Key result
The review on capacitive biopotential measurements contains ambiguous terminology, contradictory statements, and lacks a clear definition of capacitive electrodes, making it inappropriate for newcomers.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Editorial
This commentary critiques a review on capacitive biopotential measurements for lacking clear definitions and containing ambiguous terminology.
This comment seeks to point out that the timely review of capacitive biopotential measurements by Sun and Yu needs a clearer definition of capacitive electrodes that enables a more enlightening comparison of capacitive and dry conductive electrodes, which are two alternatives to wet electrodes for long-term applications. This, added to the ambiguous terminology in the description of system architectures, the oversight of some published results, and some potentially contradictory statements, makes the review inappropriate for the uninformed newcomer in spite of the large amount of references compiled and their broad scope.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
R. Pallás-Areny (2017) reported a letter. The review on capacitive biopotential measurements contains ambiguous terminology, contradictory statements, and lacks a clear definition of capacitive electrodes, making it inappropriate for newcomers.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: