Back

In-ear-tACS: Auditory Perception and Side Effects depend on Electrode Montage, Frequency, and DC-Offset

Reinema, L. M.; Meiser, A.; Mellerke, N.; Rodriguez De Castro, D.; Stecher, H. I.; Radeloff, A.; Herrmann, C.

2025-10-31 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.10.30.685487 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundNon-invasive transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) of the cochlea might be a promising new therapeutic option for patients with chronic tinnitus. However, electric stimulation of small, sensitive target regions, such as the inner ear, can cause adverse side effects (SEs). ObjectiveTo identify stimulation parameters with low side-effect profiles while reliably stimulating the cochlea, thereby improving patient comfort and safety and paving the way for the development of a medical device for treating patients with chronic tinnitus. ApproachHearing-healthy participants were stimulated with electrodes in the ear canal. Stimulation of the cochlea elicits a soft hearing impression (HI) in participants, indicating successful stimulation of the early auditory pathway. We systematically compare HS and SEs across distinct electrode configurations and stimulation parameters, including stimulation frequency and the presence of a Direct Current (DC)-offset. We record SE occurrence via visual analog scales after stimulation. Main ResultsWe find that tACS stimulation between 250 Hz and 2000 Hz reliably elicits HIs in participants. SEs are generally low. No occurrence of SEs resulted in participant withdrawal or severe adverse events, with only phosphenes, skin tingling, and a sense of vibration being reported as impactful. The addition of a slight DC-offset increases the occurrence and magnitude of SEs considerably. SignificanceOur results demonstrate the feasibility of tACS in non-invasively stimulating the auditory pathway with minimal adverse SE. Stimulation parameters with a low SE profile can be applied in further studies with tinnitus patients.

Published in Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface (predicted rank #4) · training set

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.