Literature DB >> 1516937

Maximal dynamic range electrotactile stimulation waveforms.

K A Kaczmarek1, J G Webster, R G Radwin.   

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).

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1516937     DOI: 10.1109/10.142645

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng        ISSN: 0018-9294            Impact factor:   4.538


  9 in total

1.  Power requirements for vibrotactile piezo-electric and electromechanical transducers.

Authors:  C A Perez; A J Santibañez; C A Holzmann; P A Estévez; C M Held
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 2.602

2.  Object discrimination using electrotactile feedback.

Authors:  Tapas J Arakeri; Brady A Hasse; Andrew J Fuglevand
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2018-04-09       Impact factor: 5.379

3.  Interaction of Perceived Frequency and Intensity in Fingertip Electrotactile Stimulation: Dissimilarity Ratings and Multidimensional Scaling.

Authors:  Kurt A Kaczmarek; Mitchell E Tyler; Uchechukwu O Okpara; Steven J Haase
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2017-05-12       Impact factor: 3.802

4.  The tongue display unit (TDU) for electrotactile spatiotemporal pattern presentation.

Authors:  K A Kaczmarek
Journal:  Sci Iran D Comput Sci Eng Electr Eng       Date:  2011-12

5.  Electrotactile stimulation on the tongue: Intensity perception, discrimination, and cross-modality estimation.

Authors:  Cecil A Lozano; Kurt A Kaczmarek; Marco Santello
Journal:  Somatosens Mot Res       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.111

6.  Efficacy of electrotactile vestibular substitution in patients with peripheral and central vestibular loss.

Authors:  Y P Danilov; M E Tyler; K L Skinner; R A Hogle; P Bach-y-Rita
Journal:  J Vestib Res       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.435

7.  Perception thresholds and qualitative perceptions for electrocutaneous stimulation.

Authors:  Eva-Maria Dölker; Stephan Lau; Maria Anne Bernhard; Jens Haueisen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 4.996

8.  Human-Machine Interface for the Control of Multi-Function Systems Based on Electrocutaneous Menu: Application to Multi-Grasp Prosthetic Hands.

Authors:  Jose Gonzalez-Vargas; Strahinja Dosen; Sebastian Amsuess; Wenwei Yu; Dario Farina
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-12       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Non-invasive neuromodulation to improve gait in chronic multiple sclerosis: a randomized double blind controlled pilot trial.

Authors:  Mitchell E Tyler; Kurt A Kaczmarek; Kathy L Rust; Alla M Subbotin; Kimberly L Skinner; Yuri P Danilov
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 4.262

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.