Novel flexible cap for application of transcranial electrical stimulation: a usability study.
Electric impedance
Electrodes
Patient comfort
Reproducibility
transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
transcranial Electrical Stimulation
Journal
Biomedical engineering online
ISSN: 1475-925X
Titre abrégé: Biomed Eng Online
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101147518
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Jun 2020
17 Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
29
03
2020
accepted:
06
06
2020
entrez:
20
6
2020
pubmed:
20
6
2020
medline:
4
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Advances in transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) are hampered by the conventional rubber electrodes manually attached to the head with rubber bands. This procedure limits montages to a few electrodes, is error prone with respect to electrode configurations and is burdensome for participants and operators. A newly developed flexible cap with integrated textile stimulation electrodes was compared to the conventional setup of rubber electrodes inserted into sponges fixated by rubber bands, with respect to usability and reliability. Two operators applied both setups to 20 healthy volunteers participating in the study. Electrode position and impedance measures as well as subjective evaluations from participants and operators were obtained throughout the stimulation sessions. Our results demonstrated the superiority of the flexible cap by means of significantly higher electrode configuration reproducibility and a more efficient application. Both, operators and volunteers evaluated the flexible cap as easier to use and more comfortable to wear when compared to the conventional setup. In conclusion, the new cap improves existing and opens new application scenarios for tES.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Advances in transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) are hampered by the conventional rubber electrodes manually attached to the head with rubber bands. This procedure limits montages to a few electrodes, is error prone with respect to electrode configurations and is burdensome for participants and operators. A newly developed flexible cap with integrated textile stimulation electrodes was compared to the conventional setup of rubber electrodes inserted into sponges fixated by rubber bands, with respect to usability and reliability. Two operators applied both setups to 20 healthy volunteers participating in the study. Electrode position and impedance measures as well as subjective evaluations from participants and operators were obtained throughout the stimulation sessions.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Our results demonstrated the superiority of the flexible cap by means of significantly higher electrode configuration reproducibility and a more efficient application. Both, operators and volunteers evaluated the flexible cap as easier to use and more comfortable to wear when compared to the conventional setup.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the new cap improves existing and opens new application scenarios for tES.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32552720
doi: 10.1186/s12938-020-00792-1
pii: 10.1186/s12938-020-00792-1
pmc: PMC7302393
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
50Subventions
Organisme : Thüringer Aufbaubank
ID : 2017 VF 0035
Références
JMIR Res Protoc. 2016 Jul 06;5(3):e138
pubmed: 27383993
Cephalalgia. 2010 Feb;30(2):200-6
pubmed: 19489884
Brain Stimul. 2016 Sep-Oct;9(5):641-661
pubmed: 27372845
Neuroreport. 2005 Sep 28;16(14):1551-5
pubmed: 16148743
Neuroimage. 2015 Apr 1;109:140-50
pubmed: 25613437
Front Neurosci. 2019 Apr 11;13:286
pubmed: 31031579
Brain Stimul. 2012 Jul;5(3):242-251
pubmed: 21962978
Sci Rep. 2018 May 8;8(1):7259
pubmed: 29740054
Clin Neurophysiol. 2017 Sep;128(9):1774-1809
pubmed: 28709880
Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2017 Dec;267(8):751-766
pubmed: 28246891
J Physiol. 2000 Sep 15;527 Pt 3:633-9
pubmed: 10990547
Neurology. 2005 Mar 8;64(5):872-5
pubmed: 15753425
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl. 1999;52:3-6
pubmed: 10590970
J Physiol. 1964 Aug;172:369-82
pubmed: 14199369
NeuroRehabilitation. 2015;36(1):115-26
pubmed: 25547776
Cell. 2017 Jun 1;169(6):1029-1041.e16
pubmed: 28575667
Brain Stimul. 2016 Sep-Oct;9(5):740-754
pubmed: 27372844
Neuromodulation. 2019 Dec;22(8):904-910
pubmed: 29762886
Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014 Sep;17(9):1443-52
pubmed: 24713139
Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Nov;126(11):2181-8
pubmed: 25922128
J Neural Eng. 2011 Aug;8(4):046011
pubmed: 21659696
Brain Stimul. 2012 Oct;5(4):435-53
pubmed: 22305345
J Neurol Sci. 2017 Jan 15;372:131-137
pubmed: 28017199
Stroke. 2010 Jun;41(6):1229-36
pubmed: 20395612
Brain Stimul. 2020 Jul - Aug;13(4):1005-1007
pubmed: 32278714
Clin Neurophysiol. 2016 Feb;127(2):1031-1048
pubmed: 26652115
J Vis Exp. 2011 May 23;(51):
pubmed: 21654618
Brain Stimul. 2015 May-Jun;8(3):455-64
pubmed: 25697590
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Jun 28;7:317
pubmed: 23825454
Epilepsia. 2006 Feb;47(2):335-42
pubmed: 16499758
Brain Stimul. 2019 May - Jun;12(3):668-673
pubmed: 30639235
J Clin Med. 2020 Apr 10;9(4):
pubmed: 32290078
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 08;8(8):e71607
pubmed: 23951202
Front Hum Neurosci. 2017 Jan 24;10:658
pubmed: 28174529