Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Transcutaneous Interference Spinal Cord Stimulation: Leadfield-Based Pareto Optimization of Electrode Montages for Improved Focality

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Optimized two-tone electrode montages can cut off-target skin fields in spinal cord stimulation by more than twentyfold, the paper argues.

desk verdict A clean computational pipeline for a genuinely new idea, but the headline focality numbers are envelope-metric artifacts unless neural activation follows the contested envelope model. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21886 v1 pith:U5HH5SFI submitted 2025-06-27 physics.med-ph

Mariko Teragiwa , Leonel E. Medina , Alonso Carvajal , Kanata Yatsuda , Wenwei Yu , Jose Gomez-Tames This is my paper
classification physics.med-ph
keywords transcutaneousspinalcordstimulationtemporalinterferenceelectrodemontageoptimizationleadfieldmatrixParetofiniteelementmodelfocalityelectrical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that transcutaneous interference spinal cord stimulation (tISCS) can deliver focused, comfortable stimulation to the spinal cord by canceling the electric field in the skin and letting a low-frequency envelope dominate at depth. Using a finite-element model of the lower thorax and a leadfield-based Pareto search over electrode montages, the authors report that an optimized two-pair electrode montage cuts the peak skin field by more than twentyfold compared with conventional transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tSCS), and raises the spinal-cord-to-skin field ratio by about an order of magnitude. If the model is right, tISCS could let clinicians apply roughly five times more current to the spinal cord before skin exposure reaches tSCS levels, reducing pain while preserving or improving target engagement. That matters because tSCS is currently limited by skin and muscle activation that makes higher-intensity stimulation uncomfortable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the leadfield matrix $\boldsymbol{A}_n$, which maps the current injected at electrode $n$ to the electric field at every mesh node, together with the amplitude-modulated envelope $E_{AM}$ defined by Eq. (3). The envelope is computed from the two carrier fields' magnitudes and the angle between them; the paper assumes that this envelope, not the carriers, drives spinal fibers. Once the leadfield matrix is precomputed (161 simulations, about 30 hours), any two-pair montage's envelope field costs about 80 seconds to evaluate, enabling a Pareto search over 10,000 random montages on a front that jointly maximizes $\max|E_{AM}|$ in the spinal cord and its ratio to skin and muscle. The 'Relevant Electrode Map' then prunes the 162-position grid to 44 dorsal positions, which the paper shows improves the spinal-cord-intensity versus focality trade-off.

