Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Design and Validation of a Portable EEG-tES Platform Supporting High-Rate EEG Recording and Temporal Interference Stimulation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A compact wearable platform claims to record EEG at up to 8 kHz per channel while simultaneously delivering tDCS, tACS, and tTIS stimulation with current errors below 1%, and to capture both signals at once without amplifier saturation.

desk verdict A plausible MCU-based EEG-tTIS platform that fills a real gap, but the concurrent no-saturation claim needs configuration details before I'd trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06783 v1 pith:IOLNDYDJ submitted 2026-08-07 eess.SP

Le Xing , Maoxing Liang , Disi A , Yifei Jia , Gaoxiang Xie , Linfeng Xu , Xiang'ao Chen , Jiebin Shi
show 2 more authors
Gang Pan Bicheng Han
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords EEG-tESintegrationtemporalinterferencestimulationwearableneuromodulationmicrocontrollerarchitecturedirectdigitalsynthesisconcurrentEEGandrecordingclosed-loop8kHzsampling
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 show that a small, battery-powered device built around one microcontroller can do what previously required benchtop or FPGA hardware: record eight channels of EEG at up to 8 kHz while simultaneously generating programmable tDCS, tACS, and temporal interference (tTIS) stimulation. The authors report current-amplitude errors below 1% on resistive loads, EEG waveform correlation of 99% in cable tests and 93.5% on a gelatine head phantom, and concurrent EEG–tES recordings that do not saturate or clip even when stimulation artifacts reach the volt range. If these results hold, the work would lower the hardware barrier for closed-loop neuromodulation—stimulation adjusted in real time from ongoing brain signals—and make kilohertz tTIS carriers directly observable in the recorded data rather than invisible to lower-rate EEG systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the single-microcontroller architecture with dual-buffer direct digital synthesis (DDS): while one waveform buffer streams to the DAC through DMA, the MCU computes the next buffer, so waveform output is continuous and programmable without a dedicated synthesizer or FPGA. On the sensing side, the front-end's configurable dynamic range (stated as ±375 mV) and high 8 kHz sample rate let the same data stream carry EEG and stimulation artifacts. The central quantitative identity is the measured current-error equation comparing programmed versus measured current amplitude; the architecture is what keeps that error below 1% while leaving CPU headroom (under 53% at 8 kHz with concurrent tTIS). Precision Howland current sources convert the DAC voltage to constant current up to ±4 mA into a 5 kΩ load.

