Evaluation and comparison of 50 Hz current threshold of electrocutaneous sensations using different methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leakage currents, tiny currents flowing from an everyday-life appliance through the body to the ground, can cause a non-adequate perception (called electrocutaneous sensation, ECS) or even pain and should be avoided. Safety standards for low-frequency range are based on experimental results of current thresholds of electrocutaneous sensations, which however show a wide range between about 50 microA (rms) and 1000 microA (rms). In order to be able to explain these differences, the perception threshold was measured repeatedly in experiments with test persons under identical experimental setup, but by means of different methods (measuring strategies), namely: direct adjustment, classical threshold as amperage of 50% perception probability, and confidence rating procedure of signal detection theory. The current is injected using a 1 cm2 electrode at the highly touch sensitive part of the index fingertip. These investigations show for the first time that the threshold of electrocutaneous sensations is influenced both by adaptation to the non-adequate stimulus and individual, emotional factors. Therefore, classical methods, on which the majority of the safety investigations are based, cannot be used to determine a leakage current threshold.The confidence rating procedure of the modern signal detection theory yields a value of 179.5 microA (rms) at 50 Hz power supply net frequency as the lower end of the 95% confidence range considering the variance in the investigated group. This value is expected to be free of adaptation influences, and is distinctly lower than the European limits and supports the stricter regulations of Canada and USA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".