What would settle it

Replace the $E_{AM}$ objective with a cable-model simulation of the same T11 model in which dorsal-column fibers and skin afferents are driven by the complete two-carrier waveform, and compare recruitment thresholds for the optimized montage; if skin afferents reach threshold at or below the current where dorsal columns fire, or if the twentyfold skin reduction disappears, the central claim fails. In an animal or human surrogate, recording dorsal-column evoked potentials and skin nerve responses across graded currents with the optimized montage would settle the same question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated on its own terms, is that temporal interference—superimposing two kilohertz currents from separate electrode pairs—creates a region inside the spinal cord where the amplitude-modulated envelope $E_{AM}$ is the effective neural stimulus, while superficial tissue experiences mostly the high-frequency carriers and is therefore less likely to be activated. To test this, the authors built a 12-tissue finite-element thorax model at the T11 level, precomputed a leadfield matrix for 162 electrode positions, and randomly sampled 10,000 two-pair montages; a Pareto front then picked montages maximizing spinal-cord envelope field while minimizing skin and muscle fields. The optimized montage reduced peak skin field from 148.3 V/m (tSCS) to 6.3 V/m, and raised the spinal-cord-to-skin ratio from 0.03 to 0.34 (about elevenfold) at the same total current; against a matched two-pair tSCS the skin reduction was about 20.5-fold and the ratio gain seventeenfold. A second optimization on a 44-position dorsal grid improved the spinal-cord intensity-to-off-target trade-off further, producing a spinal-cord field of 2.51 V/m with a spinal-cord-to-skin ratio of 0.39. The paper presents this as the first computational demonstration that tISCS is feasible and can outperform tSCS on focality.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the premise that spinal fibers are driven by the slow amplitude envelope of two interfering kilohertz fields, while superficial nerves are not; if high-frequency carriers activate skin or muscle directly, the reported focality and comfort gains would shrink or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the same 2.5 mA total current, the optimized tISCS montage keeps the spinal cord near the 0.35 V/m threshold while cutting peak skin field to less than one-twentieth of tSCS exposure.
  • Because the spinal-cord-to-skin ratio is about ten times higher, users could in principle increase current by roughly fivefold before off-target skin stimulation equals what tSCS produces, giving room for stronger spinal modulation.
  • Skin, not muscle, is the binding constraint in the optimized Pareto front; alignment with lower cutaneous activation thresholds means future tISCS protocols should track skin discomfort as the primary safety endpoint.
  • The leadfield/Pareto workflow makes montage optimization practical for high-resolution spinal models, reducing per-montage solve time from hours to about 80 seconds and enabling 10,000 configurations to be screened.
  • Reducing the electrode search space to the dorsal 'Relevant Electrode Map' improves rather than degrades the Pareto trade-off, supporting a focused, reproducible electrode-placement strategy.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: the fivefold current headroom is contingent on the envelope-extraction assumption; the paper cites [14] showing peripheral nerve temporal interference is not driven by envelope extraction, so a cable-model comparison between $E_{AM}$-based and full-waveform-based montage rankings would tell how much of the claimed advantage survives.
  • Editorial extension: a direct psychophysical experiment—ramping current with optimized tISCS versus tSCS in healthy volunteers and asking when skin sensation becomes painful—would test the twentyfold reduction and fivefold headroom without needing invasive spinal recordings.
  • Editorial extension: the same leadfield-plus-Pareto-plus-relevant-map recipe should transfer to other spinal levels or targets, but the relevant electrode map would need to be recomputed for each anatomy rather than reused from the T11 dorsal grid.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a computational feasibility study of transcutaneous interferential spinal cord stimulation (tISCS). A finite element model of the lower thorax at T11 is combined with a leadfield matrix of 162 electrode positions, allowing rapid evaluation of 10,000 random two-pair montages. Using the amplitude-modulated envelope E_AM of the vector sum of two kilohertz electric fields defined in Eq. (3), the authors perform Pareto optimization over metrics consisting of the maximum E_AM in the spinal cord and the ratio of spinal cord E_AM to skin or muscle E_AM. They report that optimized tISCS reduces peak skin E_AM by 20.5- to 23.5-fold relative to 2-tSCS and tSCS, increases the spinal cord-to-skin E_AM ratio by roughly 10-fold or more, and permits about a fivefold increase in spinal cord stimulation intensity without exceeding the skin exposure of conventional tSCS. A six-trial random-subset robustness check is included, and a reduced electrode grid is derived from a relevant electrode map. The authors conclude that tISCS is a promising non-invasive approach with substantially reduced off-target effects.