What would settle it

Run the concurrent EEG–tES phantom test with a known microvolt-scale EEG template while delivering 2 mA tTIS at 2000/2040 Hz and check the raw ADC samples for clipping against the stated ±375 mV input range; if the volt-level artifact does not saturate, verify the front-end gain configuration used in that test and measure whether the microvolt EEG component can still be recovered from the mixture at the fidelity reported for EEG-only recording.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an MCU-centered architecture can integrate high-rate sensing and multimodal stimulation without FPGA-style resources. The platform combines a biopotential front-end sampled synchronously at up to 8 kHz per channel with a dual-channel constant-current stimulator built from a DAC plus microcontroller-based direct digital synthesis. On a 5 kΩ load, delivered current matches the programmed value within 1% for tDCS, tACS, and tTIS (carrier pairs such as 2000/2005 Hz), with negligible frequency error. Recording-validation experiments show 99% correlation with an injected EEG template over a cable and 93.5% through a gelatine head phantom; during simultaneous stimulation the raw traces contain the expected DC offset, sinusoidal artifact, or kilohertz carrier envelope without clipping. The paper concludes that this combination supports wearable, portable closed-loop neuromodulation and direct observation of stimulation waveforms during recording.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the front-end was configured with enough dynamic range and low-enough gain during concurrent recordings to capture volt-level stimulation artifacts without saturation; the paper states a ±375 mV dynamic range but does not report the gain setting used in the simultaneous EEG–tES experiment, so the microvolt-level EEG fidelity during stimulation is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the results hold, the same hardware can serve as a testbed for closed-loop algorithms that adapt stimulation parameters based on EEG in real time; the reported sub-millisecond synchronization offset supports tightly coupled triggers.
  • The 8 kHz sampling makes kilohertz tTIS carriers visible in recordings, enabling direct verification of delivered stimulation, artifact modeling, and possible dose control.
  • A battery-powered, MCU-based platform could move closed-loop neuromodulation out of the lab into home or point-of-care settings at lower cost than FPGA or benchtop systems.
  • The dual-buffer DDS supports non-periodic adaptive waveforms, so future protocols could use dynamically varying tACS or tTIS rather than fixed templates.
  • Measured current errors below 1% across 0.5–4 mA and both low-frequency and kilohertz bands suggest the output accuracy is sufficient for standard research protocols.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because CPU usage stays below 53% even at 8 kHz with concurrent tTIS, there is likely enough headroom to run artifact-removal or stimulation-parameter-optimization algorithms on the device itself; the paper does not implement such adaptive control.
  • Beyond the paper: the ability to record carrier signals directly could lead to a calibration step in which the system verifies the actual tTIS envelope delivered at the electrodes before each session, something the paper does not propose.
  • Beyond the paper: if the dynamic-range caveat is resolved, the architecture might scale to more sensing or stimulation channels to support multi-site temporal interference, though the paper only demonstrates eight EEG and two stimulation channels.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a compact, MCU-centered bidirectional EEG-tES platform: an STM32 microcontroller with an ADS1299-based 8-channel EEG front-end sampling up to 8 kHz per channel and a dual-channel DAC/DDS constant-current stimulator supporting tDCS, tACS, tTIS, and programmable ramping. The authors report cable-based EEG correlation of 99%, gelatine-phantom EEG correlation of 93.5%, stimulation current amplitude errors below 1% across all tested modes, raw concurrent EEG+tES recordings without observed saturation, and computational performance metrics including latency, CPU load, power, and synchronization offset. The paper positions the system as a portable, low-complexity alternative to benchtop or FPGA-based integrated neuromodulation platforms. The main open questions concern the analog configuration used during concurrent recording, the methodology behind the phantom correlation figure, and the metrological support for the sub-1% current-error claims.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a useful engineering contribution: it demonstrates that a mainstream MCU plus ADS1299 front-end and DAC-based current sources can sustain 8 kHz multichannel acquisition and generate tDCS/tACS/tTIS waveforms with small current error, which is relevant to portable closed-loop neuromodulation. The current-source characterization is well defined by Eqs. (1)-(2), and the use of an injected EEG template for fidelity assessment is a sound approach in principle. The weaknesses identified below are concentrated in the concurrent-recording claim, which is the paper's differentiating feature, and in the quantitative interpretation of the reported correlation and error values. These are addressable with additional reporting and targeted experiments, so the work is worth revising rather than rejecting.

