Gavin Hsu1, Forouzan Farahani2, Lucas C Parra2. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York, CUNY, 160 Convent Avenue, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: ghsu@ccny.cuny.edu. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, The City College of New York, CUNY, 160 Convent Avenue, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Skin sensation is the primary factor limiting the intensity of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES). It is well established that different waveforms generate different sensations, yet transcranial stimulation has been limited to a relatively small number of prototypical waveforms. OBJECTIVE: We explore whether alternative stimulation waveforms could substantially reduce skin sensation and thus allow for stronger intensities in tES. METHODS: We systematically tested a range of waveforms in a series of 6 exploratory experiments stimulating human adults on the forearm and in one instance on the head. Subjects were asked to rate skin sensation level on a numerical scale from "none" to "extreme". RESULTS: High frequency (>1 kHz) monophasic square wave stimulation was found to decrease in sensation with increasing duty cycle, baseline, and frequency, but the sensation was never lower than for constant current stimulation. For the purpose of injecting a net direct current (DC), a constant current is optimal. For stimulation with alternating current (AC), sensation decreased with increasing frequency, consistent with previous reports. Amplitude modulation did not reduce sensation below stimulation with constant AC amplitude, and biphasic square waveforms produced higher sensation levels than biphasic sinusoidal waveforms. Furthermore, for DC stimulation, sensation levels on the arm were similar to those reported on the head. CONCLUSION: Our comparisons of various waveforms for monophasic and biphasic stimulation indicate that conventional DC and AC waveforms may provide the lowest skin sensations levels for transcutaneous electrical stimulation. These results are likely generalizable to tES applications.
BACKGROUND: Skin sensation is the primary factor limiting the intensity of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES). It is well established that different waveforms generate different sensations, yet transcranial stimulation has been limited to a relatively small number of prototypical waveforms. OBJECTIVE: We explore whether alternative stimulation waveforms could substantially reduce skin sensation and thus allow for stronger intensities in tES. METHODS: We systematically tested a range of waveforms in a series of 6 exploratory experiments stimulating human adults on the forearm and in one instance on the head. Subjects were asked to rate skin sensation level on a numerical scale from "none" to "extreme". RESULTS: High frequency (>1 kHz) monophasic square wave stimulation was found to decrease in sensation with increasing duty cycle, baseline, and frequency, but the sensation was never lower than for constant current stimulation. For the purpose of injecting a net direct current (DC), a constant current is optimal. For stimulation with alternating current (AC), sensation decreased with increasing frequency, consistent with previous reports. Amplitude modulation did not reduce sensation below stimulation with constant AC amplitude, and biphasic square waveforms produced higher sensation levels than biphasic sinusoidal waveforms. Furthermore, for DC stimulation, sensation levels on the arm were similar to those reported on the head. CONCLUSION: Our comparisons of various waveforms for monophasic and biphasic stimulation indicate that conventional DC and AC waveforms may provide the lowest skin sensations levels for transcutaneous electrical stimulation. These results are likely generalizable to tES applications.
Authors: A Karni; G Meyer; C Rey-Hipolito; P Jezzard; M M Adams; R Turner; L G Ungerleider Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1998-02-03 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Alexander Opitz; Arnaud Falchier; Chao-Gan Yan; Erin M Yeagle; Gary S Linn; Pierre Megevand; Axel Thielscher; Ross Deborah A; Michael P Milham; Ashesh D Mehta; Charles E Schroeder Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Anli Liu; Mihály Vöröslakos; Greg Kronberg; Simon Henin; Matthew R Krause; Yu Huang; Alexander Opitz; Ashesh Mehta; Christopher C Pack; Bart Krekelberg; Antal Berényi; Lucas C Parra; Lucia Melloni; Orrin Devinsky; György Buzsáki Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-11-30 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Luke Johnson; Ivan Alekseichuk; Jordan Krieg; Alex Doyle; Ying Yu; Jerrold Vitek; Matthew Johnson; Alexander Opitz Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 14.136