Significance. If the envelope-based activation assumption were valid, the leadfield/Pareto workflow would be a useful and efficient design tool for tISCS, and the reported improvements in simulated field ratios would be practically significant. The study's strengths include the use of a standard FEM approach, the leadfield matrix acceleration, and the six-trial robustness check, which supports internal consistency. However, the central quantitative claims rest entirely on the amplitude-modulated envelope E_AM as the neural drive for both spinal cord and superficial tissues, an assumption that the manuscript's own cited references contest. Without a neural activation model or carrier-frequency field metrics, the reported >20-fold skin reduction and >10-fold ratio improvements are predictions about a field envelope, not about skin perception, pain, or spinal cord activation. The paper is therefore a useful computational feasibility demonstration, but its translational claims are not yet supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (3); Section 4] The entire optimization and evaluation are built on E_AM as the neural drive for both spinal cord and skin/muscle. The manuscript itself cites reference [10] for the view that superficial areas are predominantly influenced by high-frequency components, and reference [14] (Budde et al.) for the finding that temporal interference in peripheral nerves is not driven by envelope extraction. With no neural activation model included, the reported reductions in skin E_AM do not establish reduced skin perception, nociceptor activation, or pain. Please re-evaluate the optimized montage with a biophysical nerve model for cutaneous afferents, or at minimum report the peak instantaneous carrier-frequency field magnitudes, and clearly reframe the claims as predictions about the amplitude-modulated envelope rather than about neural activation.
  2. [Section 2.4; Table 2] The optimization objectives are exactly the metrics used for evaluation: maximizing E_AM(SC) and the ratio E_AM(SC)/E_AM(skin) (or muscle), with Table 2 then reporting those same quantities. The comparison against the fixed conventional tSCS montage provides some independent grounding, but the headline improvements (e.g., 17.0-fold ratio increase over 2-tSCS and 11.3-fold over tSCS) are selected-for outcomes, not out-of-sample predictions. Please report the distribution of the ratios across all 10,000 random montages, the rank of the selected montage within that distribution, and ideally evaluate the optimized montage on metrics not used in the optimization, such as neural activation predictions.
  3. [Section 2.3, Eq. (3); Table 2] The E_AM metric can be much smaller than the actual instantaneous carrier-frequency field. When one electrode pair dominates at a skin location (|E1| >> |E2| and angle < 90 degrees), Eq. (3) gives E_AM approximately equal to 2|E2|, whereas the peak instantaneous field magnitude is approximately |E1| + |E2|. The optimizer therefore minimizes the envelope depth, not the physical field experienced by skin, so the reported 23.5-fold reduction in skin E_AM in Table 2 may be partly a metric artifact. Please quantify the peak instantaneous fields |E1 + E2(t)| over the carrier cycle for the optimized montage and report whether the skin-intensity conclusions survive under that metric.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3] The Laplace equation is numbered (2) although no equation (1) appears in the text; the numbering should be corrected.
  2. [Section 2.4] The definition of the muscle focality ratio has a typo: the text writes max|E_AM(Skin)| in the denominator for the muscle ratio, which should be max|E_AM(Muscle)|.
  3. [Section 2.3, Eq. (3)] The text refers to the angle alpha between |E1| and |E2|; since these are magnitudes, the angle should be described as the angle between the vectors E1 and E2.
  4. [Section 2.5, Section 3.2] The Relevant Electrode Map depends on a score threshold of 0.5 and on ad-hoc scoring weights (one point for Pareto-front montages, two points for the best montage), but no sensitivity analysis is provided for these choices; varying them could change the reduced 44-electrode grid.
  5. [Section 4] The claim that tISCS 'still achieves the minimum electric field threshold for neuromodulation (0.35 V/m)' citing reference [42] is an extrapolation from transcranial alternating current stimulation thresholds to the spinal cord and to interferential envelope fields; this threshold should be justified with spinal-cord-specific data or removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the optimization searches the same E_AM metrics it later reports, but this is a normal design search and the comparison against fixed conventional tSCS montages is independent.

full rationale

The paper optimizes montages for the same metrics it reports (max E_AM in the spinal cord and the E_AM(SC)/E_AM(skin) ratio, Section 2.4), so the optimized montage scoring better on those metrics than a fixed, non-optimized tSCS montage is unsurprising but not circular: the optimizer searches a physical leadfield-derived landscape, and the tSCS comparator is independently defined. No parameter is fitted to the reported outcome, and no reported quantity is defined in terms of itself. The central quantitative claims are conditional on the amplitude-modulated envelope E_AM (Eq. 3) being the neural activation variable; this assumption is imported from the temporal-interference literature and is contested by the paper's own citation of Budde et al. [14], but that is a mechanistic correctness risk, not a circular derivation. Self-citations in the reference list ([12], [22], [39], [41], [44]) support methodological choices such as the number of random montages, leadfield optimization, and model implementation; they are not load-bearing for the main feasibility result. The claimed fivefold intensity headroom is a linear scaling consequence of the computed ratios rather than an independent prediction obtained by fitting. No fitted-input-called-prediction step, imported uniqueness argument, or renaming of a known result is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper uses no fitted parameters; all tissue conductivities are literature values. The central claim rests primarily on domain assumptions about the temporal interference mechanism (envelope-driven activation), the use of electric field magnitude as a proxy for neural response, and the transfer of thresholds from tACS to spinal cord. The methodological choices for the electrode map (threshold and scoring weights) affect the optimization but not the primary tSCS comparison.