major comments (4)
  1. [II-A-2 / III-C-2] The central claim of simultaneous EEG-tES recording 'without saturation' is not reproducible from the reported configuration. Section II-A-2 states that the front end achieves a ±375 mV dynamic range, while Section III-C-2 reports that the stimulation artifacts 'reach the volt range' and that 2 mA across approximately 5 kΩ corresponds to about 10 V; the concurrent trials used 1 mA, which would be roughly 5 V across a comparable load. These statements are inconsistent unless the ADS1299 PGA gain, reference voltage, and any input attenuation or DC-blocking path used during the Figure 9 recordings are disclosed. If a lower gain or attenuator was used to fit the artifacts, the input-referred LSB size and noise scale up, so preservation of microvolt-level EEG during stimulation is not established. Please specify the exact analog configuration and provide calibrated amplitude scales for Figure 9, or run a controlled recovery experiment with a known EEG template during tDCS, tACS, and tTIS to support the simultaneous-sensing claim.
  2. [II-C-1 / III-C-1] The 93.5% phantom EEG correlation is computed by sliding the template across the recorded signal and reporting the segment with maximal overlap. As written, this procedure selects the most favorable alignment after the fact and can inflate the reported coefficient, especially if the template contains strong alpha bursts or the search range is wide. Please report the window length, the search range, the selection rule, and whether the alignment was fixed before the analysis as a known-delay correction. In addition, report the correlation over the full recording or over pre-specified non-overlapping windows. Without these details, the phantom fidelity figure is not a well-defined performance metric.
  3. [II-B-2 / Table I] The sub-1% current-error claims lack metrological support. The current is computed from an oscilloscope voltage measurement across a 5 kΩ load, but the paper does not report the tolerance of the load resistor, the calibration of the oscilloscope, or an uncertainty analysis. Reported errors as small as 0.06% (Table I, tDCS 0.5 mA) are below the typical absolute vertical accuracy of the MSO44B unless additional calibration or averaging was performed. Please describe the calibration procedure, the resistor specification, and the measurement uncertainty propagation, or report the current errors as upper bounds consistent with the measurement setup.
  4. [III-C-2 / Section I] The concurrent-recording experiment demonstrates only that the ADC stream did not visibly clip and that stimulation-frequency components appear in the FFT; it does not demonstrate that the underlying EEG activity is acquired with usable fidelity. The text acknowledges that the EEG is 'strongly dominated' by stimulation artifacts, but the introduction states that the system should 'preserve microvolt-level neural activity while tolerating volt-level stimulation artifacts.' Please add a quantitative EEG-recovery evaluation during active stimulation, or explicitly limit the claim to unclipped broadband artifact capture and state that EEG recovery during stimulation is future work. This distinction affects the paper's core positioning, not just a secondary metric.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I] The tTIS caption states that reported values represent the mean error of the two stimulation channels, while the footnote says they represent the maximum absolute error of each channel; please make this consistent.
  2. [III-B-3 / Fig. 6] The middle row of Fig. 6 is described as the 'resulting amplitude envelope by linearly adding 2 tTIS channel outputs.' Please clarify in the text that this is an illustrative software sum of the two generated channels, not a measured electric-field interference pattern in tissue.
  3. [Fig. 9] Figure 9 lacks calibrated amplitude scales, which is essential for assessing the saturation claim, and the caption uses '8 KHz' instead of '8 kHz.'
  4. [Table II] The formatting of Table II is difficult to read because several columns combine numbers and units without clear separation, such as '1.67 34% 139.3'; please use a cleaner table layout.
  5. [Section III-C-2] The duration of the 'soft ramping' applied during all concurrent stimulation conditions is not stated; please report it, since ramping affects the transient artifact magnitude and the interpretation of the raw traces.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a hardware validation study whose central claims are supported by direct measurements against external references, not by fitted parameters or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical hardware demonstrations: EEG acquisition fidelity is quantified by correlating the recorded signal with an externally injected public EEG template (Section III-A, III-C-1), stimulation accuracy is measured against programmed setpoints and an oscilloscope on a 5 kOhm resistive load (Section III-B, Table I), and concurrent EEG-tES recording is shown as unprocessed raw waveforms with spectral peaks matching the commanded stimulation parameters (Section III-C-2, Fig. 9). None of these results is derived from a model that was fitted to the same data; the injected EEG is an independent reference, the current amplitudes are compared with programmed values by Ohm's law, and the FFT peaks are compared with the stimulation settings. There are self-citations by the first author, specifically [30] and [31], but these are used only to support electrode fabrication and phantom-method precedent, not to justify the platform's measured performance. The phantom-only validation and the unspecified ADS1299 gain settings for the concurrent recording are legitimate completeness or reproducibility concerns, but they are not circularity: they concern whether the evidence is fully reported, not whether the conclusion is equivalent to its inputs. The paper does not define a quantity in terms of its own prediction, does not rename a known result, and does not import a uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented physical entities. Its central claims rest on standard engineering assumptions about the behavior of commercial components (ADS1299, STM32, DAC) and on the representativeness of the test fixtures (5 kΩ resistor, gelatine phantom). The main unverified assumption is the amplifier configuration used during concurrent recording, which is not specified.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ADS1299 supports 8 kHz per-channel sampling with 24-bit resolution and ±375 mV input range at the stated configuration.
    Relied on in Section II-A-2 for the system's high-rate and dynamic-range capabilities; taken from the component datasheet, not verified in this paper.
  • domain assumption A 5 kΩ resistive load is representative of typical electrode-skin impedance for tES.
    Used in Section II-B-2 for all stimulation accuracy tests; ignores the reactive component of real electrode-tissue interfaces.
  • domain assumption The gelatine phantom with embedded Ag/AgCl electrodes reproduces the electrical loading and volume conduction of the human head.
    The phantom recipe is taken from [29]; the paper assumes the transport of EEG and stimulation signals through the phantom is comparable to human scalp, which is not directly verified.
  • domain assumption Dual-buffer DDS on the STM32 can compute waveform segments faster than the DAC consumes them.
    The firmware design in Section II-A-3 assumes the MCU arithmetic (lookup-assisted trigonometric computation) keeps up with 200 kS/s updates without gaps; this is supported only by the measured output quality on a resistive load.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Design and Validation of a Portable EEG-tES Platform Supporting High-Rate EEG Recording and Temporal Interference Stimulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IOLNDYDJ

@misc{pith2026260806783,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Design and Validation of a Portable EEG-tES Platform Supporting High-Rate EEG Recording and Temporal Interference Stimulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IOLNDYDJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06783}
}
abstract

Background: Closed-loop neuromodulation integrating electroencephalography (EEG) and transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) has strong potential for neuroscience research and clinical applications. However, existing platforms often rely on benchtop instrumentation or FPGA-centered architectures, limiting portability and increasing system complexity. Methods: We developed a compact wearable bidirectional platform integrating 8-channel EEG acquisition and 2-channel tES within a single microcontroller unit (MCU). An ADS1299-based front-end supports up to 8 kHz sampling per channel for simultaneous neural and stimulation signal recording. The stimulation module uses direct digital synthesis (DDS) technique to generate programmable tDCS, tACS, and tTIS waveforms, with optimized firmware design enabling real-time operation on the microcontroller. Results: Experimental evaluation demonstrated high signal fidelity, with EEG correlation coefficients reaching $99\%$ under controlled conditions and $93.5\%$ on a gelatine head phantom. Stimulation performance showed current errors below $1\%$ across tDCS, tACS, and tTIS modes. The platform also reliably recorded concurrent EEG--tES signals without saturation during high-amplitude and high-frequency stimulation. Conclusion: These findings demonstrate that an MCU-centered architecture can effectively support simultaneous EEG sensing and multimodal tES delivery in a compact wearable form factor, while maintaining accurate stimulation and robust signal acquisition. Significance: This work provides a practical foundation for portable closed-loop neuromodulation systems with integrated host software, expanding access to personalized stimulation paradigms, and future point-of-care neurotechnology applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06783 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hardware architecture of the proposed integrated EEG–tES platform (left) and fabricated printed circuit boards (right). The schematic highlights the embedded circuit-level implementation, including EEG acquisition, programmable stimulation generation, galvanic isolation, commu￾nication interfaces, and power-management subsystems. This elevated sampling rate enables simultaneous capture of physiological EEG rhythms a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Gelatine head phantom setup for simulated EEG and concurrent EEG-tES recording. The assembled prototype device measures around 87 mm × 63 mm × 26 mm. stimulation (tTIS, 1 mA, 2000/2040 Hz). Note that tDCS and tACS only used 1 stimulation channel: F7-P7 pair, whereas tTIS used 2 stimulation channel pairs. During stimulation, the EEG amplifier simultaneously recorded both the EEG signal and the stimulation-induced art… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Direct cable-based EEG validation using a signal generator. (A) Comparison between the EEG waveform recorded by the proposed device (blue solid line) and the reference input waveform (orange dashed line). Distinct alignment markers were added at the beginning and end of the signal for synchronization. (B) Enlarged view demonstrating the high similarity between the recorded and reference signals. TABLE I MEASURED OUT… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: tDCS waveform validation on osciliscope, with different current intensities: (A) 0.5mA; (B) 1mA; (C) 2mA; (D) 4mA. reflects the additional complexities introduced by the con￾ductive medium. Specifically, the gelatine phantom introduces volume-conduction effects, electr…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: All signals presented are raw recordings without post [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: tACS waveforms validation with fixed current intensity but different frequency outputs. (A) 2mA, 5Hz; (B) 2mA, 10Hz; (C) 2mA, 20Hz; (D) 2mA, 40Hz; (Upper row: time domain tACS waveforms; Lower row: the FFT features in the frequency domain for each frequency outputs.) 0…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: tTIS waveform validation at a fixed current intensity of 2 mA using different carrier-frequency pairs: (A) 2000/2005 Hz; (B) 2000/2010 Hz; (C) 2000/2020 Hz; (D) 2000/2040 Hz. Top row: channel 1 and channel 2 carrier waveforms. Middle row: resulting amplitude envelope b…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Programmable 5 s ramp-up and 5 s ramp-down profiles for different stimulation modalities. (A) tDCS: 2 mA; (B) tACS: 2 mA; (C) 2 kHz tTIS carrier; (D) 2.01 kHz tTIS carrier. Ramp duration can be adjusted according to experimental requirements. The synchronization delay …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: EEG-only recording using the gelatine head phantom. The recorded signal shows high similarity to the injected reference waveform, with a correlation coefficient of 93.5%. supporting multichannel EEG acquisition at sampling rates up to 8 kHz together with accurate progr…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Example of raw simultaneous EEG and tES recording in a gelatine head phantom under 8 KHz sampling rate, without any processing steps (EEG signals are corrupted by large tES artifacts). Column 1-2: Recorded EEG–tDCS mixture at 1 mA and its corresponding frequency spectr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Non-invasive brain stimulation: Current and future applications in neurology,

