider that both delays and inaccuracies can destabilize closed-loop control environments. Transcutaneous electrotactile stimulation is a promising technology with advantages including non-invasiveness and simplicity. It is not yet clear, however, which parameters influence the speed and accuracy of response to electrotactile stimuli. In this study, we set out to investigate how we can influence response characteristics to an instantaneous change in stimulation intensity by manipulating both stimulus-related and environmental variables.

methods20 participants completed a randomized reaction time test to both visual and electrotactile stimulation. Participants were asked to respond to incoming stimuli with a button press on a controller as fast as possible, without discriminating between modality of stimulation. In a second experiment, 20 participants completed an intensity discrimination task for electrotactile stimulation. Participants had to prioritize either speed or accuracy during specific blocks, while cognitive load, magnitude and direction of stimulus shift were manipulated.

resultsThe results of the reaction time experiment confirmed faster average response times for electrotactile stimuli compared to visual stimuli by a median of ~ 50 ms (p < 0.01). In the intensity discrimination experiment, increased shift intensities led to increased response accuracies and faster response times (p < 0.001 in both cases). The presence of cognitive load slowed average response times (p < 0.01), but did not affect response accuracies (p = 0.42).

conclusionsThe results of the intensity discrimination experiment imply that the magnitude of stimulus shift needs to be provided via steps multiple times larger than the just noticeable difference to ensure fast and accurate responses to electrotactile stimulation. Moreover, results from the reaction time experiment confirmed faster average response times for electrotactile stimuli over visual stimuli. We argue that providing electrotactile stimulation using bigger steps in perceived intensity could result in the supplementary feedback making closed-loop control of prosthetic devices more reliable.

Indexed as

CognitionElectric StimulationTouchAdultFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationReaction TimeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41689035
PMCPMC13005371

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.