free parameters (3)
  • Relevant Electrode Map threshold = 0.5
    Section 2.5: electrode positions with a score below 0.5 are excluded, reducing the search space from 162 to 44 grid points; this choice affects the reported improvements of the 44-grid optimization.
  • Relevant Electrode Map scoring weights = 1 point for Pareto front, 2 points for best montage
    Section 2.5: the map is built by accumulating scores over six trials; weights are chosen by hand and influence which positions are deemed relevant.
  • Random montage sample size = 10,000
    Section 2.4: the Pareto front is constructed from 10,000 random montages out of the full combinatorial space; a larger sample could find better montages, and the 'local best' is only optimal within the sample.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Tissue conductivity is frequency-independent in the kHz range and equal to low-frequency values.
    Section 2.1: conductivities from Table 1 used for both tSCS and tISCS; justified by [32] but acknowledged in Discussion that quasi-static relaxation can yield up to 20% differences [49].
  • domain assumption Neural activation in temporal interference is driven by the amplitude-modulated envelope E_AM defined in Eq. (3); kHz carrier fields do not activate nerves.
    Section 2.3, Eq. (3): the central metric E_AM is computed from Grossman et al. [38] and Rampersad et al. [18]; this is a load-bearing assumption and is explicitly challenged by Budde et al. [14], which the paper cites.
  • domain assumption Only the z-component of the electric field in the spinal cord contributes to activation of dorsal column fibers.
    Section 2.3: fibers assumed aligned with the caudal-rostral axis (z-axis), following Rattay [37]; no verification that peak z-component predicts recruitment.
  • domain assumption Peak E_AM in skin and muscle serves as a proxy for pain and unwanted contraction; peak E_AM in spinal cord serves as a proxy for neuromodulation.
    Section 2.4: the optimization objectives are max E_AM(SC), max E_AM(SC)/E_AM(Skin), and max E_AM(SC)/E_AM(Muscle); no neural model or activation thresholds are used.
  • domain assumption The simplified thorax model is an adequate proxy for a detailed anatomical model.
    Section 4 limitations: the model is described as a proxy for the lower thorax; authors cite [43] that simplified models capture the complexity of more detailed models, but no direct validation is provided.
  • domain assumption A threshold of 0.35 V/m (from transcranial alternating current stimulation [42]) indicates the minimum effective spinal cord dose.
    Section 4: used to argue tISCS at 2.5 mA still reaches neuromodulation threshold; the threshold is from brain tACS and may not transfer to spinal cord fibers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transcutaneous Interference Spinal Cord Stimulation: Leadfield-Based Pareto Optimization of Electrode Montages for Improved Focality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U5HH5SFI

@misc{pith2026250621886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transcutaneous Interference Spinal Cord Stimulation: Leadfield-Based Pareto Optimization of Electrode Montages for Improved Focality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U5HH5SFI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21886}
}
read the original abstract

Purpose: This study investigates the feasibility of transcutaneous interferential spinal cord stimulation (tISCS), a novel non-invasive neuromodulation method, using temporal interference to enhance focality and comfort in spinal cord stimulation. The central research question is whether tISCS can achieve targeted activation of spinal cord circuits while reducing unwanted stimulation of skin and muscle tissues, which are common limitations of conventional transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tSCS). Methods: A finite element model of the lower thorax was developed to simulate electric field distributions for various skin electrode montages. To address the computational bottleneck associated with high-resolution modeling and montage optimization, we implemented a leadfield-based Pareto optimization strategy to identify the electrode configuration that maximizes the electric field in the spinal cord and minimizes it in off-target tissues. tISCS montages were compared with tSCS montages in terms of focality and stimulation efficiency. Results: Optimized tISCS configurations significantly reduced electric field intensity in the skin by over 20-fold compared to tSCS. The ratio of spinal cord to skin electric fields increased by at least 10-fold, indicating enhanced focality. The injection current efficiency in tISCS can be leveraged to increase spinal cord electric fields by at least 5-fold while keeping skin exposure below the levels observed with tSCS. Conclusion: tISCS enables deeper and more selective spinal cord stimulation compared to tSCS, with substantially reduced off-target effects. This is the first computational demonstration of tISCS feasibility. Leadfield-guided Pareto optimization enables efficient montage selection, providing a foundation for future experimental applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21886 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Human and electrode model. (A) The whole thorax model and each tissue. (B) The model of the spinal cord. (C) The model of electrode. (D) Transcutaneous interference spinal cord stimulation, or tISCS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Influential electrode positions in the grid. (A) Representation of electrode positions in a plane. (B) Outline to obtain the Relevant Electrode Map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    C. A. Angeli, V. R. Edgerton, Y. P. Gerasimenko, and S. J. Harkema, ‘Altering spinal cord excitability enables voluntary movements after chronic complete paralysis in humans’, Brain, vol. 137, no. 5, pp. 1394 –1409, May 2014, doi: 10.1093/brain/awu038