    I. Rektorov ´a et al., “Non-invasive brain stimulation: Current and future applications in neurology,”Nature Reviews Neu- rology, pp. 1–18, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Changing brain networks through non- invasive neuromodulation,

    W. T. To et al., “Changing brain networks through non- invasive neuromodulation,”Frontiers in human neuroscience, vol. 12, p. 128, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Combining transcranial electrical stimulation with electroencephalogra- phy: A multimodal approach,

    C. Miniussi, D. Brignani, and M. C. Pellicciari, “Combining transcranial electrical stimulation with electroencephalogra- phy: A multimodal approach,”Clinical EEG and Neuro- science, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 184–191, 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Combined use of electroencephalography and transcranial electrical stimulation: A systematic review,

    P. Arpaia et al., “Combined use of electroencephalography and transcranial electrical stimulation: A systematic review,” Sensors, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Closing the loop between brain and electrical stimulation: Towards precision neuromodulation treatments,

    G. Soleimani et al., “Closing the loop between brain and electrical stimulation: Towards precision neuromodulation treatments,”Translational psychiatry, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 279, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tdcs) on the cognitive functions: A systematic review and meta-analysis,

    A. Narmashiri and F. Akbari, “The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tdcs) on the cognitive functions: A systematic review and meta-analysis,”Neuropsychology review, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 126–152, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Evaluating the effects of tdcs on depressive and anxiety symptoms from a transdiagnostic perspective: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,

    E. Z. Zheng et al., “Evaluating the effects of tdcs on depressive and anxiety symptoms from a transdiagnostic perspective: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,”Translational Psychiatry, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 295, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Transcranial alternating current stimula- tion (tacs): From basic mechanisms towards first applications in psychiatry,

    O. Elyamany et al., “Transcranial alternating current stimula- tion (tacs): From basic mechanisms towards first applications in psychiatry,”European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, vol. 271, no. 1, pp. 135–156, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Noninvasive deep brain stimulation via temporally interfering electric fields,

    N. Grossman et al., “Noninvasive deep brain stimulation via temporally interfering electric fields,”cell, vol. 169, no. 6, pp. 1029–1041, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Biophysics of temporal interference stimulation,

    E. Mirzakhalili et al., “Biophysics of temporal interference stimulation,”Cell Systems, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 557–572, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Kilohertz-frequency stimulation of the nervous system: A review of underlying mechanisms,

    C. Neudorfer et al., “Kilohertz-frequency stimulation of the nervous system: A review of underlying mechanisms,”Brain stimulation, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 513–530, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Temporal interference stimulation for human brain: Opportunities and challenges,

    F. Wang et al., “Temporal interference stimulation for human brain: Opportunities and challenges,”The Innovation, vol. 6, no. 4, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Non-invasive temporal interference electrical stimulation of the human hippocampus,

    I. R. Violante et al., “Non-invasive temporal interference electrical stimulation of the human hippocampus,”Nature neuroscience, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 1994–2004, 2023

    1994

  6. [14]

    Focal non-invasive deep-brain stimulation with temporal interference for the suppression of epileptic biomarkers,

    E. Acerbo et al., “Focal non-invasive deep-brain stimulation with temporal interference for the suppression of epileptic biomarkers,”Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 16, p. 945 221, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Temporal interference stimulation targets deep brain regions by modulating neural oscillations,

    Z. Esmaeilpour et al., “Temporal interference stimulation targets deep brain regions by modulating neural oscillations,” Brain Stimulation, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 55–65, 2021. 12 GENERIC COLORIZED JOURNAL, VOL. XX, NO. XX, XXXX 2026

    2021

  8. [16]

    Precision at deep brain: Noninvasive temporal interference stimulation,

    S. Xu et al., “Precision at deep brain: Noninvasive temporal interference stimulation,”ACS nano, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Safety, tolerability and blinding efficiency of non-invasive deep transcranial temporal interference stimu- lation: First experience from more than 250 sessions,

