HealthyNCT07050784
Wearable Garment vs Gel Electrodes for Electrical Muscle Stimulation
A study testing Hydrogel electrodes, Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion A and Dry textile electrodes with gel pads attached to the electrode in people with Healthy, run by Myant Medical Corp. at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
The goal of this study is to evaluate whether textile-based electrodes can provide neurostimulation that is comparable in comfort and effectiveness to traditional hydrogel electrodes in healthy adults. The main questions it aims to answer are: 1. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Healthy
- What is being tested?
- Hydrogel electrodes, Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion A and Dry textile electrodes with gel pads attached to the electrode
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- 1 Jul 2025to Sep 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Healthy (without a known diagnosis of cardiovascular, pulmonary or neurological condition)
Who cannot join
- Known pregnancy
- Implanted defibrillator or pacemaker
- Pain in the body part being tested
- Open wound or dressing (e.g. band-aid) on a body part that needs to be in contact with the electrodes
- Severe frailty such that donning or doffing the garment may cause a danger of falling
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Canada1 site
Myant Medical Corp
Mississauga, Ontario, L5K 2L1
Amirali Toossi, 4164237906, amirali.toossi@myant.ca
About this study
Official title: A Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Smart Textile and Hydrogel Electrodes for Neurostimulation in Healthy Adults
The goal of this study is to evaluate whether textile-based electrodes can provide neurostimulation that is comparable in comfort and effectiveness to traditional hydrogel electrodes in healthy adults.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
Read more
- Is the perceived sensation of stimulation using textile electrodes non-inferior to that of hydrogel electrodes?
- Is the current required to evoke muscle contractions similar between textile and hydrogel electrodes?
Each participant will complete three stimulation conditions in random order across separate visits:
- hydrogel electrodes (standard),
- dry polymer-textile electrodes with lotion, and
- dry textile electrodes with hydrogel pads
Electrical stimulation will be delivered to the lower leg muscles using a wearable sleeve with integrated electrodes. The investigators will assess sensorimotor thresholds (e.g., detection, motor, and full motor threshold), skin-electrode impedance, and torque. Participants will also rate stimulation comfort, intensity, and sensation location via questionnaire.
After the three primary arms, participants may optionally complete two additional arms using different moisturizers applied to the textile electrodes to evaluate their impact on stimulation performance.
The results of this study will help determine whether textile electrodes can be used as an effective and comfortable alternative to hydrogel electrodes in wearable neurostimulation applications.
Read the detailed description
Neurostimulation involves the use of electric current delivered through skin-surface electrodes to activate muscles. It is commonly used for purposes such as muscle strengthening, motor function improvement, blood flow enhancement, and in neuroprostheses. Standard neurostimulation systems typically rely on disposable hydrogel electrodes, which can cause skin irritation and tend to dry out over time. These limitations make hydrogel electrodes less suitable for long-term or repeated use.
Textile-based electrodes are an emerging alternative. These electrodes are integrated into wearable garments, making them washable, reusable, and more comfortable for extended wear times. However, research directly comparing their effectiveness and user experience compared to hydrogel electrodes is limited.
The goal of this study is to compare textile electrodes to gold-standard hydrogel electrodes for muscle activation and perceived stimulation sensation. The investigators hypothesize that: 1) there will be no clinically meaningful difference in participants' perception of the stimulation between textile and hydrogel electrodes, and 2) there will be no significant difference in the stimulation current required to elicit functional contractions.
This is a crossover randomized controlled trial involving three primary arms: 1) hydrogel electrodes, 2) dry polymer-textile electrodes with lotion, and 3) dry textile electrodes with gel pads applied. Each participant will perform all three arms in a randomized order with at least 24 hours between visits. Stimulation will be delivered to the calf and tibialis anterior muscles using the same electrical stimulator and settings in all conditions. Following completion of the three primary arms, participants will be given the option to complete an additional two arms using different types of commercially available moisturizers on the dry textile electrodes to assess comparative on-body performance of different water-based moisturizers. All moisturizers are commercially available and are labelled Skin Lotion A, B, and C in the 'Arms and Interventions' section.
A sample size of 18 participants is required to detect a Cohen's f of 0.40 with 95% power and a significance level of ⍺ = 0.05 for a within-subjects one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with three conditions. To preserve statistical power, the investigators will recruit 20 participants. Pilot data comparing textile to hydrogel electrodes provided an estimated effect size of f = 0.65. Given the pilot data was not randomized, which likely inflated the observed effect size, the investigators conservatively based their sample size calculation on a Cohen's f of 0.40 (i.e., a large effect size) to ensure adequate power to detect a potentially smaller true effect.
A non-inferiority analysis will compare perceived stimulation intensity on a 10-point numerical rating scale. A 2-point difference is set as the non-inferiority margin based on prior research on the minimal clinically important difference. Textile electrodes will be considered non-inferior if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in intensity remains below this threshold. Repeated measures ANOVAs and Tukey's post hoc tests will be used to analyze the outcome variables where appropriate.
- Conditions
- Healthy
- Being tested
- Hydrogel electrodes, Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion A, Dry textile electrodes with gel pads attached to the electrode, Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion B, Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion C
- Keywords
- Textile electrodes, Smart clothing, Neuromuscular electrical stimulation, Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, Functional electrical stimulation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Hydrogel electrodesDevice
Neurostimulation using standard self-adhesive hydrogel electrodes
Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion ADevice
Neurostimulation with dry polymer-textile electrodes using Skin Lotion A
Dry textile electrodes with gel pads attached to the electrodeDevice
Neurostimulation with dry textile electrodes with gel pads attached to the electrode
Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion BDevice
Neurostimulation with dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion B
Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion CDevice
Neurostimulation with dry polymer-textile electrodes using Skin Lotion C
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Hydrogel electrodes | Active comparator | Gold-standard comparator Receives: Device: Hydrogel electrodes |
| Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion A | Experimental | Not described Receives: Device: Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion A |
| Dry textile electrodes with gel pads attached to the electrode | Experimental | Not described Receives: Device: Dry textile electrodes with gel pads attached to the electrode |
| Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion B | Experimental | Not described Receives: Device: Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion B |
| Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion C | Experimental | Not described Receives: Device: Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion C |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Perceived intensity of stimulation
Participants will rate the perceived intensity of electrical stimulation at the current required to elicit 20% of their maximal voluntary contraction (MVC). Intensity will be assessed using a 10-point numerical scale, where 0 represents no sensation and 10 represents painful stimulation.
Measured: At each of the 5 study visits (Visit 1 through Visit 5) over approximately a 3-week period.
Secondary outcomes (5)
Sensorimotor responses to electrical stimulation
Current amplitude required to elicit various sensorimotor responses will be recorded.
Participants will receive electrical stimulation to the lower leg. The study will measure:
- Detection threshold: the smallest current the participant can feel.
- Motion threshold: the lowest current that causes visible movement.
- Full range of motion amplitude: the current needed for full joint range of motion.
- Just noticeable difference: the smallest change in current a participant can detect.
Stimulation will be increased gradually and stopped if discomfort is reported. All stimulation will not exceed safe current limits (i.e., 100 mA).
Measured: At each of the 5 study visits (Visit 1 through Visit 5) over approximately a 3-week period.
Kinematic recruitment curves
Kinematic recruitment curves will be created by measuring ankle movement during stimulation. A camera will record the ankle as stimulation amplitude increases in small increments. Joint angles will be measured from the video and plotted against stimulation intensity to produce kinematic recruitment curves.
Measured: At each of the 5 study visits (Visit 1 through Visit 5) over approximately a 3-week period.
Torque
Maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) will be determined through three maximal effort contractions of the ankle. Electrical stimulation will then be applied to determine the current required to produce 20% of the MVC.
Measured: At each of the 5 study visits (Visit 1 through Visit 5) over approximately a 3-week period.
Sensation questionnaire
Participants will complete a questionnaire following stimulation to report:
- How the stimulation felt
- Where it was felt
- How comfortable it was, rated on a 7-point scale, with 0 being comfortable and 7 being uncomfortable
Measured: At each of the 5 study visits (Visit 1 through Visit 5) over approximately a 3-week period.
Skin-electrode impedance
To measure electrical impedance, a small electrical signal will be sent through the electrodes across a range of frequencies, and resistance will be recorded. This helps evaluate how well the electrodes conduct current during use.