    work page doi:10.1093/brain/awu038 2014

  2. [14]

    J. M. Ganne, ‘INTERFERENTIAL THERAPY1 1From a paper presented to the Physiotherapy Society of South Australia, April, 1975.’, Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, vol. 22, no. 3, 1976, doi: 10.1016/s0004- 9514(14)61005-9

    doi:10.1016/s0004- 1975

  3. [1]

    eSCS is used to treat chronic and neuropathic pain and is being investigated to restore mobility for individuals with cervical spinal cord injuries [1], [2]

    Introduction One method for spinal cord stimulation involves implanting electrodes in the epidural space that deliver controlled electrical pulses to targeted areas of the spinal cord, known as epidural spinal cord stimulation (eSCS). eSCS is used to treat chronic and neuropathic pain and is being investigated to restore mobility for individuals with cerv...

    work page

  4. [2]

    Relevant Electrode Map

    Methodology 2.1. Human model design A realistic finite element method ( FEM) model of the thorax was constructed based on . anatomical data from the lower thoracic spinal level (T11) [24] and surrounding anatomical tissues [25], [26] . The model was segmented into 12 tissues, including skin, fat, muscle, general thorax, bone, vertebrae, intervertebral dis...

    work page

  5. [3]

    Optimization evaluation Figure 4 presents the locally optimized tISCS montage using 3D or 2D Pareto approaches

    Results 3.1. Optimization evaluation Figure 4 presents the locally optimized tISCS montage using 3D or 2D Pareto approaches. The 2D pareto front s are obtained by evaluating trade-offs between the target spinal cord intensity 𝐸⃗ 𝐴𝑀(𝑆𝐶) and one of the superficial focality metrics, either 𝐸⃗ 𝐴𝑀(𝑆𝐶/𝑆𝑘𝑖𝑛) or 𝐸⃗ 𝐴𝑀(𝑆𝐶/𝑀𝑢𝑠𝑐𝑙𝑒). The 3D Pareto simultaneously cons...

    work page

  6. [4]

    Discussion Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tSCS) has been investigated for its applications in pain management, motor function rehabilitation, and the treatment of chronic and neuropathic pain . However, tSCS faces challenges in accurately targeting specific nerve regions due to its low focality and significant current attenuation when penetrating...

    work page

  7. [5]

    Results show that tISCS significantly reduces off-target stimulation in superficial tissues and enhances spinal cord -to-skin connectivity compared to conventional tSCS

    Conclusion This study presents a computational analysis aimed at optimizing transcutaneous interference spinal cord stimulation (tISCS). Results show that tISCS significantly reduces off-target stimulation in superficial tissues and enhances spinal cord -to-skin connectivity compared to conventional tSCS. A leadfield matrix alleviated computational challe...

    work page

  8. [6]

    Greiner et al., ‘Recruitment of upper-limb motoneurons with epidural electrical stimulation of the cervical spinal cord’, Nat Commun, vol

    N. Greiner et al., ‘Recruitment of upper-limb motoneurons with epidural electrical stimulation of the cervical spinal cord’, Nat Commun, vol. 12, no. 1, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-20703-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20703-1 2021

Show all 54 references
  1. [7]

    M. P. Jensen and R. M. Brownstone, ‘Mechanisms of spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of pain: Still in the dark after 50 years’, European Journal of Pain , vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 652 –659, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1002/ejp.1336

    2019 doi

  2. [8]

    Mundra, K

    A. Mundra, K. Varma Kalidindi, H. S. Chhabra, and J. Manghwani, ‘Spinal cord stimulation for spinal cord injury – Where do we stand? A narrative review’, J Clin Orthop Trauma, vol. 43, p. 102210, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2023.102210

    2023

  3. [9]

    J. R. Flynn, B. A. Graham, M. P. Galea, and R. J. Callister, ‘The role of propriospinal interneurons in recovery from spinal cord injury’, Neuropharmacology, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 809 –822, Apr. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.01.016

    2011 doi

  4. [11]

    Asboth et al

    L. Asboth et al. , ‘Cortico –reticulo–spinal circuit reorganization enables functional recovery after severe spinal cord contusion’, Nat Neurosci, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 576–588, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1038/s41593-018-0093- 5

    2018 doi

  5. [12]

    Hasoon, ‘Lead migration in spinal cord stimulation with loss of pain coverage in a CRPS patient’, Saudi J Anaesth, vol

    J. Hasoon, ‘Lead migration in spinal cord stimulation with loss of pain coverage in a CRPS patient’, Saudi J Anaesth, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 280, 2020, doi: 10.4103/sja.SJA_47_20

    2020 doi

  6. [13]

    Seáñez, M

    I. Seáñez, M. Capogrosso, K. Minassian, and F. B. Wagner, ‘Spinal Cord Stimulation to Enable Leg Motor Control and Walking in People with Spinal Cord Injury’, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-08995

    doi

  7. [15]

    Mirzakhalili, B

    E. Mirzakhalili, B. Barra, M. Capogrosso, and S. F. Lempka, ‘Biophysics of Temporal Interference Stimulation’, Cell Syst, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 557-572.e5, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.cels.2020.10.004

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Violante et al., ‘Non-invasive temporal interference electrical stimulation of the human hippocampus’, Brain Stimul, vol

    I. Violante et al., ‘Non-invasive temporal interference electrical stimulation of the human hippocampus’, Brain Stimul, vol. 16, no. 1, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2023.01.833

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Gomez-Tames, A

    J. Gomez-Tames, A. Asai, and A. Hirata, ‘Multiscale Computational Model Reveals Nerve Response in a Mouse Model for Temporal Interference Brain Stimulation’, Front Neurosci , vol. 15, 2021, doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.684465

    2021

  10. [18]

    Botzanowski et al., ‘Noninvasive Stimulation of Peripheral Nerves using Temporally‐Interfering Electrical Fields’, Adv Healthc Mater, vol

    B. Botzanowski et al., ‘Noninvasive Stimulation of Peripheral Nerves using Temporally‐Interfering Electrical Fields’, Adv Healthc Mater, vol. 11, no. 17, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.1002/adhm.202200075

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    R. B. Budde, M. T. Williams, and P. P. Irazoqui, ‘Temporal interference current stimulation in peripheral nerves is not driven by envelope extraction’, J Neural Eng , vol. 20, no. 2, 2023, doi: 10.1088/1741 - 2552/acc6f1

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    G. R. Hernández-Labrado, J. L. Polo, E. López-Dolado, and J. E. Collazos-Castro, ‘Spinal cord direct current stimulation: finite element analysis of the electric field and current density’, Med Biol Eng Comput, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 417–429, 2011, [Online]. Available: http://www...

    2011

  13. [21]

    S. R. Fernandes, R. Salvador, C. Wenger, M. De Carvalho, and P. C. Miranda, ‘Transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation of the lum bar and sacral spinal cord: A modelling study’, J Neural Eng, vol. 15, no. 3, Feb. 2018, doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/aaac38

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    Liang et al

    L. Liang et al. , ‘A systematic review of computational models for the design of spinal cord stimulation therapies: from neural circuits to patient-specific simulations’, 2023. doi: 10.1113/JP282884

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Rampersad et al., ‘Prospects for transcranial temporal interference stimulation in humans: A computational study’, Neuroimage, vol

    S. Rampersad et al., ‘Prospects for transcranial temporal interference stimulation in humans: A computational study’, Neuroimage, vol. 202, p. 116124, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116124. 11

    2019

  16. [24]

    S. R. Fernandes, R. Salvador, M. de Carvalho, and P. C. Miranda, ‘Modelling Studies of Non -invasive Electric and Magnetic Stimulation of the Spinal Cord’, in Brain and Human Body Modeling 2020: Computational Human Models Presented at EMBC 2019 and the BRAIN Initiative, 2020. ...

