Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 1516937

Maximal dynamic range electrotactile stimulation waveforms.

K A Kaczmarek·J G Webster·R G Radwin
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A new method to measure the dynamic range of electrotactile (electrocutaneous) stimulation uses both steepest ascent (gradient) and one-variable-at-a-time methods to determine the waveform variables that maximize the subjective magnitude (intensity) of the electrotactile percept at the maximal current without discomfort for balanced-biphasic pulse bursts presented at a 15-Hz rate. The magnitude at the maximal current without discomfort is maximized by the following waveform (range tested in parentheses): number of pulses/burst = 6 (1-20), pulse repetition rate within a burst = 350 Hz (200-1500), and phase width = 150 microseconds (40-350). The interphase interval (separation between positive and negative phases in a biphasic pulse) does not affect dynamic range from 0-500 microseconds. The number of pulses/burst has a large effect on the perceived dynamic range when this is measured using a subjective-magnitude-based algorithm, whereas it has little effect on the traditional dynamic range measure, i.e., (maximal current without discomfort)/(sensation threshold current). The perceived stimulus magnitude at the maximal current without discomfort is approximately twice as strong with 6 pulses/burst as it is with 1 pulse/burst (a frequently-used waveform).

Explore related subjects

BiasComputer SimulationElectric StimulationEvaluation Studies as TopicHumansReference ValuesSensory ThresholdsSkin Physiological PhenomenaTouchJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K A Kaczmarek, J G Webster, R G Radwin. 1992. Maximal dynamic range electrotactile stimulation waveforms.. https://doi.org/10.1109/10.142645

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed1992

EMF research.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Bias↗
PubMed1992

The general medical record. Concepts and suggestions for implementation.

Our view of a general medical record consists of a combination of distinct departmental- and specialty-specific medical records and an organizing kernel that contains arguably critical information. Because this system allows each clinical entity to evolve its own system, clinical priorities do not have to be negotiated or compromised. Additionally, subsystem or departmental medical records can be easily revised without disturbing the general medical record because of the modular design. Although the system seems robust with respect to design considerations, only implementation can provide adequate tests.

Bias↗