    P. Vassiliadis et al., “Safety, tolerability and blinding efficiency of non-invasive deep transcranial temporal interference stimu- lation: First experience from more than 250 sessions,”Journal of Neural Engineering, vol. 21, no. 2, p. 024 001, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Neuroconn loop-it

    neurocare group. “Neuroconn loop-it. ”[Online]. Available: https : / / www . neurocaregroup . com / en / technology/loop-it

  11. [19]

    Starstim tes-eeg systems

    Neuroelectrics. “Starstim tes-eeg systems. ”[Online]. Avail- able:https : / / www . neuroelectrics . com / products/research/starstim

  12. [20]

    Application of the reciprocity theorem to eeg inversion and optimization of eeg-driven transcranial current stimulation (tcs, including tdcs, tacs, trns),

    G. Ruffini, “Application of the reciprocity theorem to eeg inversion and optimization of eeg-driven transcranial current stimulation (tcs, including tdcs, tacs, trns),”arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.04835, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Wand: A 128-channel, closed-loop, wire- less artifact-free neuromodulation device,

    A. Zhou et al., “Wand: A 128-channel, closed-loop, wire- less artifact-free neuromodulation device,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.00556, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Designing and pilot testing a novel tran- scranial temporal interference stimulation device for neu- romodulation,

    Z. Zhang et al., “Designing and pilot testing a novel tran- scranial temporal interference stimulation device for neu- romodulation,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 30, pp. 1483–1493, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Wearable eeg and beyond,

    A. J. Casson, “Wearable eeg and beyond,”Biomedical engi- neering letters, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 53–71, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Wireless eeg: A survey of systems and studies,

    G. Niso et al., “Wireless eeg: A survey of systems and studies,”NeuroImage, vol. 269, p. 119 774, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Low intensity transcranial electric stimula- tion: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guide- lines,

    A. Antal et al., “Low intensity transcranial electric stimula- tion: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guide- lines,”Clinical neurophysiology, vol. 128, no. 9, pp. 1774– 1809, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Vankka and K

    J. Vankka and K. A. Halonen,Direct digital synthesizers: theory, design and applications. Springer Science & Business Media, 2001, vol. 614

    2001

  19. [27]

    Casson,EEG+tACS signals for artefact removal, ver- sion V2, The University of Manchester, 2020.DOI:10

    A. Casson,EEG+tACS signals for artefact removal, ver- sion V2, The University of Manchester, 2020.DOI:10 . 17632/tczn9t59rs.2

    2020

  20. [28]

    Removal of gross artifacts of transcranial alternating current stimulation in simultaneous eeg monitoring,

    S. Kohli and A. J. Casson, “Removal of gross artifacts of transcranial alternating current stimulation in simultaneous eeg monitoring,”Sensors, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 190, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Investigating gelatine based head phantoms for electroencephalography compared to elec- trical and ex vivo porcine skin models,

    A. Y . Owda and A. J. Casson, “Investigating gelatine based head phantoms for electroencephalography compared to elec- trical and ex vivo porcine skin models,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 96 722–96 738, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Opportunities and challenges for flexible and printable electrodes in electroen- cephalography,

    L. Xing, J. C. Batchelor, and A. J. Casson, “Opportunities and challenges for flexible and printable electrodes in electroen- cephalography,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Flexible and Printable Sensors and Systems (FLEPS), IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–4

    2021

  23. [31]

    3d-printed, directly conductive and flexible electrodes for personalized electroencephalography,

    L. Xing and A. J. Casson, “3d-printed, directly conductive and flexible electrodes for personalized electroencephalography,” Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, vol. 349, p. 114 062, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Physiological pro- cesses non-linearly affect electrophysiological recordings dur- ing transcranial electric stimulation,

    N. Noury, J. F. Hipp, and M. Siegel, “Physiological pro- cesses non-linearly affect electrophysiological recordings dur- ing transcranial electric stimulation,”Neuroimage, vol. 140, pp. 99–109, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    Personalized strategies of neurostimulation: From static biomarkers to dynamic closed-loop assessment of neural function,

    M. Car `e, M. Chiappalone, and V . R. Cota, “Personalized strategies of neurostimulation: From static biomarkers to dynamic closed-loop assessment of neural function,”Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 18, p. 1 363 128, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Toward true closed- loop neuromodulation: Artifact-free recording during stimula- tion,

    A. Zhou, B. C. Johnson, and R. Muller, “Toward true closed- loop neuromodulation: Artifact-free recording during stimula- tion,”Current opinion in neurobiology, vol. 50, pp. 119–127, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.