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    J. P. Dmochowski, A. Datta, M. Bikson, Y. Su, and L. C. Parra, ‘Optimized multi -electrode stimulation increases focality and intensity at target’, J Neural Eng , vol. 8, no. 4, p. 46011, 2011, doi: 10.1088/1741- 2560/8/4/046011

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    G. B. Saturnino, K. H. Madsen, and A. Thielscher, ‘Optimizing the Electric Field Strength in Multiple Targets for Multichannel Transcranial Electric Stimulation’, J Neural Eng , vol. 18, no. 1, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/ABCA15

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Yatsuda, M

    K. Yatsuda, M. Fernández-Corazza, W. Yu, and J. Gomez-Tames, ‘Population-optimized electrode montage approximates individualized optimization in transcranial temporal interference stimulation’, Comput Biol Med, vol. 192, p. 110223, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1016/J.COMPBIOMED.2025.110223

    2025

  20. [28]

    M. Wang, K. Lou, Z. Liu, P. Wei, and Q. Liu, ‘Multi -objective optimization via evolutionary algorithm (MOVEA) for high-definition transcranial electrical stimulation of the human brain’, Neuroimage, vol. 280, p. 120331, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120331

    2023

  21. [29]

    H. J. Zander et al., ‘Anatomical and technical factors affecting the neural response to epidural spinal cord stimulation’, J Neural Eng, vol. 17, no. 3, 2020, doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/ab8fc4

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Antal Nógrádi and Gerta Vrbová., Anatomy and Physiology of the Spinal Cord

  23. [31]

    Weibl H, Zur Topographie der Medulla spinalis der Albinoratt. 1973

    1973

  24. [32]

    Accessed: Jul

    Copyright © 2010 –2024 IT’IS Foundation, ‘Low Frequency (Conductivity)’. Accessed: Jul. 25, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://itis.swiss/virtual -population/tissue-properties/database/low-frequency- conductivity/

    2010

  25. [33]

    Rush and D

    S. Rush and D. a Driscoll, ‘Current distribution in the brain from surface electrodes’, Anesth Analg, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 717–723, 1968

    1968

  26. [34]

    Howell, S

    B. Howell, S. P. Lad, W. M. Grill, and J. C. Glorioso, ‘Evaluation of intradural stimulation efficiency and selectivity in a computational model of spinal cord stimulation’, PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 12, Dec. 2014, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114938

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    McCann, G

    H. McCann, G. Pisano, and L. Beltrachini, ‘Variation in Reported Human Head Tissue Electrical Conductivity Values’, Brain Topogr, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 825–858, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10548-019-00710- 2

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    J. G. Troughton, Y. O. Ansong Snr, N. Duobaite, and C. M. Proctor, ‘Finite element analysis of electric field distribution during direct current stimulation of the spinal cord: Implications for device design’, APL Bioeng, vol. 7, no. 4, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1063/5.0163264

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Huang and L

    Y. Huang and L. C. Parra, ‘Can transcranial electric stimulation with multiple electrodes reach deep targets?’, Brain Stimul, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 30–40, 2019, doi: 10.1016/J.BRS.2018.09.010

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    Pereira, S

    M. Pereira, S. R. Fernandes, P. C. Miranda, and M. de Carvalho, ‘Lumbar trans -spinal direct current stimulation: A modeling-experimental approach to dorsal root ganglia stimulation’, Front Neurosci, vol. 16, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.3389/fnins.2022.1041932

    2022

  31. [39]

    Plonsey and D

    R. Plonsey and D. B. Heppner, ‘Considerations of quasi -stationarity in electrophysiological systems’, Bull Math Biophys , vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 657 –664, 1967, [Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02476917

    1967 doi

  32. [40]

    Ruffini et al

    G. Ruffini et al. , ‘Transcranial Current Brain Stimulation (tCS ): Models and Technologies’, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 333–345, May 2013, doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2012.2200046