Measured: At each of the 5 study visits (Visit 1 through Visit 5) over approximately a 3-week period.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Jul 2025
- Study start1 Jul 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completionSep 2025 (estimated)
- Study completionSep 2025 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for HealthyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Model description
- Crossover randomized controlled trial
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Myant Medical Corp.
- Sponsor type
- Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Milad Alizadeh Meghrazi, Principal investigator, Myant Medical Corp.
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07050784
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 157491
- Status last verified
- Jun 2025
- First submitted
- 9 Jun 2025
- Last updated
- 8 Jul 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Study is internal
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 8 Jul 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Smart Textile and Hydrogel Electrodes for Neurostimulation in Healthy Adults
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07050784
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 157491
- Conditions
- Healthy
- Keywords
- Textile electrodes, Smart clothing, Neuromuscular electrical stimulation, Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, Functional electrical stimulation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Myant Medical Corp.Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Study start
- 1 Jul 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Sep 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Sep 2025 (estimated)
- First posted
- 3 Jul 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The goal of this study is to evaluate whether textile-based electrodes can provide neurostimulation that is comparable in comfort and effectiveness to traditional hydrogel electrodes in healthy adults.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
- Is the perceived sensation of stimulation using textile electrodes non-inferior to that of hydrogel electrodes?
- Is the current required to evoke muscle contractions similar between textile and hydrogel electrodes?
Each participant will complete three stimulation conditions in random order across separate visits:
- hydrogel electrodes (standard),
- dry polymer-textile electrodes with lotion, and
- dry textile electrodes with hydrogel pads
Electrical stimulation will be delivered to the lower leg muscles using a wearable sleeve with integrated electrodes. The investigators will assess sensorimotor thresholds (e.g., detection, motor, and full motor threshold), skin-electrode impedance, and torque. Participants will also rate stimulation comfort, intensity, and sensation location via questionnaire.
After the three primary arms, participants may optionally complete two additional arms using different moisturizers applied to the textile electrodes to evaluate their impact on stimulation performance.
The results of this study will help determine whether textile electrodes can be used as an effective and comfortable alternative to hydrogel electrodes in wearable neurostimulation applications.
Detailed description
Neurostimulation involves the use of electric current delivered through skin-surface electrodes to activate muscles. It is commonly used for purposes such as muscle strengthening, motor function improvement, blood flow enhancement, and in neuroprostheses. Standard neurostimulation systems typically rely on disposable hydrogel electrodes, which can cause skin irritation and tend to dry out over time. These limitations make hydrogel electrodes less suitable for long-term or repeated use.
Textile-based electrodes are an emerging alternative. These electrodes are integrated into wearable garments, making them washable, reusable, and more comfortable for extended wear times. However, research directly comparing their effectiveness and user experience compared to hydrogel electrodes is limited.
The goal of this study is to compare textile electrodes to gold-standard hydrogel electrodes for muscle activation and perceived stimulation sensation. The investigators hypothesize that: 1) there will be no clinically meaningful difference in participants' perception of the stimulation between textile and hydrogel electrodes, and 2) there will be no significant difference in the stimulation current required to elicit functional contractions.
This is a crossover randomized controlled trial involving three primary arms: 1) hydrogel electrodes, 2) dry polymer-textile electrodes with lotion, and 3) dry textile electrodes with gel pads applied. Each participant will perform all three arms in a randomized order with at least 24 hours between visits. Stimulation will be delivered to the calf and tibialis anterior muscles using the same electrical stimulator and settings in all conditions. Following completion of the three primary arms, participants will be given the option to complete an additional two arms using different types of commercially available moisturizers on the dry textile electrodes to assess comparative on-body performance of different water-based moisturizers. All moisturizers are commercially available and are labelled Skin Lotion A, B, and C in the 'Arms and Interventions' section.
A sample size of 18 participants is required to detect a Cohen's f of 0.40 with 95% power and a significance level of ⍺ = 0.05 for a within-subjects one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with three conditions. To preserve statistical power, the investigators will recruit 20 participants. Pilot data comparing textile to hydrogel electrodes provided an estimated effect size of f = 0.65. Given the pilot data was not randomized, which likely inflated the observed effect size, the investigators conservatively based their sample size calculation on a Cohen's f of 0.40 (i.e., a large effect size) to ensure adequate power to detect a potentially smaller true effect.
