4.6 Article

Comparing cutaneous perception induced by electrical stimulation using rectangular and round shaped electrodes

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 122, Issue 4, Pages 803-807

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.08.023

Keywords

tDCS; tRNS; Sham stimulation; Cutaneous perception; Motor cortex; Electrode geometry

Funding

  1. Rose Foundation
  2. Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Gottingen

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: We have investigated the cutaneous perception differences for anodal and cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) between two electrode configurations: a standard, rectangle-shaped, and a circle-shaped, round geometry with the same surface area, and thus, same nominal current distribution. We have aimed to find whether a smaller perimeter length and the absence of corners in the case of the round configuration would lead to altered skin perception characteristics when compared to the rectangular geometry. Methods: Twelve subjects were tested for tDCS and tRNS skin perception characteristics in the intensity range of 200-2000 mu A using round and rectangular electrode configurations. Results: We have not found any substantial differences between detection thresholds, detection rates, false positive rates or consistent alterations in the sites of perceived stimulation. Conclusion: We conclude that there is no difference between the round and the rectangular electrode configurations regarding their blinding potentials. Significance: The results of this investigation indicate that the altering of the electrode geometry to a round configuration is unwarranted for better blinding purposes in future studies using tDCS and tRNS. (C) 2010 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available