    2013

  33. [41]

    Gomez-Tames, I

    J. Gomez-Tames, I. Laakso, Y. Haba, A. Hirata, D. Poljak, and K. Yamazaki, ‘Comput ational Artifacts of the in Situ Electric Field in Anatomical Models Exposed to Low -Frequency Magnetic Field’, IEEE Trans Electromagn Compat, vol. 60, no. 3, 2018, doi: 10.1109/TEMC.2017.2748219. 12

    2018

  34. [42]

    Rattay, ‘Analysis of models for extracellular fiber stimulation’, IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, vol

    F. Rattay, ‘Analysis of models for extracellular fiber stimulation’, IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 676–682, 1989, doi: 10.1109/10.32099

    1989 doi

  35. [43]

    Grossman et al., ‘Noninvasive Deep Brain Stimulation via Temporally Interfering Electric Fields’, Cell, vol

    N. Grossman et al., ‘Noninvasive Deep Brain Stimulation via Temporally Interfering Electric Fields’, Cell, vol. 169, no. 6, pp. 1029--1041.e16, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.05.024

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    J. D. Gomez -Tames, J. Gonzalez, and W. Yu, ‘A simulation study: Effect of the inter -electrode distance, electrode size and shape in Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation’, in Proceedings of the Annual International Conferenc e of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology ...

    2012

  37. [45]

    Hubli, V

    M. Hubli, V. Dietz, M. Schrafl -Altermatt, and M. Bolliger, ‘Modulation of spinal neuronal excitability by spinal direct currents and locomotion after spinal cord injury’, Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 124, no. 6, pp. 1187–1195, Jun. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2012.11.021

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    Yatsuda, W

    K. Yatsuda, W. Yu, and J. Gomez -Tames, ‘Population-level insights into temporal interference for focused deep brain neuromodulation’, Front Hum Neurosci, vol. 18, 2024, doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1308549

    2024

  39. [47]

    Alekseichuk, M

    I. Alekseichuk, M. Wischnewski, and A. Opitz, ‘A minimum effective dose for (transcranial) alternating current stimulation’, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2022.08.018

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    Gómez-Tames, J

    J. Gómez-Tames, J. González, and W. Yu, ‘Influence of different geometric representations of the volume conductor on nerve activation during electrical stimulation’, Comput Math Methods Med, vol. 2014, 2014, doi: 10.1155/2014/489240

    2014 doi

  41. [49]

    Gomez-Tames and M

    J. Gomez-Tames and M. Fernández-Corazza, ‘Perspectives on Optimized Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Based on Spatial Electric Field Modeling in Humans’, J Clin Med , vol. 13, no. 11, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.3390/JCM13113084,

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    Khadka, B

    N. Khadka, B. Wang, and M. Bikson, ‘Role of frequency-dependent and capacitive tissue properties in spinal cord stimulation models’, J Neural Eng, vol. 22, no. 3, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/ADD76E

    2025 doi

  43. [51]

    Cao and P

    J. Cao and P. Grover, ‘STIMULUS: Noninvasive Dynamic Patterns of Neurostimulation Using Sp atio- Temporal Interference’, IEEE Trans Biomed Eng , vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 726 –737, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1109/TBME.2019.2919912

    2020

  44. [52]

    Caussade, E

    T. Caussade, E. Paduro, M. Courdurier, E. Cerpa, W. M. Grill, and L. E. Medina, ‘Towards a more accurate quasi-static approximation of the electric potential for neurostimulation with kilohertz-frequency sources’, J Neural Eng, vol. 20, no. 6, p. 066035, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.108...

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    S. RUSH, J. A. ABILDSKOV, and R. MCFEE, ‘Resistivity of Body Tissues at Low Frequencies’, Circ Res, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 40–50, Jan. 1963, doi: 10.1161/01.RES.12.1.40

    1963 doi

  46. [54]

    E. R. Rogers, E. Mirzakhalili, and S. F. Lempka, ‘Model-based analysis of subthreshold mechanisms of spinal cord stimulation for pain’, J Neural Eng, vol. 20, no. 6, p. 066003, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/ad0858. 13 Tables and Figures Table 1. Tissue electrical conductiv...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.