A non-inferiority analysis will compare perceived stimulation intensity on a 10-point numerical rating scale. A 2-point difference is set as the non-inferiority margin based on prior research on the minimal clinically important difference. Textile electrodes will be considered non-inferior if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in intensity remains below this threshold. Repeated measures ANOVAs and Tukey's post hoc tests will be used to analyze the outcome variables where appropriate.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 5
- Model description
- Crossover randomized controlled trial
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Hydrogel electrodes | Active comparator | Device: Hydrogel electrodesGold-standard comparator |
| Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion A | Experimental | Device: Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion A |
| Dry textile electrodes with gel pads attached to the electrode | Experimental | Device: Dry textile electrodes with gel pads attached to the electrode |
| Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion B | Experimental | Device: Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion B |
| Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion C | Experimental | Device: Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion C |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Healthy (without a known diagnosis of cardiovascular, pulmonary or neurological condition)
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Known pregnancy
- Implanted defibrillator or pacemaker
- Pain in the body part being tested
- Open wound or dressing (e.g. band-aid) on a body part that needs to be in contact with the electrodes
- Severe frailty such that donning or doffing the garment may cause a danger of falling
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Hydrogel electrodesNeurostimulation using standard self-adhesive hydrogel electrodes | Device | Hydrogel electrodes |
| Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion ANeurostimulation with dry polymer-textile electrodes using Skin Lotion A | Device | Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion A |
| Dry textile electrodes with gel pads attached to the electrodeNeurostimulation with dry textile electrodes with gel pads attached to the electrode | Device | Dry textile electrodes with gel pads attached to the electrode |
| Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion BNeurostimulation with dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion B | Device | Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion B |
| Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion CNeurostimulation with dry polymer-textile electrodes using Skin Lotion C | Device | Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion C |
Primary outcome
Perceived intensity of stimulation
Time frame: At each of the 5 study visits (Visit 1 through Visit 5) over approximately a 3-week period.
Participants will rate the perceived intensity of electrical stimulation at the current required to elicit 20% of their maximal voluntary contraction (MVC). Intensity will be assessed using a 10-point numerical scale, where 0 represents no sensation and 10 represents painful stimulation.
5 secondary outcomes
Sensorimotor responses to electrical stimulation
Time frame: At each of the 5 study visits (Visit 1 through Visit 5) over approximately a 3-week period.
Kinematic recruitment curves
Time frame: At each of the 5 study visits (Visit 1 through Visit 5) over approximately a 3-week period.
Torque
Time frame: At each of the 5 study visits (Visit 1 through Visit 5) over approximately a 3-week period.
Sensation questionnaire
Time frame: At each of the 5 study visits (Visit 1 through Visit 5) over approximately a 3-week period.
Skin-electrode impedance
Time frame: At each of the 5 study visits (Visit 1 through Visit 5) over approximately a 3-week period.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 8 Jul 2025.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Study is internal
Related trials for Healthy
Recruiting
THE EFFECTS OF GAME-BASED EXERCISE PROGRAMS
Physical Activity, Body Image
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
A Phase I Study of GLR2053 Tablets in Chinese Healthy Adult Participants
Atopic Dermatitis
Recruiting
Colon-delivered Riboflavin and Gut Microbiota Composition
Microbiome Dysbiosis, Gut Health
Not yet recruiting
Neuroergonomic Analysis of a Brain-Computer Interface Device (BCI)
Healthy Volunteers - Male and Female
RecruitingPhase 1
First-in-Human Trial to Assess REGN20423 in Healthy Adult Participants and Adult Participants With Atopic Dermatitis
Healthy Volunteer, Atopic Dermatitis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Milad Alizadeh Meghrazi principal investigator
Myant Medical Corp.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Hydrogel electrodes, Dry polymer-textile electrodes with Skin Lotion A and Dry textile electrodes with gel pads attached to the electrode in people with Healthy, run by Myant Medical Corp. at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 8 Jul 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Amirali Toossi (4164237906, amirali.toossi@myant.ca), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Perceived intensity of stimulation (time frame: At each of the 5 study visits (Visit 1 through Visit 5) over approximately a 3-week period.). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 8 Jul 2025.